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

boingy

I too think that they should be looking to reward all of their customers rather than a subset of them and the best way to do that is to pay better interest rates on savings and current accounts and also to lower their mortgage rates. They are fond of boasting about how mutuality is best but their behaviour and their rates make them pretty much the same as a bank. They should be aiming to use any profits for the benefit of all of their members.

gt94sss2

More job cuts at Nationwide: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/feb/23/nationwide-building-society-jobs-redundancies-cuts

callum9999

boingy said:

I too think that they should be looking to reward all of their customers rather than a subset of them and the best way to do that is to pay better interest rates on savings and current accounts and also to lower their mortgage rates. They are fond of boasting about how mutuality is best but their behaviour and their rates make them pretty much the same as a bank. They should be aiming to use any profits for the benefit of all of their members.

I think this is a perfect example of living in a bubble.

You aren't arguing for "everyone" to get rewarded, you're arguing for everyone with significant amounts of money or assets to get rewarded - which will therefore exclude the millions of people in rented accommodation living paycheque to paycheque. 

Doesn't sound very inclusive to me? As a member who didn't qualify last year, I'm very happy to see people who are financially unstable benefitting from this and, quite frankly, have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for the people with large savings balances or mortgages whining about how they are so much more deserving of cash than those who don't have much money. 

You moaned about them being "pretty much the same as a bank", this seems exactly the kind of thing being a mutual instead of a bank is able to do. You're the one who seems to be demanding that they act like a bank (i.e. neglect those who aren't as profitable and shower attention on those who are).

TheBanker

callum9999 said:

boingy said:

I too think that they should be looking to reward all of their customers rather than a subset of them and the best way to do that is to pay better interest rates on savings and current accounts and also to lower their mortgage rates. They are fond of boasting about how mutuality is best but their behaviour and their rates make them pretty much the same as a bank. They should be aiming to use any profits for the benefit of all of their members.

I think this is a perfect example of living in a bubble.

You aren't arguing for "everyone" to get rewarded, you're arguing for everyone with significant amounts of money or assets to get rewarded - which will therefore exclude the millions of people in rented accommodation living paycheque to paycheque. 

Doesn't sound very inclusive to me? As a member who didn't qualify last year, I'm very happy to see people who are financially unstable benefitting from this and, quite frankly, have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for the people with large savings balances or mortgages whining about how they are so much more deserving of cash than those who don't have much money. 

You moaned about them being "pretty much the same as a bank", this seems exactly the kind of thing being a mutual instead of a bank is able to do. You're the one who seems to be demanding that they act like a bank (i.e. neglect those who aren't as profitable and shower attention on those who are).

But the profit-share didn't target those who are financially unstable. It used some pretty aribrtary criteria. If you are financially unstable you probably won't have a mortgage and may well not have the £100 savings balance required. You may not even be able to pay in £500 per month to the current account. 

What last year's policy did was generate excessive profits from some members, which were handed to other members. As a mutual, excessive profits should not be generated, so this was bad management. They should, during the year have adjusted their rates. Either charge borrowers less, pay savers/depositors more, or a combination of the two.

When they found themselves with excess profits, they should have found a way to return these to the people who had generated them - i.e. the borrowers and savers. I don't think it is the role of Nationwide to act as a wealth redistribution system. They are not the government.

I am also a member of a Credit Union. Their savings products are rubbish, but I hope having some cash on deposit does a bit of good in the local community, by providing affordable small loans to local people who might otherwise turn to doorstep lenders. If the Credit Union makes a profit, they pay a divident based on savings/loan balances. This means people like me, who are not financially unstable, benefit from the credit union's profits. I see that as fair, because I have helped to generate those profits and without my savings balances someone wouldn't have been able to have a loan. And I see no reason why the mutual Nationwide should need to follow a different model.

simonsmithsays

Months on there's is still a huge amount of bitterness on this thread from, seemingly, those who missed out.

Whatever, sensible, criteria they used to ensure those who actually, properly, utilised NW some would have missed out and been upset.

Move on and position yourself to be eligible this time would be my advice.

zagfles

callum9999 said:

boingy said:

I too think that they should be looking to reward all of their customers rather than a subset of them and the best way to do that is to pay better interest rates on savings and current accounts and also to lower their mortgage rates. They are fond of boasting about how mutuality is best but their behaviour and their rates make them pretty much the same as a bank. They should be aiming to use any profits for the benefit of all of their members.

I think this is a perfect example of living in a bubble.

You aren't arguing for "everyone" to get rewarded, you're arguing for everyone with significant amounts of money or assets to get rewarded - which will therefore exclude the millions of people in rented accommodation living paycheque to paycheque. 

Doesn't sound very inclusive to me? As a member who didn't qualify last year, I'm very happy to see people who are financially unstable benefitting from this and, quite frankly, have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for the people with large savings balances or mortgages whining about how they are so much more deserving of cash than those who don't have much money. 

You moaned about them being "pretty much the same as a bank", this seems exactly the kind of thing being a mutual instead of a bank is able to do. You're the one who seems to be demanding that they act like a bank (i.e. neglect those who aren't as profitable and shower attention on those who are).

If they really wanted to help "financially unstable" people maybe reduce their overdraft rate from the ridiculous 39.9%. That'd likely help them much more than a one off bonus they probably wouldn't qualify for anyway due to the savings/mortgage criteria.

zagfles

simonsmithsays said:

Months on there's is still a huge amount of bitterness on this thread from, seemingly, those who missed out.

Whatever, sensible, criteria they used to ensure those who actually, properly, utilised NW some would have missed out and been upset.

Move on and position yourself to be eligible this time would be my advice.

We're nicely positioned. Made £400 by switching our "serial switch" accounts into Nationwide last year, worked even though we already have current account with them, and now making sure we make plenty of pointless transactions through them

But they'll probably change the criteria. It may be a reaction to MSE - after all if the criteria was announced in advance, it'd be headlines in MSE and people would do the necessary purely to qualify rather than act as a genuine customer, and the minimum necessary.

boingy

I can't decide whether they'll stick to the same criteria as last year or change those criteria and risk another s***storm!
But any business that gives money away is a company that would be better off finding ways to use that money to improve their business.

wmb194

boingy said:

I can't decide whether they'll stick to the same criteria as last year or change those criteria and risk another s***storm!
But any business that gives money away is a company that would be better off finding ways to use that money to improve their business.

Mature companies returning surplus capital to its shareholders/'member owners' isn't exactly uncommon. As discussed ad nauseam, the problem in this case is the arbitrary criteria used. At least with normal companies it'll relate to something as uncontroversial as the number of shares you own and you'll know this in advance.

TheBanker

boingy said:

I can't decide whether they'll stick to the same criteria as last year or change those criteria and risk another s***storm!
But any business that gives money away is a company that would be better off finding ways to use that money to improve their business.

Nationwide is not a company in the same way as other banks. It's a mutual society, owned by its members.

The other banks are owned by shareholders, and they use their profit to pay their shareholders a dividend, based on the number of shares held. Nationwide is owned by its members, so it used its profit to pay a 'dividend' to some (but not all) of its shareholders.

I'm not sure what they could have done with the money other than return it to members - they are already paying to keep their branch network open which differentiates them from most of their competitors. They could have spent some money making their mobile app a bit more user friendly (they spent the money, but made it worse!), but ultimatley they are operating like a bank (similar rates offered), generating profit like a bank, but don't have shareholders to benefit from that profit.