Nationwide take over of Virgin Money

Section62

Rob5342 said:

Section62 said:

WillPS said:

Section62 said:

@Rob5342 was asking for advantages to banking with a mutual. MonBS and Saffron BS were, last time I checked, mutuals, no?

Yes, they are mutuals as well.

I think Rob5342 was asking the question "Does being a muutal have any practical benefit though? I had a current account with them..." in relation to Nationwide specifically, because he was quoting and replying to my point "Nationwide is meant to be a mutual and being a mutual is supposed to bring benefits to members".  I could be wrong though, and perhaps Rob5342 could clarify?

Yes I meant what benefit does Nationwide being a mutual actually bring in practice.

Thanks, that did seem to be the logical basis for your question.

TBH I find it slightly odd that the unannounced element of the "Farier share" payment is something being put forward as some kind of positive.  The other examples you mention (e.g. switching bonuses) are (almost) always done on the basis of clear T&C's with the conditions to be eligible for payment set out in advance.

This is "fair" because people know what they have to do to benefit from the offer.  In the case of Co-op (which is why I put "(almost)" above) some forum members were able to complain to FOS on the basis the offer T&C's weren't clear, nor fair, and have ultimately had their complaints upheld.

It seems ironic that a mutual building society can create a retrospective and previously unpublished set of T&Cs and criteria for what seems to be a 'financial promotion', and that is deemed to be a positive by some.

Perhaps that is the true benefit (for the organisation, not for the majority of individual members) of being a 'mutual' - being able to do things that the banks would be justly condemned for doing?

WillPS

Rob5342 said:

Section62 said:

WillPS said:

Section62 said:

WillPS said:

Did any of them pay you £100 last year for using their services without advising beforehand that they were going to do so?

That one has been done to death on other threads already - you probably won't agree, but some of us think that approach to distributing profit is the antithesis of how a mutual should work.

WillPS said:

Did/do any of them offer an 8% interest saver?

Monmouthshire BS.  And they outdid Nationwide by paying 8% on £300/month compared to £200/month for NW.  Monmouthshire also launched their product before Nationwide.

And Saffron BS offered 9% to 'loyalty' members, albeit on only £50/month.

@Rob5342 was asking for advantages to banking with a mutual. MonBS and Saffron BS were, last time I checked, mutuals, no?

Yes, they are mutuals as well.

I think Rob5342 was asking the question "Does being a muutal have any practical benefit though? I had a current account with them..." in relation to Nationwide specifically, because he was quoting and replying to my point "Nationwide is meant to be a mutual and being a mutual is supposed to bring benefits to members".  I could be wrong though, and perhaps Rob5342 could clarify?

Yes I meant what benefit does Nationwide being a mutual actually bring in practice.

Nobody else has given me money without announcing it first, but I've got £1000 from switching bonuses, including £150 for switching from Nationwide to Halifax so by leaving them I'm better off than if I'd stayed with them.

I've never had an 8% saver, but a quick look shows that first direct are offering 7% Vs Nationwides 6.8%,.do I still don't seen any practical benefit in them being a mutual.

Nationwide also would have given you £200 for switching to them. Again, not a reason to stay or go neccessarily, but another example where they have been competitive (generous, in some regards) in comparison the market as a whole.

WillPS

Section62 said:

Rob5342 said:

Section62 said:

WillPS said:

Section62 said:

@Rob5342 was asking for advantages to banking with a mutual. MonBS and Saffron BS were, last time I checked, mutuals, no?

Yes, they are mutuals as well.

I think Rob5342 was asking the question "Does being a muutal have any practical benefit though? I had a current account with them..." in relation to Nationwide specifically, because he was quoting and replying to my point "Nationwide is meant to be a mutual and being a mutual is supposed to bring benefits to members".  I could be wrong though, and perhaps Rob5342 could clarify?

Yes I meant what benefit does Nationwide being a mutual actually bring in practice.

Thanks, that did seem to be the logical basis for your question.

TBH I find it slightly odd that the unannounced element of the "Farier share" payment is something being put forward as some kind of positive.  The other examples you mention (e.g. switching bonuses) are (almost) always done on the basis of clear T&C's with the conditions to be eligible for payment set out in advance.

This is "fair" because people know what they have to do to benefit from the offer.  In the case of Co-op (which is why I put "(almost)" above) some forum members were able to complain to FOS on the basis the offer T&C's weren't clear, nor fair, and have ultimately had their complaints upheld.

It seems ironic that a mutual building society can create a retrospective and previously unpublished set of T&Cs and criteria for what seems to be a 'financial promotion', and that is deemed to be a positive by some.

Perhaps that is the true benefit (for the organisation, not for the majority of individual members) of being a 'mutual' - being able to do things that the banks would be justly condemned for doing?

(Since I apparently am allowed now to expand on the fairer share, many thanks...)
Being given £100 for doing something you weren't invited to do but did anyway is objectively a positive for that individual.

If the Co-op (Group) sent me a credit because I spent £100 there (in Co-op food stores) last month to say 'thank you for your loyalty, here's something to show our appreciation, we know you didn't expect it but we want to reward our members', my reaction wouldn't be 'this is morally wrong of you to do this'; it'd be 'OK cool thanks'.

If I learned of such payments going to people who spent £200 there last month I wouldn't be livid that I, as a customer of blah blah years didn't get it but some other blighter did, or question their wisdom for acting as they deem fit for the business I am a member of (but have no say in day-to-day). I might be inclined to think well of them for doing something which acknowledges their roots as a mutual.

Perhaps others more self-entitled than myself might act differently tho.

Section62

WillPS said:

[Deleted User] said:

I'm waiting for someone to tundle out the 8% saver that you could deposit a few hundred pounds a month into as a reason for Nationwide's mutual status...

It's not a 'reason for mutual status', but as the members who took advantage of Nationwide's chart topping 8% offer will tell you, they are a common way for their society to reward them. Members from Monmouthshire, Skipton, Saffron, Tipton, Yorkshire, Mansfield, Suffolk, Bath, West Brom and any other Building Society I've forgotten would likely agree as they too have all been offered eye-catching >6% interest rate savers for eligible members in the last year.

The BiB is something we can probably all agree on.

When, prior to the launch of the 8% RS account in September 2023, did Nationwide last offer a regular saver account of the type we are talking about?

WillPS

Section62 said:

WillPS said:

[Deleted User] said:

I'm waiting for someone to tundle out the 8% saver that you could deposit a few hundred pounds a month into as a reason for Nationwide's mutual status...

It's not a 'reason for mutual status', but as the members who took advantage of Nationwide's chart topping 8% offer will tell you, they are a common way for their society to reward them. Members from Monmouthshire, Skipton, Saffron, Tipton, Yorkshire, Mansfield, Suffolk, Bath, West Brom and any other Building Society I've forgotten would likely agree as they too have all been offered eye-catching >6% interest rate savers for eligible members in the last year.

The BiB is something we can probably all agree on.

When, prior to the launch of the 8% RS account in September 2023, did Nationwide last offer a regular saver account of the type we are talking about?

2019? https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2019/04/nationwide-to-pull-5--regular-saver-this-friday/

There were other regular savers in the interim period (I think they were called 'Start to Save') but they were of the 'decent rate + prizes' variety rather than chart toppers.

Why?

Section62

WillPS said:

Section62 said:

Rob5342 said:

Section62 said:

WillPS said:

Section62 said:

@Rob5342 was asking for advantages to banking with a mutual. MonBS and Saffron BS were, last time I checked, mutuals, no?

Yes, they are mutuals as well.

I think Rob5342 was asking the question "Does being a muutal have any practical benefit though? I had a current account with them..." in relation to Nationwide specifically, because he was quoting and replying to my point "Nationwide is meant to be a mutual and being a mutual is supposed to bring benefits to members".  I could be wrong though, and perhaps Rob5342 could clarify?

Yes I meant what benefit does Nationwide being a mutual actually bring in practice.

Thanks, that did seem to be the logical basis for your question.

TBH I find it slightly odd that the unannounced element of the "Farier share" payment is something being put forward as some kind of positive.  The other examples you mention (e.g. switching bonuses) are (almost) always done on the basis of clear T&C's with the conditions to be eligible for payment set out in advance.

This is "fair" because people know what they have to do to benefit from the offer.  In the case of Co-op (which is why I put "(almost)" above) some forum members were able to complain to FOS on the basis the offer T&C's weren't clear, nor fair, and have ultimately had their complaints upheld.

It seems ironic that a mutual building society can create a retrospective and previously unpublished set of T&Cs and criteria for what seems to be a 'financial promotion', and that is deemed to be a positive by some.

Perhaps that is the true benefit (for the organisation, not for the majority of individual members) of being a 'mutual' - being able to do things that the banks would be justly condemned for doing?

(Since I apparently am allowed now to expand on the fairer share, many thanks...)
Being given £100 for doing something you weren't invited to do but did anyway is objectively a positive for that individual.

If the Co-op (Group) sent me a credit because I spent £100 there (in Co-op food stores) last month to say 'thank you for your loyalty, here's something to show our appreciation, we know you didn't expect it but we want to reward our members', my reaction wouldn't be 'this is morally wrong of you to do this'; it'd be 'OK cool thanks'.

If I learned of such payments going to people who spent £200 there last month I wouldn't be livid that I, as a customer of blah blah years didn't get it but some other blighter did, or question their wisdom for acting as they deem fit for the business I am a member of (but have no say in day-to-day). I might be inclined to think well of them for doing something which acknowledges their roots as a mutual.

Perhaps others more self-entitled than myself might act differently tho.

Have Co-op ever done something like that?

I'd be in the 'this is morally wrong of you to do this' camp myself.  AIUI the distribution of profits by Co-op societies is subject to rules, and those rules can only be varied through a democratic process.

If the management of one of the Co-op societies decided to change the rules to use some arbitrary retrospective criteria - say only those members who purchased a packet of sausage rolls on 8th March 2024 - then there would be justified criticism of their actions.

That has nothing to do with whether anyone is "self-entitled" or not.  It is about following the rules, and making significant changes only after following an appropriate democratic process.  Nationwide's rules are different to the Co-op's, but the principles of democracy and mutuality should still be applied to big decisions like these.

WillPS

Section62 said:

WillPS said:

Section62 said:

Rob5342 said:

Section62 said:

WillPS said:

Section62 said:

@Rob5342 was asking for advantages to banking with a mutual. MonBS and Saffron BS were, last time I checked, mutuals, no?

Yes, they are mutuals as well.

I think Rob5342 was asking the question "Does being a muutal have any practical benefit though? I had a current account with them..." in relation to Nationwide specifically, because he was quoting and replying to my point "Nationwide is meant to be a mutual and being a mutual is supposed to bring benefits to members".  I could be wrong though, and perhaps Rob5342 could clarify?

Yes I meant what benefit does Nationwide being a mutual actually bring in practice.

Thanks, that did seem to be the logical basis for your question.

TBH I find it slightly odd that the unannounced element of the "Farier share" payment is something being put forward as some kind of positive.  The other examples you mention (e.g. switching bonuses) are (almost) always done on the basis of clear T&C's with the conditions to be eligible for payment set out in advance.

This is "fair" because people know what they have to do to benefit from the offer.  In the case of Co-op (which is why I put "(almost)" above) some forum members were able to complain to FOS on the basis the offer T&C's weren't clear, nor fair, and have ultimately had their complaints upheld.

It seems ironic that a mutual building society can create a retrospective and previously unpublished set of T&Cs and criteria for what seems to be a 'financial promotion', and that is deemed to be a positive by some.

Perhaps that is the true benefit (for the organisation, not for the majority of individual members) of being a 'mutual' - being able to do things that the banks would be justly condemned for doing?

(Since I apparently am allowed now to expand on the fairer share, many thanks...)
Being given £100 for doing something you weren't invited to do but did anyway is objectively a positive for that individual.

If the Co-op (Group) sent me a credit because I spent £100 there (in Co-op food stores) last month to say 'thank you for your loyalty, here's something to show our appreciation, we know you didn't expect it but we want to reward our members', my reaction wouldn't be 'this is morally wrong of you to do this'; it'd be 'OK cool thanks'.

If I learned of such payments going to people who spent £200 there last month I wouldn't be livid that I, as a customer of blah blah years didn't get it but some other blighter did, or question their wisdom for acting as they deem fit for the business I am a member of (but have no say in day-to-day). I might be inclined to think well of them for doing something which acknowledges their roots as a mutual.

Perhaps others more self-entitled than myself might act differently tho.

Have Co-op ever done something like that?

I'd be in the 'this is morally wrong of you to do this' camp myself.  AIUI the distribution of profits by Co-op societies is subject to rules, and those rules can only be varied through a democratic process.

If the management of one of the Co-op societies decided to change the rules to use some arbitrary retrospective criteria - say only those members who purchased a packet of sausage rolls on 8th March 2024 - then there would be justified criticism of their actions.

That has nothing to do with whether anyone is "self-entitled" or not.  It is about following the rules, and making significant changes only after following an appropriate democratic process.  Nationwide's rules are different to the Co-op's, but the principles of democracy and mutuality should still be applied to big decisions like these.

Not in quite that form, but they have in the past printed out credits to use against next shops for members, particularly in the years following the dividend being suspended. No democratic vote took place on that, it was just a retail incentive - as was the case with the subsequent 'Member Reward' scheme (and when they took that away in January). They are a business and they can promote themselves as they see fit, including giving vouchers to people. The fact they are owned by members and there is (in theory) a dividend which could be used instead does not stop them.

I think your comparison is pretty wild; the criteria used by Nationwide to determine members with an active savings/mortgage plus a current account which is being used or has been switched to were pretty generous. It's similar to retargeting with a generous incentive; there'll always be winners and losers in such promotions, such is life.

Section62

WillPS said:

Section62 said:

WillPS said:

[Deleted User] said:

I'm waiting for someone to tundle out the 8% saver that you could deposit a few hundred pounds a month into as a reason for Nationwide's mutual status...

It's not a 'reason for mutual status', but as the members who took advantage of Nationwide's chart topping 8% offer will tell you, they are a common way for their society to reward them. Members from Monmouthshire, Skipton, Saffron, Tipton, Yorkshire, Mansfield, Suffolk, Bath, West Brom and any other Building Society I've forgotten would likely agree as they too have all been offered eye-catching >6% interest rate savers for eligible members in the last year.

The BiB is something we can probably all agree on.

When, prior to the launch of the 8% RS account in September 2023, did Nationwide last offer a regular saver account of the type we are talking about?

2019? https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2019/04/nationwide-to-pull-5--regular-saver-this-friday/

Thanks.  That was the one I was thinking of, and remembered Nationwide saying they were pulling it because it attracted the wrong kind of customers.

In fact from the article you linked to -

What does Nationwide say?

A spokesperson for Nationwide said the regular saver isn't reaching its intended market. 

She said: "The [regular savings] account was launched to help members new to saving get into the savings habit. However, the significant majority (86%) are opened by existing savers and, on average, members with the account have around £20,000 saved with Nationwide in other accounts."

So how might we square the agreed suggestion that these regular savers are "a common way for their society to reward them" with the Nationwide spokesperson's belief this account "was launched to help members new to saving get into the savings habit" and that members with existing savings (which is a lot of us) were (paraphrasing) the wrong kind of customer?

Nationwide pulling the RS account from their product lineup in 2019 was a slap in the face to members who had built up savings with Nationwide.

So please forgive the scepticism when I hear that Nationwide's belated launch of that 8% regular saver is somehow proof of the benefits of mutuality.  It was launched because Nationwide wanted to grab a headline as part of their marketing strategy, and replaced by a worse product as soon as they thought they could get away with it.

Albermarle

Rob5342 said:

Could one of you actually explain what critical features the Nationwide app is lacking?
Genuine question as I am not sure what I am missing.

No transaction notifications

No budgeting features

No pots to seperate money

No card controls

No pin reminders

No ability to see debit card number in the app

No cheque pay in feature

No ability to set up new payess, have to use the card reader

No ability to see all payments made to one shop

No pay nearby people feature

No split the bills feature

No cashback on certain retailers

No ability to see direct debts due to be taken in the next day or two

No ability to see other accounts with open banking

New accounts take days to appear

No ability to see tranaction location on a map

No ability to send a link to request money

OK, they might not be absolutely critical and not every bank has all of them, but they make things a lot easier and most banks make at least a half hearted effort to include some of them. Nationwide seem to have no interest whatsoever in implementing anything remotely modern. It's quite bizarre.

I am always surprised how much emotion comes out in any thread about Nationwide ( not referring to you particularly). At the end of the day its a free country and if someone does not like their offering, there are plenty of other banks, and a lot of much more important issues to worry about in the world.
However as you kindly answered my question in some detail, I will respond as follows.

I can see what you mean about the number of potential facilities missing. In fact I have credit cards with Halifax and Barclaycard, and certainly the former does have some potentially useful items, like Pin reminders and being able to block the card ( and the additional card) in many different ways.
Apart from that the only other one in your list that could be useful, is transaction notifications as that could be a quick way to pick up fraudulent activity.
No ability to set up new payess, have to use the card reader
For info this has changed just in the last few days, if you register your photo with them the card reader will be redundant. So progress !

WillPS

Section62 said:

WillPS said:

Section62 said:

WillPS said:

[Deleted User] said:

I'm waiting for someone to tundle out the 8% saver that you could deposit a few hundred pounds a month into as a reason for Nationwide's mutual status...

It's not a 'reason for mutual status', but as the members who took advantage of Nationwide's chart topping 8% offer will tell you, they are a common way for their society to reward them. Members from Monmouthshire, Skipton, Saffron, Tipton, Yorkshire, Mansfield, Suffolk, Bath, West Brom and any other Building Society I've forgotten would likely agree as they too have all been offered eye-catching >6% interest rate savers for eligible members in the last year.

The BiB is something we can probably all agree on.

When, prior to the launch of the 8% RS account in September 2023, did Nationwide last offer a regular saver account of the type we are talking about?

2019? https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2019/04/nationwide-to-pull-5--regular-saver-this-friday/

Thanks.  That was the one I was thinking of, and remembered Nationwide saying they were pulling it because it attracted the wrong kind of customers.

In fact from the article you linked to -

What does Nationwide say?

A spokesperson for Nationwide said the regular saver isn't reaching its intended market. 

She said: "The [regular savings] account was launched to help members new to saving get into the savings habit. However, the significant majority (86%) are opened by existing savers and, on average, members with the account have around £20,000 saved with Nationwide in other accounts."

So how might we square the agreed suggestion that these regular savers are "a common way for their society to reward them" with the Nationwide spokesperson's belief this account "was launched to help members new to saving get into the savings habit" and that members with existing savings (which is a lot of us) were (paraphrasing) the wrong kind of customer?

Nationwide pulling the RS account from their product lineup in 2019 was a slap in the face to members who had built up savings with Nationwide.

So please forgive the scepticism when I hear that Nationwide's belated launch of that 8% regular saver is somehow proof of the benefits of mutuality.  It was launched because Nationwide wanted to grab a headline as part of their marketing strategy, and replaced by a worse product as soon as they thought they could get away with it.

Because their intention in 2019 differed from their intention in 2023? The base rate at the time was under 1% and had been for less than a decade. The society's profits were steady but far lower than they have been.

Ultimately this comes down to entitlement. Your principal argument is that Nationwide should be doing either what you want them to do or what you think would be fairest or what the membership thinks would be fairest. That isn't how 'it' works or how they work. So long as they are not jeopardising the sustainability of the business they have a right to get on with that. You have a right to choose where your savings go and a separate right to democratically vote on allowing those with responsibility to crack on or not. Outside of resolutions passed at AGMs, yourself and other members have no say and (so long as it isn't affecting the sustainability of the business) they can define 'fair'. If you don't think it is fair, then that's fine, but that doesn't change the definition of fair they've come to. 

Furthermore there isn't a playbook for how a Building Society must act in the event of a surplus. There are a range of possibilities, including (but not limited to) investment in investment in back office, interest rates, additional marketing and acquisitions. They get to pick which, how much and what form exactly - not the members.

I might think that acquiring Virgin Money is great news as it'll expand the society's reach in to new areas. Someone else might take the view that acquiring Virgin Money is bad news because it'll mean there's a banking subsidiary, even temporarily, with a lesser reputation on "ethics" than they'd care to be involved in. Both views are valid personal views, they could even be valid reasons to decide to do more or less business with the society, but neither are in any way binding on the board of the society.