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

SonOfPearl

boingy said:

SonOfPearl said:

The vitriol directed at Nationwide here is shocking. If you are an existing member and are unhappy with Nationwide then leave (and tell them why, if you want to). Expressing your personal contempt for them on a forum isn't going to make a difference. If you are not an existing member then you aren't affected. 

I'm not seeing much of what I would describe as vitriol. I'm seeing unhappy members of a mutual society expressing that unhappiness.

But thanks for your valuable contribution to the discussion. 

Sarcasm noted. You can call it whatever you like, but "expressing that unhappiness" on here doesn't make any difference to Nationwide. I think my quoted comment sums up the situation succinctly. As far as this thread is concerned, I don't think it's had any value for many pages so I'll ignore it from now on. I've said what I wanted to say, so I'll let that be my last "contribution".

Section62

Albermarle said:

On what basis do you state they they have never aimed to be table topping - have they said this previously?

Some years ago they explicitly stated that their aim was to have consistency in their interest rate setting, rather than chasing top of the table status. I think at the time providers were appearing at the top of the table and then quickly disappearing again, which seems to be less the case nowadays.

NatWest are paying 5.12% AER on their two year bond and they have a branch network too.

Very true but not representative of other high st banks offers.

At the end of the day in all these relationships, the provider sets the price/rate and the customer decides whether to take it up or not. So just go to NatWest and job done.

Nationwide isn't a High Street Bank though.  They say the one of the benefits of mutuality is better "member value" which is supposed to translate into products which are more attractive than non-mutual offerings.

However, when it comes to proving their point, Nationwide opt to compare themselves with non-mutual High Street banks.

I'd compare to other large mutuals - and take into account Nationwide's size should deliver some level of economy of scale.

I don't see it though.

Section62

Albermarle said:

SonOfPearl said:

The vitriol directed at Nationwide here is shocking. If you are an existing member and are unhappy with Nationwide then leave (and tell them why, if you want to). Expressing your personal contempt for them on a forum isn't going to make a difference. If you are not an existing member then you aren't affected. 

Even before this 'Fair Share' issue, they have always been a target of criticism on this forum. Not sure why as if I am unhappy with a bank/BS then I just leave/move, rather than getting upset about it

The difference is I own a little bit of Nationwide - I'm 'invested'.  Doing the "just leave/move" would result in the loss of an asset.

Which doesn't apply with non-mutual banks. So if one of them was acting as unfairly as Nationwide have with this "fairer share" then I would consider ending my relationship with them.

If there has been "vitriol" in this thread then it is because Nationwide set themselves up as better than the rest and are failing quite badly (IMV).  As a member I will exercise my right to comment on the strategy and direction Nationwide are taking because I believe that the curret direction of travel is harmful to the mutual status and long-term health of the organisation.

Personally I think change happens as a result of people talking about the need for change. Nationwide is a democratic organisation.  If they aren't listening to the feedback given by members then things might be worse than I fear.

The idea running through some contributions in this thread that members should effectively shut up and take whatever Nationwide offers with good grace seems to completely miss the point of what mutuality is about.

We all have a vote.

TheBanker

I've made it clear why I am unhappy with Nationwide by sending them a letter.

I've also expressed my views here. But shy shouldn't I? I thought this was a discussion forum to, you know, discuss things. It would not be a very interesting forum if we didn't discuss things...

Of course those who have no interest in reading our views about Natuonwide' conduct are under no obligation to read this thread!

fourmarks

SonOfPearl said:

Sarcasm noted. You can call it whatever you like, but "expressing that unhappiness" on here doesn't make any difference to Nationwide. I think my quoted comment sums up the situation succinctly. As far as this thread is concerned, I don't think it's had any value for many pages so I'll ignore it from now on. I've said what I wanted to say, so I'll let that be my last "contribution".

Go on, have another one.

You know you want to.

Albermarle

TheBanker said:

I've made it clear why I am unhappy with Nationwide by sending them a letter.

I've also expressed my views here. But shy shouldn't I? I thought this was a discussion forum to, you know, discuss things. It would not be a very interesting forum if we didn't discuss things...

Of course those who have no interest in reading our views about Natuonwide' conduct are under no obligation to read this thread!

Of course we all like a good discussion, but maybe this one has gone on a bit too long...
No more contributions from me either 

km1500

ok let's take it to the papers rather than discuss it here

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jun/10/nationwides-100-payouts-labelled-unfair-by-some-customers

2010

km1500 said:

ok let's take it to the papers rather than discuss it here

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jun/10/nationwides-100-payouts-labelled-unfair-by-some-customers

“While we understand that some members who didn’t meet the criteria this time may be disappointed, we hope to be able to make the payment annually, and that even more members become eligible in future.”

They "hope to"!
This should be an annual event, some of the profits should be shared with members as there are no shareholders to pay dividends to.

TheBanker

2010 said:

km1500 said:

ok let's take it to the papers rather than discuss it here

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jun/10/nationwides-100-payouts-labelled-unfair-by-some-customers

“While we understand that some members who didn’t meet the criteria this time may be disappointed, we hope to be able to make the payment annually, and that even more members become eligible in future.”

They "hope to"!
This should be an annual event, some of the profits should be shared with members as there are no shareholders to pay dividends to.

The flaw with this plan is that if more members are eligible (and I think there will be more, because some people will manipulate their account activity to meet the current criteria), then either everyone receives a smaller payment or they have to have more profit which will prompt more complaints about poor savings rates.

If they change the criteria so some people who qualify under this year's rules don't qualify next year, that will generate complaints.

And if they change the criteria to include more members by addressing some of the unfairness highlighted this time, everyone will receive a smaller share.

Whatever they do now, I don't think they can win. However they distribute the profits next time, there will be a further group of unhappy customers. 

Section62

TheBanker said:

2010 said:

km1500 said:

ok let's take it to the papers rather than discuss it here

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jun/10/nationwides-100-payouts-labelled-unfair-by-some-customers

“While we understand that some members who didn’t meet the criteria this time may be disappointed, we hope to be able to make the payment annually, and that even more members become eligible in future.”

They "hope to"!
This should be an annual event, some of the profits should be shared with members as there are no shareholders to pay dividends to.

The flaw with this plan is that if more members are eligible (and I think there will be more, because some people will manipulate their account activity to meet the current criteria), then either everyone receives a smaller payment or they have to have more profit which will prompt more complaints about poor savings rates.

If they change the criteria so some people who qualify under this year's rules don't qualify next year, that will generate complaints.

And if they change the criteria to include more members by addressing some of the unfairness highlighted this time, everyone will receive a smaller share.

Whatever they do now, I don't think they can win. However they distribute the profits next time, there will be a further group of unhappy customers. 

When in a hole, stop digging.

They are creating an expectation of another £100 payout next year.  Which, without bankrupting themselves, would mean keeping the eligibility criteria restrictive enough to limit the recipients to a small proportion of the total membership, or as you say to reduce the amount of money each member gets.

'Free flights to the USA'?