Nationwide..Not Eligible for £100.00

boingy

ForumUser7 said:

DS_MSE said:

          

I haven’t got my email yet

They are only sending the email to members who have a "deeper relationship" with them. 

ForumUser7

boingy said:

ForumUser7 said:

DS_MSE said:

          

I haven’t got my email yet

They are only sending the email to members who have a "deeper relationship" with them. 

I do though - £100 says so! I'll give it until 12th June, and then I'll chase

boingy

ForumUser7 said:

boingy said:

ForumUser7 said:

DS_MSE said:

          

I haven’t got my email yet

They are only sending the email to members who have a "deeper relationship" with them. 

I do though - £100 says so! I'll give it until 12th June, and then I'll chase

Hehe. They might need your vote to fend of the millions of members who are going to vote against the board (not really...)

Section62

DS_MSE said:

          

No mention whatsoever of the "Fairer Share" in the member newsletter....  why might that be, I wonder?

ForumUser7

Section62 said:

DS_MSE said:

          

No mention whatsoever of the "Fairer Share" in the member newsletter....  why might that be, I wonder?

How do you sign up for the newsletter please? I’m registered for marketing via email but have never got it

Section62

kaMelo said:

Section62 said:

kaMelo said:

How is a vote stacked against individual members? It's not like a PLC with a large block of institutional shareholders.

It is virtually impossible for individual members to get a resolution considered at the AGM.

(Even if they could get the required member support for a resolution, the time lag renders it more or less pointless.  E.g. A resolution for this year's AGM had to be submitted before 4th April - a resolution against paying 20% of the membership £340m this June wouldn't be considered at an AGM before the Summer of 2024, by which time 2024's payment would be confirmed already.)

The AGM voting arrangements provide a 'quick vote' option to accept the Board's recommendations, but not a 'quick vote' option to reject them all.

Providing incentives - such as a donation to charity - encourages voting by people would would othewise be apathetic.  IMV it is more likely apathetic people will use the one 'quick vote' button available, rather than work their way through all the resolutions individually.

So, 1) there's not really anything substantive to vote against (i.e. as a protest vote), 2) it is really easy to vote in support of the Board's recommendations, 3) History suggests something like 95% support, which encourages apathy ("my vote won't make a difference either way").

The AGM costs a lot to do, but doesn't really achieve much.

Whilst I agree it's difficult to get a resolution debated at an AGM there is always a way to get the boards attention, vote against the directors remuneration.

A majority against vote would cause major repercussions, essentially saying the members have no confidence in the board.

At the 2022 AGM the Directors' Remuneration Report (excluding the Directors’ Remuneration Policy) was approved with a 94.23% 'For' vote.  The Directors' Remuneration Policy was approved with 93.53% 'For'.

Whilst voting 'against' sends a message, as I suggested above, this level of support is (I believe) part of the cause of voter apathy - why bother voting ('for' or 'against') when the margin is so large?

kaMelo said:

However, as you alluded to, apathy reigns supreme. People are happy to vent on a forum yet can't be bothered to do the thing that can make a difference. 

I'm not sure there's evidence the people venting on this forum can't be bothered to vote at the AGM.

kaMelo

I'm talking across the whole membership rather than just people here, the usual turnout is around 15%. 

My point remains that every AGM has a resolution where members can express their displeasure, sadly 85% of members don't.

G_B_

Please complain. This decision is clearly not equitable for a mutual organisation that currently advertises "When we profit, so do our members"! Perhaps some do, unfortunately not all. Clearly, in my case at least, 38 years of savings, loans and membership plus £10,000's deposited in their care count for nothing as I only currently have one account.

The questions I asked their CEO were:

1. Why my (long term) membership of the Society is suddenly not equal to others?
2. How I, a member, am profiting in the same way others are profiting?
3. How, unlike banks, you are sharing your profits?
4. How the Nationwide Fairer Share is fair to all members equally?

By the way, her name is Debbie Crosbie and you can email her directly at debbie.crosbie@nationwide.co.uk

km1500

Have emailed - basically saying profits belong to all members and not just a select few

km1500

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