Nationwide AGM

aroominyork

thor said:

eskbanker said:

bigadaj said:
CEO pay has seemingly halved but still a huge amount for what isn't a complicated job of running a building society.

What makes you think you know what's involved in running large multi-£billion companies in increasingly regulated industries?  As often pointed out by why-oh-whiners, Nationwide are now closer to being a bank than a building society, so belittling the role by implying that it's in some way comparable with running traditional smaller and simpler building societies isn't particularly tenable....

and what makes you think it's not such an easy job? Have you fallen for the normal excuse put forward by fat cat apologists that CEOs need ti be highly paid because they are responsible for so many people?

Sorry, of course you're right. What could be complex about running a business with 17,000 staff and 15 million customers. In fact what could be complicated about running a government during a pandemic - just tell people to stay at home, hand out a few masks and offer people money. What high skilled job do you have, thor?

pafpcg

Surely, the problem facing the Nationwide is that it just doesn't want us to lend it money! 

If it can't make a profit on what we lend it by charging someone more than it has to pay us in interest, what's the point?  In a world where the goverment is shovelling out billions in low-cost loans and the demand for domestic mortgages has diminished, what's the future for building societies?  And the prospect for the CEO of the Nationwide must be especially daunting - dreading yet another call from the Treasury:  "XXX Building Society is about to fail - we need the Nationwide to take it over".

Contador38

Article in the Times today (page 55)  
Young Savers hit hardest by Nationwide's brutal cuts.
It says " a saver with £ 50k in cash would lose £ 550 a year by putting their money in NW easy access account
compared with the N S & I income bonds which pay 1.15% variable rate."
And last line of the long article takes the biscuit. 
It says " Nationwide says it would still try to pay savers as much above the market average as possible."

happybagger

MACKEM99 said:

eskbanker said:

bigadaj said:
CEO pay has seemingly halved but still a huge amount for what isn't a complicated job of running a building society.

What makes you think you know what's involved in running large multi-£billion companies in increasingly regulated industries?  As often pointed out by why-oh-whiners, Nationwide are now closer to being a bank than a building society, so belittling the role by implying that it's in some way comparable with running traditional smaller and simpler building societies isn't particularly tenable....

Do you think there is any chance they will convert to bank?

They don't need to. They practically are one.
And with a windfall clause it ain't going to happen, unless the directors tell you to vote that way, and at that point the voting sheep members would give a +90% mandate   

castle96

my deposit predates their windfall clause

eskbanker

thor said:

eskbanker said:

bigadaj said:
CEO pay has seemingly halved but still a huge amount for what isn't a complicated job of running a building society.

What makes you think you know what's involved in running large multi-£billion companies in increasingly regulated industries?  As often pointed out by why-oh-whiners, Nationwide are now closer to being a bank than a building society, so belittling the role by implying that it's in some way comparable with running traditional smaller and simpler building societies isn't particularly tenable....

and what makes you think it's not such an easy job? Have you fallen for the normal excuse put forward by fat cat apologists that CEOs need ti be highly paid because they are responsible for so many people?

Your reference to 'fat cats' betrays your tabloidy agenda but I didn't say, or imply, that CEO pay should be directly proportional to employee numbers so I don't know where that came from.  There is obviously a simplistic school of thought that chief execs should only be paid a certain multiple of lowest or average employee pay, or that it should be expressed relative to MP salaries, but of course both the employer and the employee (at that level) are operating in a competitive market, so salaries gravitate to what that market dictates - I'm not even necessarily saying that Nationwide's CEO isn't overpaid (by certain arbitrary and selective measures), but was simply challenging the absurd notion that it "isn't a complicated job"....

Anyone unhappy with the pay of the Nationwide CEO can obviously go through the futile charade of voting against it at the AGM if it makes them feel better, or vote with their feet by moving their money (or mortgage) elsewhere.  Obviously the major banks wouldn't be a suitable home for these, but for anyone ideologically opposed to what they perceive to be high CEO salaries there's nothing to stop them from sticking to more localised small building societies or credit unions.

bigadaj

eskbanker said:

bigadaj said:
CEO pay has seemingly halved but still a huge amount for what isn't a complicated job of running a building society.

What makes you think you know what's involved in running large multi-£billion companies in increasingly regulated industries?  As often pointed out by why-oh-whiners, Nationwide are now closer to being a bank than a building society, so belittling the role by implying that it's in some way comparable with running traditional smaller and simpler building societies isn't particularly tenable....

Well that is my opinion, I have had experience of dealing with ftse 250 boards over the last few years and I haven't seen anything special in most cases. You may be happy with the job being done and think there is value in that remuneration, I don't. Large institutions are run by large management teams, if a CEO moves on for whatever reason it's not difficult to replace them. The current financial landscape will make things more difficult, profits at Nationwide halved last year and it will be interesting to see what they will do and how they will maintain any form of profit going forward particularly as defaults on loans and credit cards are likely to rise this year. 

eskbanker

bigadaj said:

eskbanker said:

bigadaj said:
CEO pay has seemingly halved but still a huge amount for what isn't a complicated job of running a building society.

What makes you think you know what's involved in running large multi-£billion companies in increasingly regulated industries?  As often pointed out by why-oh-whiners, Nationwide are now closer to being a bank than a building society, so belittling the role by implying that it's in some way comparable with running traditional smaller and simpler building societies isn't particularly tenable....

Well that is my opinion, I have had experience of dealing with ftse 250 boards over the last few years and I haven't seen anything special in most cases. You may be happy with the job being done and think there is value in that remuneration, I don't. Large institutions are run by large management teams, if a CEO moves on for whatever reason it's not difficult to replace them.

As above, I wasn't necessarily asserting value for money, or commenting on whether they're doing a good job or not, or how easily they can be replaced (which are all fair game for subjective opinions) - I was simply picking up on the notion that the job isn't complicated in any sort of objective sense.  Obviously there's a board and a senior management team but the buck has to stop somewhere and there's a price to pay for that....

bigadaj

aroominyork said:

thor said:

eskbanker said:

bigadaj said:
CEO pay has seemingly halved but still a huge amount for what isn't a complicated job of running a building society.

What makes you think you know what's involved in running large multi-£billion companies in increasingly regulated industries?  As often pointed out by why-oh-whiners, Nationwide are now closer to being a bank than a building society, so belittling the role by implying that it's in some way comparable with running traditional smaller and simpler building societies isn't particularly tenable....

and what makes you think it's not such an easy job? Have you fallen for the normal excuse put forward by fat cat apologists that CEOs need ti be highly paid because they are responsible for so many people?

Sorry, of course you're right. What could be complex about running a business with 17,000 staff and 15 million customers. In fact what could be complicated about running a government during a pandemic - just tell people to stay at home, hand out a few masks and offer people money. What high skilled job do you have, thor?

Cabinet ministers get around £150k a year though....

dcs34

bigadaj said:

Cabinet ministers get around £150k a year though....

The good ones could be earning far more in the private sector, though. Plenty of head teachers have six-figure salaries. Bit of a difference being responsible for the running of one school compared to being responsible for the running of all schools.