Nationwide ever becoming a bank?

PeacefulWaters

sauvignon wrote: »

My source was the Which? Recommended/Customer Preferred Providers tables for Current Accounts where First Direct has an 82% customer score whereas Nationwide, the second best, has 69%. FD also leads the tables or is second best when some specific current account features are considered, while N is either not represented among the first four at all or is third. For many years all these tables were dominated by N. Something must have changed.

Which doesn't reflect what's happening in the marketplace.

sauvignon

PeacefulWaters wrote: »

Which doesn't reflect what's happening in the marketplace.

Don't know about that, but Dreaming seems to have summed it all up well.

sauvignon

alanq wrote: »

A bank is owned by its shareholders who need to be paid dividends out of any profits.

A building society is owned by its members (savers and borrowers) . As there are no shareholders to pay, any profits remain with the society. In theory this should mean higher interest rates for savers and lower interest rates for borrowers. In practice there are better rates than Nationwide's to be found with some banks.

For best Saving Accounts providers Which Money recommends Metro Bank, for Best Rate ISAs with Instant Access, one-year, 3-year and 5-year fixed-rate NW is not even in the first 5 respectively, the same applies for best rate ordinary savings accounts - NW nowhere to be seen among the first five providers.
Where it does appear, but never at the top of the table is as a credit card provider.

Since I had my credit card cancelled without notice and for no other than purely commercial reason, I personally am not interested in their ranking in credit cards any more.

bigadaj

sauvignon wrote: »

For best Saving Accounts providers Which Money recommends Metro Bank, for Best Rate ISAs with Instant Access, one-year, 3-year and 5-year fixed-rate NW is not even in the first 5 respectively, the same applies for best rate ordinary savings accounts - NW nowhere to be seen among the first five providers.
Where it does appear, but never at the top of the table is as a credit card provider.

Since I had my credit card cancelled without notice and for no other than purely commercial reason, I personally am not interested in their ranking in credit cards any more.

That's fine, everyone's right to transact with who they like.

You would have to be quite naive to hold virtually any cash USA products currently, bettered by current accounts with no access restrictions.

Their flex plus is probably the best packaged account available, flex direct is good though for only a year at a time. The regular saver is as good as any product in the market, and the select credit card is a good visa option.

Notwithstanding the above I would never trust any institution without research, thought and reason, I hold multiple current accounts elsewhere.

One area they are very poor on is investments, believe they are still charging such things as 5% initial fees which were antiquated twenty years ago and would make a big dent in any returns.

redux

EarthBoy wrote: »

Nationwide's size has helped it survive when other building societies have struggled. The Chelsea, Derbyshire and Dunfermline building societies nearly went bust and were all rescued by the Nationwide. Few, if any, of the other building societies would have been strong enough to do that.

I think you mean Cheshire not Chelsea. Chelsea was merged with Yorkshire.

pollypenny

I'm very happy with our Nationwide current account.

We get WW travel insurance amongst other things for the vast sum of £3.72 a month, now that our 3% interest is tax free.

dreaming

redux wrote: »

I think you mean Cheshire not Chelsea. Chelsea was merged with Yorkshire.

Although somewhere in their dim and distant past they did takeover/merge with Chelsea District Mutual Benefit.



It is actually quite interesting to look at the history of the building societies that are left to see how far removed they are from their (mainly) 19th century origins. I wonder how many members complained when they started to take deposits from people "not necessarily potential homeowners" in the 1840s. source - https://www.bsa.org.uk/information/consumer-factsheets/general/the-history-of-building-societies


Or maybe I just have too much time on my hands now that I am retired.

Thrugelmir

alanq wrote: »

A bank is owned by its shareholders who need to be paid dividends out of any profits.

A building society is owned by its members (savers and borrowers) . As there are no shareholders to pay, any profits remain with the society. In theory this should mean higher interest rates for savers and lower interest rates for borrowers. In practice there are better rates than Nationwide's to be found with some banks.

Building Societies needed to become like banks in order to compete. Before the days of leveraged balance sheets. Mortgage lending was domain of the BS. By the 1980's banks were eating into away at there market share. Securitisation of debt was the final blow.

Rainbowgirl84

I don't recall the Nationwide requiring a bail out by taxpayers unlike some 'Banks'.

EarthBoy

redux wrote: »

I think you mean Cheshire not Chelsea. Chelsea was merged with Yorkshire.

Yes, you're right. I meant the Cheshire, of course.