Nationwide take over of Virgin Money

Section62

WillPS said:

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. 

...

I'd suggest a good start would be reading it in context of the whole paragraph and not selectively quoting.

The point was not a comparison between the actions of the two organisations, rather the fact that everything you say and everything you do can be preserved and then scrutinised in a quasi-judical or judicial process.  Anyone following the Horizon inquiry will have witnessed the acute embarrassment of PO managers having their 'strategy' emails and memos read out in the inquiry room.

26left

ForumUser7 said:

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?

It’s a single cheque for a deposit of £25,000 - £50 for each of the first 500 qualifying two year members necessary to trigger a SGM, as per the society’s rules. 

It’s unclear from the press release whether it’s an amalgam of different members funds or from one member. But as the rules state “for each” member, not “by each” member, I don’t think that matters. 

Clarity was sought from Nationwide on the practical matters of requesting a SGM - see questions sent on 3rd April as the end of the press release - but 10 days on and Nationwide is still yet to respond.  See http://nationwide-virgin-money-member-vote.org.uk/press.pdf

Section62

Section62 said:

WillPS said:

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. 

...

I'd suggest a good start would be reading it in context of the whole paragraph and not selectively quoting.

The point was not a comparison between the actions of the two organisations, rather the fact that everything you say and everything you do can be preserved and then scrutinised in a quasi-judical or judicial process.  Anyone following the Horizon inquiry will have witnessed the acute embarrassment of PO managers having their 'strategy' emails and memos read out in the inquiry room.

[Quoted post removed by Forum Team]

For the second and final time that is not the comparison I was making.  Please do not misrepresent what I said.

I was responding in general terms to a hypothetical strategy put forward by a forum member which could have the effect of placing directors and/or board members in a situation where their decisions were scrutinised in a quasi-judicial or judicial setting.  My response was to that hypothetical strategy and not the real actions and decisions of Nationwide. The comparison was to how and decisions and discussions may become public and examined in an embarrassing way.

Given the time sensitive-nature of the SGM request, adopting a strategy "to say nothing and do nothing for about a week" would be incredibly unwise.  I'm sure the managers and board members of the real Nationwide are well aware of this, and probably don't need the help of internet forum members to formulate a response.  I'd go further and suggest that some of the language and criticism aimed at those who feel a vote is needed is something so removed from the ethos of mutuality that, if asked, the directors would possibly request people to stop doing it - because these would-be moral guardians of Nationwide are not enhancing the image of our building society in the public eye by being so hostile (and on occasions quite offensive).

Zanderman

Section62 said:

Section62 said:

WillPS said:

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. 

...

I'd suggest a good start would be reading it in context of the whole paragraph and not selectively quoting.

The point was not a comparison between the actions of the two organisations, rather the fact that everything you say and everything you do can be preserved and then scrutinised in a quasi-judical or judicial process.  Anyone following the Horizon inquiry will have witnessed the acute embarrassment of PO managers having their 'strategy' emails and memos read out in the inquiry room.

[Quoted post removed by Forum Team]

....

Given the time sensitive-nature of the SGM request, adopting a strategy "to say nothing and do nothing for about a week" would be incredibly unwise.  ....

I'd argue the opposite. Responding quickly (and within a week would be quick for a corporate body that requires a board response to address the issue) would be incredibly unwise.

This would need a considered response from the board, following much discussion between themselves (who are not full time) and their fulltime managerial staff. That might well take more than a week to discuss, agree, compile and communicate. A week, or less, would be rushing it, possibly recklessly.

Edited to add: It would probably take a lot more than a week to simply determine if the request is actually compliant - i.e. that the signatories are indeed all genuine Nationwide members. That means checking each one and checking Dave Jones of Acacia Avenue has an account, and that if he has then it really was him signing it, not his cousin/neighbour/work colleague. There can't be any formal response to the request for an SGM until it is clear that that request is legit. Not checking this would definitely put the directors in a dodgy position.

pridehappy

Zanderman said:

EarthBoy said:

pridehappy said:

Nationwide is my favourite bank out of the current UK options, so I’m pleased it’s being taken over by someone who I can trust. 

Nationwide isn't being taken over by anybody.  It's buying Virgin Money.

That post confused me too but I think the 'it's' in pridehappy's sentence referred to Virgin. 

So it should be read as "Nationwide is my favourite bank out of the current UK options, so I’m pleased it [Virgin] is being taken over by someone [Nationwide] who I can trust. "

Correct, apologies about any clarification issues. I always refer to them as a bank (as others have mentioned) as they are the only major building society to offer a full suite of banking services except the Cumberland, and seem to be removing as many references as possible to ‘building society’. 

Section62

Zanderman said:

Section62 said:

....

Given the time sensitive-nature of the SGM request, adopting a strategy "to say nothing and do nothing for about a week" would be incredibly unwise.  ....

I'd argue the opposite. Responding quickly (and within a week would be quick for a corporate body that requires a board response to address the issue) would be incredibly unwise.

This would need a considered response from the board, following much discussion between themselves (who are not full time) and their fulltime managerial staff. That might well take more than a week to discuss, agree, compile and communicate. A week, or less, would be rushing it, possibly recklessly.

It isn't just about the response.  The hypothetical scenario was "say nothing and do nothing" (my bold.)

As you note, there is a lot for Nationwide to do to formulate a response.  Doing nothing about it for a week is where the main problem might come if that delay leads to a problem with holding the meeting expeditiously.

Furthermore, the response doesn't have to be a final and fully formulated one.  A spokesperson could acknowledge receipt of the petition/request and say that the management team and board are considering their response and will need time to do so.  The "say nothing" hypothetical strategy leaves a (news) vacuum that can be filled by others.  It is a fairly basic element of corporate media management not to let the other 'side' get an advantage by staying silent yourself.

Zanderman

ok, not 'do nothing' 

But much of your comments seem to be about how the directors actions might be judged - and my point is simply that taking their time and making sure it's done properly, will ensure they will, in time, have nothing to worry about in that respect. Rushing any response risks getting things wrong.

What people make of that in the vacuum of the period of no response is another thing entirely. People can make up what they want. It's the actual response, when it happens, that matters.

eskbanker

Section62 said:
I'm sure the managers and board members of the real Nationwide are well aware of this, and probably don't need the help of internet forum members to formulate a response.  I'd go further and suggest that some of the language and criticism aimed at those who feel a vote is needed is something so removed from the ethos of mutuality that, if asked, the directors would possibly request people to stop doing it - because these would-be moral guardians of Nationwide are not enhancing the image of our building society in the public eye by being so hostile (and on occasions quite offensive).

Who are you referring to here, unfortunate enough to be burdened with the implied obligations both to comply with the 'ethos of mutuality' and to 'enhance the image of the building society'?

26left

Zanderman said:

ok, not 'do nothing' 

But much of your comments seem to be about how the directors actions might be judged - and my point is simply that taking their time and making sure it's done properly, will ensure they will, in time, have nothing to worry about in that respect. Rushing any response risks getting things wrong.

What people make of that in the vacuum of the period of no response is another thing entirely. People can make up what they want. It's the actual response, when it happens, that matters.

The key question is how much time does Nationwide need to consider a SGM request before calling a SGM and issues notices? 

Today marks a week since the campaign for a vote delivered the petition and the request. 

At some point it will go beyond suitable consideration time and just look like deliberate stalling / ignoring its members / failing to abide by its own rules. Not a good look. 

Zanderman

26left said:

Zanderman said:

ok, not 'do nothing' 

But much of your comments seem to be about how the directors actions might be judged - and my point is simply that taking their time and making sure it's done properly, will ensure they will, in time, have nothing to worry about in that respect. Rushing any response risks getting things wrong.

What people make of that in the vacuum of the period of no response is another thing entirely. People can make up what they want. It's the actual response, when it happens, that matters.

The key question is how much time does Nationwide need to consider a SGM request before calling a SGM and issues notices? 

Today marks a week since the campaign for a vote delivered the petition and the request. 

At some point it will go beyond suitable consideration time and just look like deliberate stalling / ignoring its members / failing to abide by its own rules. Not a good look. 

The first key question, before any SGM is called, is it a valid SGM request?

How have the signatories been validated as Nwide members?

Beyond any doubt - which is more than a declaration on a third party form, it has to be validated by Nwide as all being made by members..

That has to be the first step - and would almost certainly take more than a week - otherwise they would be failing the rules. That would definitely not be a good look.