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

eskbanker

Middle_of_the_Road said:

97 signatures so far. Seems like there are people not happy with this proposal.
Vote or not, they will do as they please, but good to see members challenging this already bloated society.

So about 0.0006% of the society's members, about a week after the petition was started - it's not exactly storming the barricades, is it?

Money_Grabber13579

I really don’t understand why there is such annoyance about this. Yes, members might, in theory, own Nationwide however in practical terms, this means nothing. A membership interest isn’t an asset which can be sold and with demutualisation bonuses now being assigned to charity, there’s nothing to be gained from that either. 

Is there a concern that nationwide might offer worse products as a result of taking over virgin? Or be a weaker building society? If it is, there are plenty of other financial institutions out there which we can all avail of. It’s not like there have been any significant benefits for members in nationwide being a building society in recent years (fairer share payment aside). Likewise there would be no real benefits or losses if it ceased to be a building society.

as such, my reaction to the proposed takeover? Meh.

Londonlisa12

The only winners are the board and directors who’s salary and huge bonuses will increase at double digit %, whilst they continue to offer us the owners of the mutual pathetic rates apart from a gimmick regular saver where you are allowed to pay in next to nothing.
It’s a bit like the Glaziers buying Man Utd using Man Utd equity and then creaming off all the profits for themselves in the form of Dividends and multi million pound bonuses and salary. 

The parasites on the board will not be risking a penny of their own money that is for sure.
This is what she pocketed two years ago when she joined.over  £70000  a week and no doubt far more now.it’s obscene and her greed has no bounds.
https://www.cityam.com/bonanza-pay-deal-of-up-to-3-4m-for-new-nationwide-chief-executive/

[Deleted User]

friolento said:

Although a Nationwide  member for decades, I am in no position to judge what the pros and cons of this takeover are. It's the job of the Nationwide Board to decide. If there was a vote, I wouldn't vote in it. I reckon there will be millions of other members in the same situation.

I also won't sign the petition as I don't want Nationwide to spend money responding to the petition.

I certainly think the CEO and board have only a passing interest being a Building Society for it members; It's very naïve to think otherwise given their recent actions. 

I fail to see any rationale behind actively not voting over something that you have ownership of - a very British/English attitude to life.

Londonlisa12

No doubt the “fairer share “ payment that would have gone directly into members pockets will be cancelled this year to pay for the purchase and huge payments to the board.

spider42

Money_Grabber13579 said:

Is there a concern that nationwide might offer worse products as a result of taking over virgin? Or be a weaker building society?

No, I think the concern for many is what could be done instead with the £2.9bn they are paying for Virgin. Some of it could be returned to members instead, either as a direct cash payment (along the lines of the Fairer Share Payment) or (my preference) by offering more competitive products. Nationwide's interest rates are, generally speaking, pretty poor. The only competitive savings account they currently offer is the regular saver, which is capped at £200 per month. They don't even offer a 'normal' instant access ISA, just one which allows three withdrawals a year, which is a strange omission from the largest building society.

There are numerous studies of mergers and acquisitions which show that the majority are judged to be failures (percentage varies from study to study, but most put the failure rate between 70% and 90%). But takeovers still happen, as each board of directors has an ego and they all believe they will be able to do a better job than all of those other companies that have failed with takeovers in the past.

If Nationwide want to get bigger, then here's a radical idea - they could attract new members (or get existing members to increases their balances) by offering more attractive products and just grow the business organically. That would put more money in members pockets, and grow the business at the same time, without having to shell out £2.9bn to Virgin's shareholders for the privilege.

Londonlisa12

100% correct, Easy access saver a pathetic 2.35% when plenty of others offer over 5%.

Like earlier said the only people who will benefit are the directors and the starving CEO.

They keep spouting “Proud to be different “ that is a sick joke.

SonOfPearl

The merits or otherwise of Nationwide's product offerings are irrelevant to the matter at hand. Others here have patiently explained (in this thread and the previous similar one) why a member vote on the issue is highly unlikely to be possible let alone desirable. Being a mutual organisation does not mean the members (including me) are entitled to second guess complicated business decisions such as these. Any such vote would be utterly pointless. 

artyboy

I'm suddenly concerned for the long term safety of the £100 I've had in my carpetbagging membership account with them for the past 35 years...





(No, I'm not. Really, I'm not...)

Section62

Money_Grabber13579 said:

I really don’t understand why there is such annoyance about this. Yes, members might, in theory, own Nationwide however in practical terms, this means nothing.....

It isn't a "theory".

It is a matter of fact that mutual building societies are owned by their members in accordance with the rules and memorandum of the society.

Or in Nationwide's own words - "Unlike the banks we are owned by our members, not shareholders."

https://www.nationwide.co.uk/about-us/