Building Society Windfall Signaway

bristolleedsfan

Welliesorter wrote: »

Nationwide has done a number of things to differentiate itself from the banks. It led the way in maintaining free cash machines, which prevented the big banks all clubbing together to charge each other's customers. Also, I wonder how long free overseas transactions would last if Nationwide were to become a bank.

nationwide "differentiated itself from the banks" by not imposing high charges to those who go overdrawn for a short time :rolleyes: and didnt threaten to close accounts whose account holders complained about the high charges imposed by Nationwide BS. ( did it ,,,,,,,,) :rolleyes:

http://www.nationwide.co.uk/current_account/charges.htm

its because nationwide allows people to withdraw money from cashpoints FOC. ( a service that costs money to operate) and free overseas transactions that u speak off which is another service it costs money to operate)

That its flexi account interest rate hasnt increased despite at "least" FOUR interest rate rises of 0.25% gross

Its e-saver rate is just 0.05% above ING internet account (many people on here describe ING rate of 5.75% as very poor) nationwide e-saver rate being at best a mediocre 5.80%

Its ISA variable rates can at best be described as "mediocre"

Its regular savings account rate is very poor for smaller savers.

The saying "rob paul to pay peter" ( or is it other way around :rotfl: ) springs to mind i dont like using the word "stealing" :rolleyes:

Milarky

bristolleedsfan wrote: »

The saying "rob paul to pay peter" ( or is it other way around :rotfl: ) springs to mind i dont like using the word "stealing" :rolleyes:

You forgot to mention the queues in branches, which makes it an absolute pleasure to use their online banking....

Let's face it, they're big, very, very big. Nationwide has 60% of total building society deposits. It could swallow what was the third or fourth largest society, the Portman, without the need for payouts to its own members - because it was more than five times the size of Portman. In other words, Nationwide can have any society it chooses now and get that 'on the cheap' (plus the longer queues and account chaos...)

The only way for a Nationwide Member who is stout about mutuality therefore isn't to belong to Nationwide - it's to hold an account with any smaller society and when Nationwide proposes a merger then will then have a say about it (but no say if they are sat the Nationwide end)

MarkyMarkD

Good post, BLF.

For every way in which Nationwide is supposedly wonderful, there are other aspects of its deals which are not.

It all adds up to them being no more good value or trustworthy than any other mutual, or non-mutual, institution.

If you want to pick and choose products, then there should definitely be a few Nationwide ones in your basket. But to give Nationwide all your money (and borrow all your money from them) on the basis that they are "different" is misguided at best.

bristolleedsfan

Nick_C wrote: »

II want these societies to stay as mutuals, working for their account holders (members

So thank god for windfall signaways; they have preserved a small but important core of mutuals, who influence the markets and stop the plcs doing what the hell they like, and they stop selfish carpetbaggers - who care only about short term gain - from trying to steal assets built over by members over decades or centuries!

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article2726772.ece

Cazzkins

bristolleedsfan wrote: »

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article2726772.ece

Yeah, anyone who was ever in any doubt about who REALLY benefitted from the merger only has to see how much the two CEO's received from the deal: Phillip Williamson (Nationwide £3.2m) and now Robert Sharpe (Portman £1.7m). Originally both had already decided to retire early when discussions about the merger began but of course they wanted to benefit from the merger so Philip was 'paid' for retiring early and Robert received redundancy since there would be no position for him in the merged group! It's amazing how when it's personal, even mutual directors can be greedy beyond belief! :mad:

baby_boomer

Cazzkins wrote: »

It's amazing how when it's personal, even mutual directors can be greedy beyond belief! :mad:

I wouldn't exactly call it "amazing". It's the one constant on which harderned (sic) observers of the sector can always rely :rotfl:.

If you mean "hypocritical" :mad: and "brazen" then I entirely concur.

Victors_Bruvver

Cazzkins wrote: »

Yeah, anyone who was ever in any doubt about who REALLY benefitted from the merger only has to see how much the two CEO's received from the deal: Phillip Williamson (Nationwide £3.2m) and now Robert Sharpe (Portman £1.7m). Originally both had already decided to retire early when discussions about the merger began but of course they wanted to benefit from the merger so Philip was 'paid' for retiring early and Robert received redundancy since there would be no position for him in the merged group! It's amazing how when it's personal, even mutual directors can be greedy beyond belief! :mad:

Thank you Cazzkins for posting this, I was beginning to think that everyone had forgotton how the directors of these mutual companies would benefit from takeovers and mergers. After all, these people are the fat cats and do like to have a regular bowl of cream!

Fine that they did put these caveats in place when it looked like the carpet-baggers were going to just vote for demutalisation, take the money and then do a 'runner'. But I reckon that all this has changed since then and the couple of thousand (if we are lucky to get) pounds bonus is not large enough to attract them back.

bristolleedsfan

Cazzkins wrote: »

even mutual directors can be greedy beyond belief! :mad:

and in third place :rolleyes: c what coventrys ex chief executive walked away with.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/columnists/article.html?in_article_id=425721&in_page_id=19&in_author_id=3

"Martin Ritchley walked off into the West Midlands sunset with a pension fund worth £3.3m (ex-mutual fat cat number three after Sharpe and Williamson). "

"Let's hope Stewart - bracing himself for some stick next year when details of his generous pay rise for 2007 come into the open (another mutual fat cat in the making) - can run a building society rather better than he can handle the Press."

might explain why coventrys savings rates are so dire.

its launched numerous call save/net save issues, top rate of which is 5.40% ( netsave 3) which is one of the worst paying online accounts on the market. http://www.coventrybuildingsociety.c...ProdCode=NETI3

its flagship coventry first account includes a 0.85% bonus for first year after first year at current rates, rate drops to 5.5% Gross.

its callsave account is 5% on balances of 2000+

its isa rate for less than 5 year members is 5.3% again very poor for over

five year members its isa rate is 5.45% which again is very poor.


just noticed caz went into print on the thisismoney link. :T

Honeybuzzard

Interestingly, if you had been a post-1997 member of Nationwide your Portman rights would not override any charitable assignment already in place with Nationwide; hence if you had full membership rights with Portman it would have served you well to close any existing Nationwide accounts prior to the merger with Portman to ensure that you benefitted fully should Nationwide demutualise in the future!
(A point not highlighted in all the merger documentation of course!)

Could a critical mass of disenfranchised ex-portman & post-97 nationwide members pose a challenge to the rigid enforcement of the post-97 perpetual charitable assignment?

bristolleedsfan

Honeybuzzard wrote: »

Could a critical mass of disenfranchised ex-portman & post-97 nationwide members pose a challenge to the rigid enforcement of the post-97 perpetual charitable assignment?

nothings occured yet to suggest or evidence that nationwide charitable assignment will be rigidly enforced or for that matter enforced at all.

theres wide belief that nationwide introduced the charitable assignment merely to protect itself against either/both "another" members challenge to shred its mutual status and/or a plc/bank making a hostile bid for nationwide.