Nationwide Fairer Share Payment 2024

intalex

I guess this is an MSE forum and over here it's all about finding deals and playing the game that seals these deals, so the vast majority will be happy and defend the scheme, especially those who opportunistically target (or by luck achieve) the specific minimal actions that would secure the £100 (as opposed to being genuinely "active")!

But objectively speaking, there will be many who literally bankroll Nationwide's profits (savings deposits enable mortgages which enable interest margins) and yet don't qualify for this allegedly "fairer" share, and so to them this will always be an unfair system. Just play the game and earn the share.

All that is needed to eliminate most of this divisiveness is simply to rename the scheme something like "current account usage loyalty" and then there can be little debate what the intentions and outcomes are. The current name alone gives the incorrect perception that it's likely benefiting all members based on what one would consider overall factors surrounding their membership, e.g. longevity of membership, numbers and types of accounts, value of deposits and mortgages, transactional activity on all accounts (not just current accounts), etc.

It's like taxes and benefits...

Edit: Crossed wires with @Section62 's post!!

WillPS

Straw man argument.

Getting abused in the course of doing one's job by entryists with no regard for the culture and traditions of one's employer

vs

Contributing to a discussion board with a complaint of perceived unfairness and another member pointing out that it was entirely within their control to make sure they met the (very easy to fulfil) criteria, at least as described by last years conditions.

Foxhouse

Section62 said:

Foxhouse said:

ovusa1 said:

eskbanker said:

ovusa1 said:

eskbanker said:

If you're suggesting that membership for five years would be fairer than rewarding those currently making significant use of the institution's products then that's just using different criteria, and obviously favouring duration of membership can easily be dismissed as unfair too.

ovusa1 said:
I assume you are getting the payment - well done for doing very little in such a short time!

No, your assumption is wrong - as it happens, I've been a member for over five years and didn't qualify for the payment, but I'm not whinging about it!

Quote ' rewarding those currently making significant use of the institution's products'  - do you mean like 1) receive £500 for 2 out of 3 months and make 2 payments out each month, or 2) making 10 payments or 3) if you hold a FlexOne,FlexStudent or FlexGraduate account 1 payment in or out during March, or 4) if you completed a switch using the Current Account Switch Service between 1 January 2024 and 31 March 2024 there is NO requirement for receiving or making payments.                Wow that is some significant use of the institution's products!

So with a minimal amount of effort and planning on your part, you could have got it then?

Why blame Nationwide for your laziness?

Was it you who complained about how a group of members had been abusive towards Nationwide staff in the carpetbagging days?

If so, I'm surprised you are being so hostile towards a member for simply using their account normally.  The general idea of building societies is that some members deposit money (which is used to offer other members mortgage products) and in return get paid a fair rate of interest on their deposit.  This new idea of profits being distributed to a select few instead - which some participants in this thread seem to be trying hard to normalise - is not what people generally expect building societies to do.

For some of us, the creation of this "us and them" environment in which a lucky few profit, is something which conflicts with the fundamentals of mutuality.

That you accuse the other poster of "laziness" for running their accounts in the normal (for them) way demonstrates (to me at least) why Nationwide's approach to the (un)fairer share is damaging.  If members get rewarded for creating artifical transactions - and those that don't are regarded as "lazy" - then Nationwide have taken a significant departure from what building societies are supposed to be about.

Yes, it was me.

Hardly a fair comparison though. Having said that, I shall retract the word 'laziness', and replace it with 'lack of action'. The rest of your comment is just a straw man argument, and therefore meaningless.

Remember, it was the poster who pointed out that the terms for getting the payment weren't exactly onerous.

kaMelo

In response to a question at last years AGM it was disclosed that at any one time members collectively hold around £35 Billion in current accounts. As interest rates had increased savers had benefitted from those rate increases, mortgage holders had benefitted from interest rates not increasing by as much as they could have done but those with money sat in current accounts had not benefitted at all. The fairer share payments scheme was to benefit those current account holders..

We can all debate the criteria and what it could or perhaps should have been, but this is the scheme that Nationwide came up with and the rationale behind why they did so.. 

wmb194

kaMelo said:

In response to a question at last years AGM it was disclosed that at any one time members collectively hold around £35 Billion in current accounts. As interest rates had increased savers had benefitted from those rate increases, mortgage holders had benefitted from interest rates not increasing by as much as they could have done but those with money sat in current accounts had not benefitted at all. The fairer share payments scheme was to benefit those current account holders..

We can all debate the criteria and what it could or perhaps should have been, but this is the scheme that Nationwide came up with and the rationale behind why they did so.. 

All NW had to do was/is pay better interest on current accounts. There’s no law to stop it. The “fairer share” is pitched as a marketing gimmick.

Section62

wmb194 said:

kaMelo said:

In response to a question at last years AGM it was disclosed that at any one time members collectively hold around £35 Billion in current accounts. As interest rates had increased savers had benefitted from those rate increases, mortgage holders had benefitted from interest rates not increasing by as much as they could have done but those with money sat in current accounts had not benefitted at all. The fairer share payments scheme was to benefit those current account holders..

We can all debate the criteria and what it could or perhaps should have been, but this is the scheme that Nationwide came up with and the rationale behind why they did so.. 

All NW had to do was/is pay better interest on current accounts. There’s no law to stop it. The “fairer share” is pitched as a marketing gimmick.

Indeed. And Nationwide used to pay interest on the standard FlexAccount until they stopped - claiming that they couldn't afford to continue doing so.

As the ASA ruling showed, Nationwide have developed a habit of being less than candid with members and the general public.  One of the things I expect of a mutual building society is to be absolutely honest in its dealings.

Foxhouse

Section62 said:

wmb194 said:

kaMelo said:

In response to a question at last years AGM it was disclosed that at any one time members collectively hold around £35 Billion in current accounts. As interest rates had increased savers had benefitted from those rate increases, mortgage holders had benefitted from interest rates not increasing by as much as they could have done but those with money sat in current accounts had not benefitted at all. The fairer share payments scheme was to benefit those current account holders..

We can all debate the criteria and what it could or perhaps should have been, but this is the scheme that Nationwide came up with and the rationale behind why they did so.. 

All NW had to do was/is pay better interest on current accounts. There’s no law to stop it. The “fairer share” is pitched as a marketing gimmick.

Indeed. And Nationwide used to pay interest on the standard FlexAccount until they stopped - claiming that they couldn't afford to continue doing so.

As the ASA ruling showed, Nationwide have developed a habit of being less than candid with members and the general public.  One of the things I expect of a mutual building society is to be absolutely honest in its dealings.

I'm curious. Does Nationwide do anything right in your opinion? 

Nebulous2

Section62 said:

wmb194 said:

kaMelo said:

In response to a question at last years AGM it was disclosed that at any one time members collectively hold around £35 Billion in current accounts. As interest rates had increased savers had benefitted from those rate increases, mortgage holders had benefitted from interest rates not increasing by as much as they could have done but those with money sat in current accounts had not benefitted at all. The fairer share payments scheme was to benefit those current account holders..

We can all debate the criteria and what it could or perhaps should have been, but this is the scheme that Nationwide came up with and the rationale behind why they did so.. 

All NW had to do was/is pay better interest on current accounts. There’s no law to stop it. The “fairer share” is pitched as a marketing gimmick.

Indeed. And Nationwide used to pay interest on the standard FlexAccount until they stopped - claiming that they couldn't afford to continue doing so.

As the ASA ruling showed, Nationwide have developed a habit of being less than candid with members and the general public.  One of the things I expect of a mutual building society is to be absolutely honest in its dealings.

I came to the conclusion a long time ago that I was expecting too much in thinking that a mutual would behave differently from any other company.

I was a huge advocate of John Lewis, spent tens of thousands there, and pointed many people in their direction for electrical goods in particular. When they let me down I really struggled with it, and took it personally. I learned from it though. 

We all know of the mess the Coop made of their banking, and the shops are convenient in small communities that aren't well provisioned, but you certainly pay for the convenience. 

I've used Nationwide services quite a bit, had a mortgage with them, have a credit card, current account and savings accounts. I missed out last year as I only paid enough money in on one of the 3 months, despite my current account turning over around £11k in that time. This time I paid money in each month this year. I have enough regular activity with them to meet the other criteria with some margin. 

I don't regard it as any different from making sure I meet the criteria for other accounts I hold, such as paying £500 a month to get my £5 reward from Halifax. I don't expect any more or any less from Nationwide than from others.

They seem to have gone out of their way in previous years to make sure they never had any outstanding products, but everything was middle of the pack. They didn't match the 1-2-3 account from Santander, the Clarity card from  Halifax, the regular saver from First Direct. 

They seem to be looking for expansion and have improved on their middling performance now with their 8% regular saver (withdrawn unfortunately while First direct is still going) their 18 month fixed term bond and their 'fairer share.' However don't be mistaken that they're doing this for their members. They are doing it because it suits their business plan. 

WillPS

Operation "bitter muck spreading in any thread about Nationwide, even when it's objectively good news" is in full swing I see. 

Section62 said:

As the ASA ruling showed, Nationwide have developed a habit of being less than candid with members and the general public.  One of the things I expect of a mutual building society is to be absolutely honest in its dealings.

You're inferring a judgment on the part of the ASA which casts far wider than the judgment they actually made, which was that it was misleading to state that they weren't closing branches 'unlike the big banks', when their recent closures outnumbered one of those big banks (the smallest one).

The campaign continues in slightly modified form.

If you believe Nationwide are being less than honest in their advertising then you should open complaints with them: https://www.asa.org.uk/make-a-complaint.html

jameseonline

intalex said:

I guess this is an MSE forum and over here it's all about finding deals and playing the game that seals these deals, so the vast majority will be happy and defend the scheme, especially those who opportunistically target (or by luck achieve) the specific minimal actions that would secure the £100 (as opposed to being genuinely "active")!

But objectively speaking, there will be many who literally bankroll Nationwide's profits (savings deposits enable mortgages which enable interest margins) and yet don't qualify for this allegedly "fairer" share, and so to them this will always be an unfair system. Just play the game and earn the share.

All that is needed to eliminate most of this divisiveness is simply to rename the scheme something like "current account usage loyalty" and then there can be little debate what the intentions and outcomes are. The current name alone gives the incorrect perception that it's likely benefiting all members based on what one would consider overall factors surrounding their membership, e.g. longevity of membership, numbers and types of accounts, value of deposits and mortgages, transactional activity on all accounts (not just current accounts), etc.

It's like taxes and benefits...

Edit: Crossed wires with @Section62 's post!!

I don't think there's an easy enough name tbh, it's not just about having an active current account as you also need savings or a mortgage too.

I get your point though.