Nationwide take over of Virgin Money

Officer_Dibble

It's a shame that MSE haven't put their clout behind the campaign to protect Nationwide members from the financial weakening of their society this deal will bring, or at least to allow them the vote they should be entitled to.

The Evening Standard's more on the ball:

https://www.standard.co.uk/business/nationwide-virgin-money-branson-b1152336.html

"To my mind £2.20 a share is already too much for this ragtag bank formed of various mergers and given a red lick of smiley paint."

WillPS

Officer_Dibble said:

It's a shame that MSE haven't put their clout behind the campaign to protect Nationwide members from the financial weakening of their society this deal will bring, or at least to allow them the vote they should be entitled to.

Leaving aside the baseless presumption that this will go bad, what on earth would it have to do with "money saving"?

Say the society is weakened, how would that harm Nationwide members in any way shape or form?

Officer_Dibble

The weakening of Britain's biggest (supposedly) mutual Building Society has plenty to do with money saving - it's about higher mortgage rates and lower savings rates and a vast amount of money going to a few very wealthy individuals and investors. Seems like MSE territory to me.

WillPS

Officer_Dibble said:

The weakening of Britain's biggest (supposedly) mutual Building Society has plenty to do with money saving - it's about higher mortgage rates and lower savings rates and a vast amount of money going to a few very wealthy individuals and investors. Seems like MSE territory to me.

Nationwide don't control the market for mortgage or savings rates; their rates are sometimes strong but often not. There are hundreds of competitors in both markets. 

This isn't a campaign which would be in scope for a 'money saving' consumer journalism website in the slightest.

RG2015

Officer_Dibble said:

It's a shame that MSE haven't put their clout behind the campaign to protect Nationwide members from the financial weakening of their society this deal will bring, or at least to allow them the vote they should be entitled to.

The Evening Standard's more on the ball:

https://www.standard.co.uk/business/nationwide-virgin-money-branson-b1152336.html

"To my mind £2.20 a share is already too much for this ragtag bank formed of various mergers and given a red lick of smiley paint."

Forgive my ignorance, but I cannot recall any campaigns that MSE has put their clout behind.

Are you able to give any examples?

WillPS

RG2015 said:

Officer_Dibble said:

It's a shame that MSE haven't put their clout behind the campaign to protect Nationwide members from the financial weakening of their society this deal will bring, or at least to allow them the vote they should be entitled to.

The Evening Standard's more on the ball:

https://www.standard.co.uk/business/nationwide-virgin-money-branson-b1152336.html

"To my mind £2.20 a share is already too much for this ragtag bank formed of various mergers and given a red lick of smiley paint."

Forgive my ignorance, but I cannot recall any campaigns that MSE has put their clout behind.

Are you able to give any examples?

They do happen - they're usually targeted at the government, for example recently campaigning successfully for the child benefit thresholds to be raised/made fairer and unsuccessfully for the LISA penalties to be changed. Previously there was a lot of lobbying to get the energy price cap introduced.

I appreciate there's a blur there between Martin Lewis and MSE but neither seems to contradict the other, nor take the entirety of the credit.

They don't get involved with campaigning for or against mergers of banking service providers though, quite rightly, as it's ultimately not a consumer problem while FSCS protection exists.

RG2015

WillPS said:

RG2015 said:

Officer_Dibble said:

It's a shame that MSE haven't put their clout behind the campaign to protect Nationwide members from the financial weakening of their society this deal will bring, or at least to allow them the vote they should be entitled to.

The Evening Standard's more on the ball:

https://www.standard.co.uk/business/nationwide-virgin-money-branson-b1152336.html

"To my mind £2.20 a share is already too much for this ragtag bank formed of various mergers and given a red lick of smiley paint."

Forgive my ignorance, but I cannot recall any campaigns that MSE has put their clout behind.

Are you able to give any examples?

They do happen - they're usually targeted at the government, for example recently campaigning successfully for the child benefit thresholds to be raised/made fairer and unsuccessfully for the LISA penalties to be changed. Previously there was a lot of lobbying to get the energy price cap introduced.

I appreciate there's a blur there between Martin Lewis and MSE but neither seems to contradict the other, nor take the entirety of the credit.

They don't get involved with campaigning for or against mergers of banking service providers though, quite rightly, as it's ultimately not a consumer problem while FSCS protection exists.

Yes, I am aware of the campaigns either initiated or supported by Martin Lewis, but I haven't followed any MSE ones.

The blur aside, I cannot see Martin Lewis getting involved in a simple commercial takeover such as this.

Officer_Dibble

It's more than a "for or against mergers" issue though, it's a preservation of mutual rights issue. Nationwide's rules suggest that their members can call an SGM, but they're denying them the right without giving a legal reason. If Virgin's shareholders get a vote, why not Nationwide's members?

Section62

RG2015 said:

WillPS said:

RG2015 said:

Officer_Dibble said:

It's a shame that MSE haven't put their clout behind the campaign to protect Nationwide members from the financial weakening of their society this deal will bring, or at least to allow them the vote they should be entitled to.

The Evening Standard's more on the ball:

https://www.standard.co.uk/business/nationwide-virgin-money-branson-b1152336.html

"To my mind £2.20 a share is already too much for this ragtag bank formed of various mergers and given a red lick of smiley paint."

Forgive my ignorance, but I cannot recall any campaigns that MSE has put their clout behind.

Are you able to give any examples?

They do happen - they're usually targeted at the government, for example recently campaigning successfully for the child benefit thresholds to be raised/made fairer and unsuccessfully for the LISA penalties to be changed. Previously there was a lot of lobbying to get the energy price cap introduced.

I appreciate there's a blur there between Martin Lewis and MSE but neither seems to contradict the other, nor take the entirety of the credit.

They don't get involved with campaigning for or against mergers of banking service providers though, quite rightly, as it's ultimately not a consumer problem while FSCS protection exists.

Yes, I am aware of the campaigns either initiated or supported by Martin Lewis, but I haven't followed any MSE ones.

The blur aside, I cannot see Martin Lewis getting involved in a simple commercial takeover such as this.

I don't see Martin Lewis getting involved either.

But it is a misrepresentation of the facts to suggest this isn't a moneysaving issue.  If Nationwide were to be financially weakened as a result of this deal then it may impact on their ability to provide good financial products.  Nationwide themselves have suggested that the deal will make them stronger and be able to return more to the membership.  All good so far, but what if that doesn't happen is the moneysaving counterpoint.

More generally, competition tends to be good for moneysavers, less competition tends to be a bad thing.  Much of the discussion on these forums has been about the impact of this deal on Nationwide members, very little about the impact on VirginMoney customers.

Since VirginMoney has in the past been the provider of leading products that generate much discussion on this forum, I don't think it unreasonable that we have a bit of a think about what this deal means for VM customers, since many of their leading products have vanished (or become uncompetitive) since the CYBG takeover.

If we trust in the Nationwide board that they have found a potential cash cow to increase profits for Nationwide members, then it follows that forum members who are VM customers stand to disbenefit.  If Nationwide are going to squeeze the pips of VM to generate all this profit from their non-mutual bank then what does that mean for those of us who have VM products as well/instead?

If this was a one-off thing I might be a little less concerned.  But there is the Coventry/Co-op deal, and the statement by Mutuo hints that there may be a bigger picture involving growth of the sector through "muscular mutuality" (presumably at the expense of other challenger banks).  If that is the case then it really is a moneysaving issue as 1) we could see a significant reduction in competition and 2) this process with Nationwide is showing the cracks in the system of regulation and control of mutuals, which isn't compatible with mega-mutuals having such large market shares.

I didn't join Nationwide to see it become a building society which exhibits "muscular mutuality".  I joined it to get good value financial products.

Hoenir

Officer_Dibble said:

The weakening of Britain's biggest (supposedly) mutual Building Society has plenty to do with money saving - it's about higher mortgage rates and lower savings rates and a vast amount of money going to a few very wealthy individuals and investors. Seems like MSE territory to me.

Explain how the growth in the size of the NW balance sheet  has a correlation with higher mortgage rates.