Nationwide reducing many Savings rates on 1st September

Kim_13

roddydogs wrote: »

Deja Vue, didnt we have all this a few months ago when NW reduced rates?

A few went up in June, but the majority down.

bowlhead99

roddydogs wrote: »

Deja Vue, didnt we have all this a few months ago when NW reduced rates?

Yes, every time they touch the rates there are always people saying they didn't get enough notice and others ranting about how disgusting it is that the "loyalty saver" only pays whatever multiple of the base rate when it should pay more, and that the higher tiers of loyalty only pay x more than the lower tiers and y more than the non-loyalty account when they should pay more, and so on.

It's fashionable to criticise savings institutions for not rewarding long term loyal customers; this site actively promotes disloyalty by the customers and says you should always just switch to whoever has the best deal at that moment, because the banks will never reward your loyalty.

In Nationwide's case, they do have a genuine loyalty product, offering no-strings instant access with tiered rates for time you've had the account (0.65-0.95%) but you can guarantee every time they touch the rate there will be someone on a thread here going "pah, loyalty, they don't even pay the very highest amount of any financial institution in the whole country, this isn't loyalty, they should just put up all the mortgage and loan and credit card rates and pay me a nice high rate on my savings."

2010

Nationwide, on your side, with no shareholders to pay and profits of
£1.3 billion.

Where is all that profit going to?

They should be increasing rates, not cutting them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36366471

eskbanker

2010 wrote: »

Nationwide, on your side, with no shareholders to pay and profits of
£1.3 billion.

Where is all that profit going to?

Not sure if that's a serious question or if you're one of the "company makes profit = customers being ripped off" brigade, but if you read the financial results linked from that BBC piece you'll see that £0.3bn went to the Treasury in tax for a start....

2010

eskbanker wrote: »

Not sure if that's a serious question or if you're one of the "company makes profit = customers being ripped off" brigade, but if you read the financial results linked from that BBC piece you'll see that £0.3bn went to the Treasury in tax for a start....

and the other odd billion?

eskbanker

I'm not planning to cut and paste the whole thing so read it for yourself, but worth noting for perspective and context that their asset base is £209 billion and also

As a mutual we aim to optimise, rather than maximise, profit, retaining sufficient earnings to support future growth, sustain strong capital ratios and to allow us to invest in the business to provide the services that our members demand. This will help us to deliver a long term, sustainable business that operates in the interests of our members.

StevieJ

Terry98 wrote: »

It is called the Regular esaver and paid 5% http://www.moneywise.co.uk/news/2016-03-22/santander-launches-5-regular-savings-account-it-any-good
Issue 2 paying 3% was launched at the start of August.

I signed up on the 27th July, does that mean that I will still get the 5% for 12 months? It does now say 3% variable.

bowlhead99

2010 wrote: »

and the other odd billion?

An odd billion on 200 billion of assets is 0.5%. If you were running a business and the profits were only 0.5% of the assets it held, you would probably think there wasn't a huge amount of scope to give your customers more money and better deals.

If you put your own money and borrowings into running a business yourself, I expect you would be very disappointed if you only made 0.5% from it. For example, you are sitting there demanding a percent or more on your cash for doing diddly squat and taking zero risk; yet you trash-talk any financial firm who dares to make a profit for its members or owners.

1.3 billion from 14+ million members is about £100 each, before taxes. They will have made a lot less than that from some members but a lot more from others - I know I paid them over £10k in interest last year, though I was happy with my mortgage deal when I signed up to it.

All the £100s (less the taxes) go into a pot to provide capital to meet regulatory requirements and to ensure they can provide services for members into the future despite the stresses of different financial conditions they and their customers may face; such profits are not guaranteed from year to year. As they said in their last management statement:

Our capital position and the quality of our balance sheet means Nationwide is well placed to continue to help our members and customers whatever the prevailing economic conditions. The sustained low interest rate environment and competition in core markets will maintain pressure on margins and we anticipate profits are likely to moderate in the period ahead. Nevertheless our mutual model combined with our financial strength means we are able to focus on taking a long-term view for the benefit of members, rather than actions to drive short-term profitability. We will continue to focus on supporting members and investing in new propositions and service enhancements, whilst maintaining our capital strength.

2010

Amazing how some people on these boards jump up and defend the very people who got us into this mess in the first place, when in 2008 they wrecked the economy, for which we are still paying.
All of us except, yet again, the "talented" people who caused it all.

eskbanker

It might suit the tabloid agenda to demonise some specific high-profile individuals as pantomime villains and to try to reduce complex issues to soundbites but to characterise an entire industry according to this doesn't really help any reasoned analysis of the situation - remind me of the role played by Nationwide Building Society in "wrecking the economy"?