Interest Rates For Savers

B0bbyEwing

You don't have to leave to be better off.

A bit silly but I also don't want to leave Nationwide because they're where I've been the longest - they're my first proper bank (anyone starting up saying they're a building society can do one) - since 2001.

But I don't have much with them. The majority of my money is certainly elsewhere. I just have a current account with Nationwide as I can't bring myself to close it.

Maybe one day it'll cost me a switch incentive. I can live with that

Still, I get better rates even while being a Nationwide customer & you can too.

xylophone

(anyone starting up saying they're a building society can do one) 

Including Nationwide? 

https://www.nationwide.co.uk/about-us/

Nationwide isn't a bank

We’re a building society, or mutual, owned by our members. That’s anyone who banks, saves or has a mortgage with us. We’re run for their benefit and to help the communities around us. We’re not run for shareholders in the same way that banks are.

It's their proudest boast don't cher know......

wmb194

The key thing about being a building society isn't it weird ownership structure but that you have to operate by the Building Societies Act. This restricts how they operate and how they fund themselves ie. a large proportion has to be retail deposits and the bulk of its lending has to be residential mortgages.

However, I agree with Bobby: don't fall for their warm and fluffy act. These are profit seeking businesses. Try defaulting on your mortgage and see how nice they are.

callum9999

wmb194 said:

However, I agree with Bobby: don't fall for their warm and fluffy act. These are profit seeking businesses. Try defaulting on your mortgage and see how nice they are.

Was that their argument? I thought it was "I'm deliberately referring to them as a bank despite fully understanding they are not - if you want to correct my error then do one". Bizarrely aggressive!

I'm not sure anyone here views them as "warm and fluffy", but as pointed out, they're not a bank and do not generate excessive profits to then pay out to shareholders. I don't care enough to not use the banks where it benefits me, but I think it's a perfectly valid (and somewhat admirable) thing to respect.

xylophone

they're not a bank and do not generate excessive profits to then pay out to shareholders.

Paid to the CEO instead?

https://www.cityam.com/bonanza-pay-deal-of-up-to-3-4m-for-new-nationwide-chief-executive/

callum9999

xylophone said:

they're not a bank and do not generate excessive profits to then pay out to shareholders.

Paid to the CEO instead?

https://www.cityam.com/bonanza-pay-deal-of-up-to-3-4m-for-new-nationwide-chief-executive/

No...

1. The banks also pay similar/higher rates to their CEOs so it's not "instead" - it would happen regardless.

2. They made £1.6bn profit last year, up to £3.4m does not equate to paying out their profits to the CEO. That's roughly 0.2% of their profit if my maths is correct, a rather absurd suggestion to make don't you think?

xylophone

a rather absurd suggestion to make don't you think?

Sense of humour failure?

Qyburn

Nationwide is now 2% for fully unlimited access, or 2.1% limited to three withdrawals in a year.

Bridlington1

Qyburn said:

Nationwide is now 2% for fully unlimited access, or 2.1% limited to three withdrawals in a year.

But Barclays is now 5% for fully unlimited access.

VXman

Bridlington1 said:

Qyburn said:

Nationwide is now 2% for fully unlimited access, or 2.1% limited to three withdrawals in a year.

But Barclays is now 5% for fully unlimited access.

With strings attached.