VOTE now! Proposed take over of Virgin Money - Nationwide members should be given a vote

eskbanker

Surely the question here isn't whether the IT integration would be risky and expensive, but by how much (if any) would it be more risky and expensive than the NW board understands, based on what will presumably be detailed and informed analysis?

PosterBoy77

eskbanker said:

Surely the question here isn't whether the IT integration would be risky and expensive, but by how much (if any) would it be more risky and expensive than the NW board understands, based on what will presumably be detailed and informed analysis?

The documents they have issued admit that they have not yet carried out any detailed work on how they will integrate the businesses or what will be involved. They plan to setup a group to look into the details after the purchase.

It therefore does not look like any detailed and informed analysis has been carried out at this stage.

wmb194

PosterBoy77 said:

Hoenir said:

Views of City anaylsts are that the NW are paying well below book value for the assets.  On top there'll be cost savings as the longer term restructuring takes effect. 

If that were really true, then the market would have valued it more than it did before Nationwide proceeded to announce its intended purchase.

With regard to cost savings, they will be a very long time coming. Nationwide would need to spend a further billion at least integrating the IT systems which are currently totally disjointed. In addition they will need to take on the pension liabilities and deal with the branch network and staff redundancy costs.

It is a recipe for disaster for Nationwide members.

No, for ages and ages lots of banks have been valued well below book. The problem is that the market has been sceptical of the book values plus it's never been convinced of the earnings capability of Clydesdale aka Virgin Money.

WillPS

spider42 said:

Foxhouse said:
I bet you that at least some involved are hoping for a demutualisation payday; these people haven't gone away.

I don't see how the takeover of Virgin has got anything to do with demutualisation of Nationwide. If anything, surely a transaction which makes Nationwide more like a bank is going to increase the likelihood of a future demutualisation, rather than reducing it? So carpetbaggers would surely be supporting the Virgin deal?

The takeover makes no difference to the chances of demutualisation (which are and would remain near-zero for the forseeable). The impact of the merger is almost irrelevant - it's perceived by this contingent as an opportunity to seize control of the agenda.

The vitriolic invasion @Foxhouse referred to was unsuccessful and that left many embittered. Most have moved on with their lives at this point but a few have not accepted the jig's up (even though it very clearly is) and that niche is disproportionately represented on these boards. You can tell them a mile off - the big tell is usually an allusion to their member share valuation (there's more than a few already in this thread) - I can't think of any good reason why a society member would be at all interested in that, other than demutualisation.

They try the same thing at every AGM - I always watch out for the thread as they try to get momentum behind either a specific motion or simply voting against the board's pay scheme. It doesn't seem to matter how futile such things are, they'll return every single year, always with some supposed motive to mask their true one. Of course none of them get anywhere.

Every provider of banking services gets a good amount of complaining from customers on here - sometimes for individual customer service issues, others for things like marketing/branding and occasionally people who feel marginalised by a promotion - but when it's Nationwide's turn you can bet your bottom dollar there'll be a contingent who try to divert the discussion and present the Nationwide as an organisation in turmoil, having some kind of existential crisis or unable to do a good job for members. It's been going on as long as I've been reading these boards. It becomes an echo chamber of members of this tiny contingent and you can almost see them geeing each other up in realtime.

The real fun starts when the masks slip and they start conjuring up convoluted routes by which a new board could be installed, Charitable Assignment could be undone or worked around and a demutualisation proposal could finally be made to stick. Riveting stuff - with those boxes thoroughly and completely ticked you'd just need to sort the lack of market demand for such a thing given the precedent set by the already-pillaged societies of Northern Rock, Bradford & Bingley, Halifax...

Beware any Nationwide member who claims to be deeply concerned with the business and strategy of their society, is what I've learned.

26left

WillPS said:

spider42 said:

Foxhouse said:
I bet you that at least some involved are hoping for a demutualisation payday; these people haven't gone away.

I don't see how the takeover of Virgin has got anything to do with demutualisation of Nationwide. If anything, surely a transaction which makes Nationwide more like a bank is going to increase the likelihood of a future demutualisation, rather than reducing it? So carpetbaggers would surely be supporting the Virgin deal?

The takeover makes no difference to the chances of demutualisation (which are and would remain near-zero for the forseeable). The impact of the merger is almost irrelevant - it's perceived by this contingent as an opportunity to seize control of the agenda.

The vitriolic invasion @Foxhouse referred to was unsuccessful and that left many embittered. Most have moved on with their lives at this point but a few have not accepted the jig's up (even though it very clearly is) and that niche is disproportionately represented on these boards. You can tell them a mile off - the big tell is usually an allusion to their member share valuation (there's more than a few already in this thread) - I can't think of any good reason why a society member would be at all interested in that, other than demutualisation.

They try the same thing at every AGM - I always watch out for the thread as they try to get momentum behind either a specific motion or simply voting against the board's pay scheme. It doesn't seem to matter how futile such things are, they'll return every single year, always with some supposed motive to mask their true one. Of course none of them get anywhere.

Every provider of banking services gets a good amount of complaining from customers on here - sometimes for individual customer service issues, others for things like marketing/branding and occasionally people who feel marginalised by a promotion - but when it's Nationwide's turn you can bet your bottom dollar there'll be a contingent who try to divert the discussion and present the Nationwide as an organisation in turmoil, having some kind of existential crisis or unable to do a good job for members. It's been going on as long as I've been reading these boards. It becomes an echo chamber of members of this tiny contingent and you can almost see them geeing each other up in realtime.

The real fun starts when the masks slip and they start conjuring up convoluted routes by which a new board could be installed, Charitable Assignment could be undone or worked around and a demutualisation proposal could finally be made to stick. Riveting stuff - with those boxes thoroughly and completely ticked you'd just need to sort the lack of market demand for such a thing given the precedent set by the already-pillaged societies of Northern Rock, Bradford & Bingley, Halifax...

Beware any Nationwide member who claims to be deeply concerned with the business and strategy of their society, is what I've learned.

Wow - and I thought I was cynical! 

Nationwide come out very well from the independent assessment of customer satisfaction. Virgin Money not so much. 

I do not want to see Nationwide demutualised. Mutuals are a really important force for good in industries where shareholder backed entities are otherwise able to operate unchecked. The more mutuals in the market, the fewer ombudsman complaints. 

What I want to see is that they adhere to mutual principles of 1 member, 1 vote - and that key decisions that will have a significant impact on the future of the organisation are put to a vote.

gravel_2

PosterBoy77 said:

eskbanker said:

Surely the question here isn't whether the IT integration would be risky and expensive, but by how much (if any) would it be more risky and expensive than the NW board understands, based on what will presumably be detailed and informed analysis?

The documents they have issued admit that they have not yet carried out any detailed work on how they will integrate the businesses or what will be involved. They plan to setup a group to look into the details after the purchase.

It therefore does not look like any detailed and informed analysis has been carried out at this stage.

There is a limit to what can actually be explored as part of confidential M&A discussions vs what can be known after you've actually bought the target. Remember that until the acquisition goes ahead NW and VM are competitors and, to a certain extent, have to continue to act as such.

It's entirely believable that they haven't been able to carry out detailed analysis but it would be surprising (and negligent) if they had not conducted ordinary due diligence on this topic. 

WillPS

26left said:

WillPS said:

spider42 said:

Foxhouse said:
I bet you that at least some involved are hoping for a demutualisation payday; these people haven't gone away.

I don't see how the takeover of Virgin has got anything to do with demutualisation of Nationwide. If anything, surely a transaction which makes Nationwide more like a bank is going to increase the likelihood of a future demutualisation, rather than reducing it? So carpetbaggers would surely be supporting the Virgin deal?

The takeover makes no difference to the chances of demutualisation (which are and would remain near-zero for the forseeable). The impact of the merger is almost irrelevant - it's perceived by this contingent as an opportunity to seize control of the agenda.

The vitriolic invasion @Foxhouse referred to was unsuccessful and that left many embittered. Most have moved on with their lives at this point but a few have not accepted the jig's up (even though it very clearly is) and that niche is disproportionately represented on these boards. You can tell them a mile off - the big tell is usually an allusion to their member share valuation (there's more than a few already in this thread) - I can't think of any good reason why a society member would be at all interested in that, other than demutualisation.

They try the same thing at every AGM - I always watch out for the thread as they try to get momentum behind either a specific motion or simply voting against the board's pay scheme. It doesn't seem to matter how futile such things are, they'll return every single year, always with some supposed motive to mask their true one. Of course none of them get anywhere.

Every provider of banking services gets a good amount of complaining from customers on here - sometimes for individual customer service issues, others for things like marketing/branding and occasionally people who feel marginalised by a promotion - but when it's Nationwide's turn you can bet your bottom dollar there'll be a contingent who try to divert the discussion and present the Nationwide as an organisation in turmoil, having some kind of existential crisis or unable to do a good job for members. It's been going on as long as I've been reading these boards. It becomes an echo chamber of members of this tiny contingent and you can almost see them geeing each other up in realtime.

The real fun starts when the masks slip and they start conjuring up convoluted routes by which a new board could be installed, Charitable Assignment could be undone or worked around and a demutualisation proposal could finally be made to stick. Riveting stuff - with those boxes thoroughly and completely ticked you'd just need to sort the lack of market demand for such a thing given the precedent set by the already-pillaged societies of Northern Rock, Bradford & Bingley, Halifax...

Beware any Nationwide member who claims to be deeply concerned with the business and strategy of their society, is what I've learned.

Wow - and I thought I was cynical! 

Nationwide come out very well from the independent assessment of customer satisfaction. Virgin Money not so much. 

I do not want to see Nationwide demutualised. Mutuals are a really important force for good in industries where shareholder backed entities are otherwise able to operate unchecked. The more mutuals in the market, the fewer ombudsman complaints. 

What I want to see is that they adhere to mutual principles of 1 member, 1 vote - and that key decisions that will have a significant impact on the future of the organisation are put to a vote.

Apologies if I have marked you incorrectly but in that case you should know that your petition has definitely drawn attention from those with a different intention.

I respectfully disagree with your principled position - primarily because I don't see the value in seeking the opinions of unmotivated defacto 'owners' and secondarily because such a motion would be at risk of being hijacked by those who don't have the society's ongoing interests at heart.

I also believe the business should be able to operate with agility - forcing a postal ballot could have torpedo'd this or future acquisitions. If the business is to compete then it must be able to be a force within the market, and not be passive to it - that includes the ability to merge with or takeover others.

I'm not concerned about recorded customer satisfaction levels - partly because I think they're a load of rubbish (note how there's always a considerable gap between Natwest and RBS despite the two being effectively the same operation in terms of product range, support, branch network etc), but even if I did believe in them I see nothing to suggest Nationwide will be importing Virgin Money's motley selection of systems and services in to the mothership - and logically I think it'd be unlikely they'd want to give up their relatively well integrated system for anything they have. 

eskbanker

gravel_2 said:

PosterBoy77 said:

eskbanker said:

Surely the question here isn't whether the IT integration would be risky and expensive, but by how much (if any) would it be more risky and expensive than the NW board understands, based on what will presumably be detailed and informed analysis?

The documents they have issued admit that they have not yet carried out any detailed work on how they will integrate the businesses or what will be involved. They plan to setup a group to look into the details after the purchase.

It therefore does not look like any detailed and informed analysis has been carried out at this stage.

There is a limit to what can actually be explored as part of confidential M&A discussions vs what can be known after you've actually bought the target. Remember that until the acquisition goes ahead NW and VM are competitors and, to a certain extent, have to continue to act as such.

It's entirely believable that they haven't been able to carry out detailed analysis but it would be surprising (and negligent) if they had not conducted ordinary due diligence on this topic. 

Yes, obviously there'd be significantly more detail available post-acquisition, but the point is that before, during and after the VM/NW discussions thus far, there'll have been a lot more information available to the bidder than to Joe Public, i.e. the NW board will be much better informed than anyone posting on here, except perhaps any who happen to be senior VM insiders.

26left

WillPS said:

26left said:

WillPS said:

spider42 said:

Foxhouse said:
I bet you that at least some involved are hoping for a demutualisation payday; these people haven't gone away.

I don't see how the takeover of Virgin has got anything to do with demutualisation of Nationwide. If anything, surely a transaction which makes Nationwide more like a bank is going to increase the likelihood of a future demutualisation, rather than reducing it? So carpetbaggers would surely be supporting the Virgin deal?

The takeover makes no difference to the chances of demutualisation (which are and would remain near-zero for the forseeable). The impact of the merger is almost irrelevant - it's perceived by this contingent as an opportunity to seize control of the agenda.

The vitriolic invasion @Foxhouse referred to was unsuccessful and that left many embittered. Most have moved on with their lives at this point but a few have not accepted the jig's up (even though it very clearly is) and that niche is disproportionately represented on these boards. You can tell them a mile off - the big tell is usually an allusion to their member share valuation (there's more than a few already in this thread) - I can't think of any good reason why a society member would be at all interested in that, other than demutualisation.

They try the same thing at every AGM - I always watch out for the thread as they try to get momentum behind either a specific motion or simply voting against the board's pay scheme. It doesn't seem to matter how futile such things are, they'll return every single year, always with some supposed motive to mask their true one. Of course none of them get anywhere.

Every provider of banking services gets a good amount of complaining from customers on here - sometimes for individual customer service issues, others for things like marketing/branding and occasionally people who feel marginalised by a promotion - but when it's Nationwide's turn you can bet your bottom dollar there'll be a contingent who try to divert the discussion and present the Nationwide as an organisation in turmoil, having some kind of existential crisis or unable to do a good job for members. It's been going on as long as I've been reading these boards. It becomes an echo chamber of members of this tiny contingent and you can almost see them geeing each other up in realtime.

The real fun starts when the masks slip and they start conjuring up convoluted routes by which a new board could be installed, Charitable Assignment could be undone or worked around and a demutualisation proposal could finally be made to stick. Riveting stuff - with those boxes thoroughly and completely ticked you'd just need to sort the lack of market demand for such a thing given the precedent set by the already-pillaged societies of Northern Rock, Bradford & Bingley, Halifax...

Beware any Nationwide member who claims to be deeply concerned with the business and strategy of their society, is what I've learned.

Wow - and I thought I was cynical! 

Nationwide come out very well from the independent assessment of customer satisfaction. Virgin Money not so much. 

I do not want to see Nationwide demutualised. Mutuals are a really important force for good in industries where shareholder backed entities are otherwise able to operate unchecked. The more mutuals in the market, the fewer ombudsman complaints. 

What I want to see is that they adhere to mutual principles of 1 member, 1 vote - and that key decisions that will have a significant impact on the future of the organisation are put to a vote.

Apologies if I have marked you incorrectly but in that case you should know that your petition has definitely drawn attention from those with a different intention.

I respectfully disagree with your principled position - primarily because I don't see the value in seeking the opinions of unmotivated defacto 'owners' and secondarily because such a motion would be at risk of being hijacked by those who don't have the society's ongoing interests at heart.

I also believe the business should be able to operate with agility - forcing a postal ballot could have torpedo'd this or future acquisitions. If the business is to compete then it must be able to be a force within the market, and not be passive to it - that includes the ability to merge with or takeover others.

I'm not concerned about recorded customer satisfaction levels - partly because I think they're a load of rubbish (note how there's always a considerable gap between Natwest and RBS despite the two being effectively the same operation in terms of product range, support, branch network etc), but even if I did believe in them I see nothing to suggest Nationwide will be importing Virgin Money's motley selection of systems and services in to the mothership - and logically I think it'd be unlikely they'd want to give up their relatively well integrated system for anything they have. 

Clearly this is where you and I disagree. My fear of people jumping on the bandwagon who want demutualisation is secondary to the damage I think this deal could do to Nationwide. 

As to the deal being torpedo’d due to holding a vote - I don’t see the risk when (a) VM shareholders are yet to vote and (b) no one else is bidding for VM.

More important to me is the ethos of the Building Society Act which clearly states a deal of this size and type should be put to a vote. Virgin Money is not another small building society. 

PosterBoy77

eskbanker said:

gravel_2 said:

PosterBoy77 said:

eskbanker said:

Surely the question here isn't whether the IT integration would be risky and expensive, but by how much (if any) would it be more risky and expensive than the NW board understands, based on what will presumably be detailed and informed analysis?

The documents they have issued admit that they have not yet carried out any detailed work on how they will integrate the businesses or what will be involved. They plan to setup a group to look into the details after the purchase.

It therefore does not look like any detailed and informed analysis has been carried out at this stage.

There is a limit to what can actually be explored as part of confidential M&A discussions vs what can be known after you've actually bought the target. Remember that until the acquisition goes ahead NW and VM are competitors and, to a certain extent, have to continue to act as such.

It's entirely believable that they haven't been able to carry out detailed analysis but it would be surprising (and negligent) if they had not conducted ordinary due diligence on this topic. 

Yes, obviously there'd be significantly more detail available post-acquisition, but the point is that before, during and after the VM/NW discussions thus far, there'll have been a lot more information available to the bidder than to Joe Public, i.e. the NW board will be much better informed than anyone posting on here, except perhaps any who happen to be senior VM insiders.

You might think so, but I don't agree. I have a background in IT and senior management making acquisitions of companies normally don't concern themselves much with these details as it could get in the way of the bigger picture. They will expect others to just wave a magic wand to fix things later.