Nationwide take over of Virgin Money

eskbanker

EarthBoy said:

26left said:

Now over half way there with over 250 signatories 

https://www.change.org/p/give-nationwide-members-a-say-on-the-purchase-of-virgin-money

But how many have paid, or are willing to pay, the necessary £50 deposit?  

That poster has claimed on the other thread that someone has offered to put up the entire £25K on behalf of the 500:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80689839#Comment_80689839

TheBanker

Section62 said:

TheBanker said:

Nasqueron said:

26left said:

Nasqueron said:

26left said:

For any Nationwide members who would like to vote on the proposed takeover there's a petition running at change.org - just google Nationwide Virgin Money petition or try bit (dot) ly (slash) NationwideVote

This is a little misleading, voting on a change.org petition is not any sort of official thing and it won't make any difference. 16m members and under 100 (at time of posting) who have signed it in the 6 days since launch

Now over half way there with over 250 signatories 

https://www.change.org/p/give-nationwide-members-a-say-on-the-purchase-of-virgin-money

Half way to what? The generic 500 total? There are SIXTEEN MILLION members of Nationwide, this survey has now been running, what another week and there are 335 signatures, meaning 0.002% of members have signed it. It is not going to change anything, even if they get 500 and pay some random person £50 each, it will not stop the takeover

Indeed - even assuming this petition manages to force a vote, how on earth would they persuare eight million and one members to vote in favour, when less than 400 have signed the petition so far?

Clearly, for better or worse this is not an issue that the majority of Nationwide members care about one way or the other.

There's a world of difference between handing over your personal details to a complete stranger and giving them £50, and ticking an electronic box on a secure voting form provided by Nationwide themselves.  With no disrespect to the people organising the petition, I suspect a lot of people who might be willing to put their name to the petition won't do so because of the personal risk involved. (this is a fundamental weakness in Nationwide's rules)

Your maths is also a bit off.  Although Nationwide has around 16 million members, the AGM/SGM voting arrangements are based on a simple majority and not a super majority.  Given past voting at AGMs has been around the half-million mark (in total) then rather than the "eight million and one" votes you suggest would be needed, the figure is more likely to be around 250,001.

Moreover, if 500 members were sucessful at requiring a SGM to be held then I believe the resultant publicity and media analysis is likely to draw out potential 'no' voters who thus far have believed Nationwide's claim that a vote isn't required and/or media claims that a vote can't take place.  There is precedent for an issue which was relatively low on people's agenda turning out to be something where the final vote wasn't what was expected by those in authority.  Your final sentence is reminiscent of what was confidently predicted by authority figures back then too.

The way I see it, the real issue here is not whether an eventual vote would stop the takeover (I don't think it will) but rather that if 500 people can organise themselves to reach Nationwide's high bar to democratic involvement then it may have the effect of reminding the NW board that it is the members who own the building society and their views need to be better listened to in future.  The current model is broken.

Boardroom complacency has stuffed up far too many UK companies in the past.  Believing you have 95%+ support/approval is not healthy.  Boardrooms getting the occasional wakeup call from shareholders can work wonders.

You are right about the majority requirement and I was wrong in assuming that all members would vote.

However I'm still not convinced enough members will vote to make any difference. Relative to the number of members, this petition has received virtually no interest. You currently have 381 signatures; a petition objecting to the relocation of a skate park in South London has 72,000!

What may happen, is that the Nationwide Board would share more details of their plans and why they believe the takeover to be in the best interests of members. I would welcome this transparancy although based on the currently available information I would not vote against the takeover even if given the opportunity. 

Section62

TheBanker

However I'm still not convinced enough members will vote to make any difference. Relative to the number of members, this petition has received virtually no interest. You currently have 381 signatures; a petition objecting to the relocation of a skate park in South London has 72,000!

Your use of "You" is also mistaken.  The petition has nothing to do with me and I'm not the organiser.

How many of the 72,000 interested in the skate park were asked to stake £50, and provide their full name, address - and bank account number - in order to participate further in the process of lobbying for it?

TheBanker

What may happen, is that the Nationwide Board would share more details of their plans and why they believe the takeover to be in the best interests of members. I would welcome this transparancy although based on the currently available information I would not vote against the takeover even if given the opportunity. 

This transparency is what it is all about, in my view.

Again, this isn't really about winning any vote - it should be about testing the water in relation to how Nationwide makes key decisions that affect the membership - for example the so-called 'fairer share' payment.  The Board apparently can make those decisions without reference to the membership.  The question is whether that kind of decision should be made without reference to the membership.  For people who believe in mutuality and democratic process these questions are fundamental.

Nasqueron

Section62 said:

TheBanker

However I'm still not convinced enough members will vote to make any difference. Relative to the number of members, this petition has received virtually no interest. You currently have 381 signatures; a petition objecting to the relocation of a skate park in South London has 72,000!

Your use of "You" is also mistaken.  The petition has nothing to do with me and I'm not the organiser.

How many of the 72,000 interested in the skate park were asked to stake £50, and provide their full name, address - and bank account number - in order to participate further in the process of lobbying for it?

TheBanker

What may happen, is that the Nationwide Board would share more details of their plans and why they believe the takeover to be in the best interests of members. I would welcome this transparancy although based on the currently available information I would not vote against the takeover even if given the opportunity. 

This transparency is what it is all about, in my view.

Again, this isn't really about winning any vote - it should be about testing the water in relation to how Nationwide makes key decisions that affect the membership - for example the so-called 'fairer share' payment.  The Board apparently can make those decisions without reference to the membership.  The question is whether that kind of decision should be made without reference to the membership.  For people who believe in mutuality and democratic process these questions are fundamental.

The people signing on the petition website are not going to be forced to pay the £50, it's got no way to be enforced so cannot be assumed to be 300+ people who would actually pay anything

TheBanker

Section62 said:

TheBanker

However I'm still not convinced enough members will vote to make any difference. Relative to the number of members, this petition has received virtually no interest. You currently have 381 signatures; a petition objecting to the relocation of a skate park in South London has 72,000!

Your use of "You" is also mistaken.  The petition has nothing to do with me and I'm not the organiser.

How many of the 72,000 interested in the skate park were asked to stake £50, and provide their full name, address - and bank account number - in order to participate further in the process of lobbying for it?

TheBanker

What may happen, is that the Nationwide Board would share more details of their plans and why they believe the takeover to be in the best interests of members. I would welcome this transparancy although based on the currently available information I would not vote against the takeover even if given the opportunity. 

This transparency is what it is all about, in my view.

Again, this isn't really about winning any vote - it should be about testing the water in relation to how Nationwide makes key decisions that affect the membership - for example the so-called 'fairer share' payment.  The Board apparently can make those decisions without reference to the membership.  The question is whether that kind of decision should be made without reference to the membership.  For people who believe in mutuality and democratic process these questions are fundamental.

Where do you draw the line though?

I missed out on the Fairer Share payment (and was pretty vocal about it here) - but in reality if there was to be a vote of members over that, would you also want a vote over rate changes, over offering switch incentives, over the supermarket cashback promotion they did last year? We have to trust the Executive and the Board to make the right decisions.

We do have a vote, on whether to re-appoint the Board, and can use this to express dissatisfaction with their decisions.

However, I do think taking over a bank is a much bigger decision than re-distributing profits, it represents a fundemental change to the society, so in an ideal world members would have been given a vote. But there were good reasons why this didn't happen, and I don't think it's a hill to die on. 

MSE_JC

Hello,

The Forum Team would like to remind users of our rules about staying on track and friendly behaviour.

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/site/forum-faqs/

The MSE Forum is intended to be a useful resource where can Forumites to discuss, seek and share MoneySaving insight. Content that is found to not fall under MoneySaving - including wider general political/economic debate - may be removed and can lead to an entire thread being closed or taken down.

Furthermore, the creation of multiple threads on the same topic or duplication of posts across different threads is considered spamming and the team will take appropriate action if we detect this.

Finally, while we appreciate that discussions may sometimes become robust in nature there is no excuse for unfriendly conduct towards other Forumites. This applies regardless of how long someone has been a member or how active they are.

Thanks all,

MSE JC

26left

eskbanker said:

EarthBoy said:

26left said:

Now over half way there with over 250 signatories 

https://www.change.org/p/give-nationwide-members-a-say-on-the-purchase-of-virgin-money

But how many have paid, or are willing to pay, the necessary £50 deposit?  

That poster has claimed on the other thread that someone has offered to put up the entire £25K on behalf of the 500:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80689839#Comment_80689839

Sorry just seen I’ve been quoted here on this thread. 

It has now been confirmed by the campaign: a cheque for £25,000 was handed in to Nationwide on Thursday with the petition and the necessary paper work for a SGM - £50 for each of the first 500 qualifying two year members necessary to trigger calling a meeting.

The petition is now nearing 1,300 signatories and growing steadily each day. 

Nationwide appear to be stalling. So the campaign is moving into a new phase, encouraging members to consider moving most of their savings to another institution in protest - leaving at least £100 in their account to retain their membership status and voting rights. 

The campaign website has more 
http://nationwide-virgin-money-member-vote.org.uk/

There’s also a Facebook group too
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1136814727659119/?ref=share

eskbanker

26left said:
a cheque for £25,000 was handed in to Nationwide on Thursday with the petition and the necessary paper work for a SGM - £50 for each of the first 500 qualifying two year members necessary to trigger calling a meeting.

The petition is now nearing 1,300 signatories and growing steadily each day. 

Nationwide appear to be stalling. So the campaign is moving into a new phase, encouraging members to consider moving most of their savings to another institution in protest - leaving at least £100 in their account to retain their membership status and voting rights.

A petition is handed in on Thursday, and two days later it's concluded that the lack of an immediate response constitutes 'stalling' and triggers protests?

Hoenir

26left said:

Nationwide appear to be stalling. So the campaign is moving into a new phase, encouraging members to consider moving most of their savings to another institution in protest - leaving at least £100 in their account to retain their membership status and voting rights. 

This has to be a joke. It's bordering on the absurd now. Trying to intentionally damage a financial institution is pure stupidity. 

eskbanker

Hoenir said:
This has to be a joke. It's bordering on the absurd now. Trying to intentionally damage a financial institution is pure stupidity. 

Phrasing your response in those terms will inevitably result in accusations that it's the Nationwide board who are trying to intentionally damage a financial institution!