Nationwide take over of Virgin Money

Section62

Hoenir said:

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. 

Yet one or two posters on this forum regularly tell Nationwide members who are unhappy with the way the building society is being run that they should just take their business elsewhere.

I wonder why that hasn't been called out as "pure stupidity" for intentionally damaging a financial institution?

Why is it Ok to suggest people end their membership, but not Ok to suggest members reduce the savings they hold with Nationwide? (given Nationwide's approach to savings interest rates it is probably good MSE advice to take savings elsewhere anyway, regardless of any protest)

Section62

eskbanker said:

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!

Do you actually believe a small number of members removing all but £100 of savings from Nationwide will "damage a financial institution"?

Seems very unlikely to me, given the size of Nationwide and the cash pile they are sitting on.

eskbanker

Section62 said:

eskbanker said:

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!

Do you actually believe a small number of members removing all but £100 of savings from Nationwide will "damage a financial institution"?

Seems very unlikely to me, given the size of Nationwide and the cash pile they are sitting on.

It wasn't my comment.

ForumUser7

26left said:

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

Apologies - not familiar with how this thing all works. Has the petitioner put together a cheque for £25,000 of their own money - or have they gathered funds from several signatories?

Hoenir

eskbanker said:

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!

Only on social media will you find pages of meaningless debate! Where myths become facts. 

Even though 500 people have now signed, we need many more as many people who have signed will not be in a position to actually qualify as one the 500 Nationwide demand.

How many have signed are actually members. One wonders.  Bet there's plenty of mischief makers. 

eskbanker

Hoenir said:

eskbanker said:

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!

Only on social media will you find pages of meaningless debate! Where myths become facts. 

Even though 500 people have now signed, we need many more as many people who have signed will not be in a position to actually qualify as one the 500 Nationwide demand.

How many have signed are actually members. One wonders.  Bet there's plenty of mischief makers. 

Your bolded wording looks like it's a quote but it's unclear where it's taken from and when - to be fair to the petitioners, the total is seemingly now nearer 1,300 according to a post on the previous page from a few hours ago, and it would seem reasonable to assume that going as far as handing it in on Thursday with the £25K would have been done with some contingency over the required minimum 500 qualifying members.

And I don't know if you consider this forum to fall within the definition of social media, but there are plenty of pages of meaningless debate on here!

WillPS

There is no way for any reader or indeed Nationwide to know which of the petitioners are in fact eligible two year members. This is one of the many reasons why this attempt to derail the board of Nationwide from doing their job will go nowhere.

Section62 said:

Yet one or two posters on this forum regularly tell Nationwide members who are unhappy with the way the building society is being run that they should just take their business elsewhere.

Perhaps you could explain to the mass uninformed why this is such terrible advice? Of course, it'd matter very little to Nationwide where you park your custom, but it seems silly to for anyone to maintain business with an organisation they perceive to be delivering poor value.

Unless, of course, there's some other motivation behind maintaining an account with Nationwide while also taking every opportunity possible to complain bitterly about them... to each their own I suppose!

boingy

If I was the Nationwide board my defensive strategy would be to say nothing and do nothing for about a week.
"Let 'em sweat".

Section62

boingy said:

If I was the Nationwide board my defensive strategy would be to say nothing and do nothing for about a week.
"Let 'em sweat".

Do you think that would demonstrate mamagement competence?  To ignore a section of your 'shareholders' who have invoked a process set out in the Memorandum and Rules of the organisation you lead and to which - as director and/or board member - you could be held liable if you breach?

Not forgetting this group of members appears to have captured the interest of the media, and sitting on your backside for a week doing and saying nothing is just making it look like you don't know what you are doing.

The next step - in theory - could be a court injunction compelling the directors to hold the meeting their rules say they should hold.  In which case each and every decision and discussion you've had on the subject could be subject to the scrutiny of the courts.  Adopting a deliberate 'defensive' strategy of "say nothing and do nothing" could be career ending.  I guess you've not been following the Post Office Horizon Inquiry?

WillPS

Section62 said:
Adopting a deliberate 'defensive' strategy of "say nothing and do nothing" could be career ending. I guess you've not been following the Post Office Horizon Inquiry?

I really don't know where to start with this comparison. 

One, an organisation which wrongly prosecutes its franchisees, sending some to prison and ruining many more's lives in other ways, in mistaken belief that their flawed IT system was perfect then falls over itself in its refusal to acknowledge any wrongdoing and put things right over a 25 year period.

The other, an organisation who has yet to respond to a petition submitted less than 2 full working days ago, which demands a meeting described in the organisation's Memorandum and Rules but fails to actually satisfy the preconditions for such a demand to be accepted. The impact to the membership, both as a whole and to the tiny % involved in this petition, is - well perhaps you can tell us what the impact is - but I struggle to think how it might possibly be life altering in any tangible way.

Perhaps that should have been by saying it's both perverse and offensive.