Nationwide's 'Fairer Share' £100 payment for eligible members

TiVo_Lad

Section62 said:

I'm talking about the chipping away of the sense of fairness which is fundamental to what makes for mutuality.

I am a cynic so this post is in that context..., but I think Nationwide stopped acting as a mutual organisation a long time ago. They may use mutuality as a useful marketing tool, but it's no more than that.

I've been a Nationwide member for 34 years (with the Anglia Building Society before that which subsequently merged), only ever had mortgages with Nationwide, have had an original FlexAccount since launch, had personal loans, insurance and a credit card from Nationwide, yet that level of customer loyalty doesn't count. It's not about the £100, which I'm fortunate enough to not need, it's the principal that the depth and length of my loyalty is not being recognised. I didn't carpet bag my way into the Nationwide, I supported their (successful) attempt to remain mutual. That doesn't count either. But what it does do is drain away any last vestige of loyalty to them. If I stay as a member, I'll do so only because it directly benefits me, not them or what they purport to stand for.

Hugh_Isthis

TiVo_Lad said:

Section62 said:

I'm talking about the chipping away of the sense of fairness which is fundamental to what makes for mutuality.

I am a cynic so this post is in that context..., but I think Nationwide stopped acting as a mutual organisation a long time ago. They may use mutuality as a useful marketing tool, but it's no more than that.

I've been a Nationwide member for 34 years (with the Anglia Building Society before that which subsequently merged), only ever had mortgages with Nationwide, have had an original FlexAccount since launch, had personal loans, insurance and a credit card from Nationwide, yet that level of customer loyalty doesn't count. It's not about the £100, which I'm fortunate enough to not need, it's the principal that the depth and length of my loyalty is not being recognised. I didn't carpet bag my way into the Nationwide, I supported their (successful) attempt to remain mutual. That doesn't count either. But what it does do is drain away any last vestige of loyalty to them. If I stay as a member, I'll do so only because it directly benefits me, not them or what they purport to stand for.

I completely agree. Mutuality no longer applies. Banking seems to be their main concern now, this is clearly indicated by their "Fairer Share" requirement of £500 movement through current accounts for 2 months. Sad to say, but time to consider privatisation. There could well be a large proportion of the exluded 80% who'll vote for this.

Yorkie006

Personally, I have moved the bulk of my money out of NW. I have/had 1 current acc. (used regularly as they had good cashback deal for supermarket shopping until recently) and 2 regular savers - did not quality for the £100 'fair share' though.
One of my regular saving account matured a few weeks ago and the interest rates NW offered on instant access acc. was not great. YBS have much better 'loyalty' accounts (the 4.50% instant access flexible ISA, for example).
I only have a few £ left in my current acc. now and I'll keep the 2-year regular saver (only allowed to pay £50/month) but that's it. The bulk of my money is now with YBS, Virgin money and Barclays (all in easy access accounts as I'm planning to buy a house in the near-ish future).
Don't think I'll open any more accounts with NW anytime soon, unless they offer market-leading saving account (and even then my money will only stay there until a better deal comes along). I will not be loyal to a bank that doesn't reward my loyalty, plenty of other/better options out there...

xylophone

I will not be loyal to a bank 

https://www.nationwide.co.uk/

The Nationwide Fairer Share

We're a building society, not a bank, so we can do things a little differently. Like put our members before profits.

Which being interpreted

We're a bank in all but name so we can do things a little differently like not paying a dividend to all eligible shareholders but rather distributing a small portion of the profits belonging to all members only to those whom we deem worthy of such largesse.......

2010

Which being interpreted

This is the first time we have ever done this fairer share out and it`s highly likely to be the last.
It`s mainly due to the excess profits we made this year rather than having rate topping savings accounts.

wiseonesomeofthetime

2010 said:

I know someone who has been a member for over 25 years, but has only kept £100 in NW as a throwback from the old days of carpet bagging, and the don`t qualify for the "fairer share".

I also know someone who opened a current account in March and also a triple access as a temporary measure to put their house sale money between moves.
They do qualify for the "fairer share".

Surely that is not possible.

If the account was not opened until March, how did they meet the pay-in requirements to that current account in two of three months, Jan, Feb, Mar??

Ed-1

wiseonesomeofthetime said:

2010 said:

I know someone who has been a member for over 25 years, but has only kept £100 in NW as a throwback from the old days of carpet bagging, and the don`t qualify for the "fairer share".

I also know someone who opened a current account in March and also a triple access as a temporary measure to put their house sale money between moves.
They do qualify for the "fairer share".

Surely that is not possible.

If the account was not opened until March, how did they meet the pay-in requirements to that current account in two of three months, Jan, Feb, Mar??

They could've switched in which overrides those requirements.

p00hsticks

xylophone said:

I will not be loyal to a bank 

We're a bank in all but name so we can do things a little differently like not paying a dividend to all eligible shareholders but rather distributing a small portion of the profits belonging to all members only to those whom we deem worthy of such largesse.......

If they were a bank and doing as above, how many customers would also be shareholders ?
The large majority wouldn't be, and would be complaining that the profits generated by them go to the 'fat cat' shareholders....

wmb194

p00hsticks said:

xylophone said:

I will not be loyal to a bank 

We're a bank in all but name so we can do things a little differently like not paying a dividend to all eligible shareholders but rather distributing a small portion of the profits belonging to all members only to those whom we deem worthy of such largesse.......

If they were a bank and doing as above, how many customers would also be shareholders ?
The large majority wouldn't be, and would be complaining that the profits generated by them go to the 'fat cat' shareholders....

Given that a huge number of pension funds own shares in them, most people.

Albermarle

2010 said:

Which being interpreted

This is the first time we have ever done this fairer share out and it`s highly likely to be the last.
It`s mainly due to the excess profits we made this year rather than having rate topping savings accounts.

Nationwide have never aimed to have table topping savings accounts, and probably never will as they have the cost of a branch network to support.
They have been more competitive recently than a couple of years ago, although it is a bit patchy and some of the better rates are for existing customers only.