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

[Deleted User]

As a member of Nationwide I request (i) the opportunity to vote on the proposed deal and (ii) to be provided with sufficient information ahead of the vote to enable me to evaluate for myself the detailed case/s which the Nationwide Board has itself considered in coming to their decision to agree the deal to acquire Virgin Money UK. The rationale underpinning these requests are: (i) The proposed deal is of sufficient magnitude and significance for the future of Nationwide to warrant the members of Nationwide having a say on the matter (ii) All of the publicly available information about the perception of Virgin Money's customers of the customer service they have received from  Virgin Money indicates that the latter is on average relatively poor, e.g. the 000's of ratings stretching over the last 10 years of VM customer service to be found on Trust Pilot, have scored VM an average of c. 1.7 stars out of 5 stars. The latter is similar to Nationwide's own Trust Pilot rating (c. 1.8 stars). Whether in retail or business banking customer service performance is and will continue to be a key performance parameter. However, with their own customers' ratings of Nationwide as relatively poor on that dimension I remain to be convinced that Nationwide has the requisite vision and/ or skills to turn around Virgin Money's AND Nationwide's performance in that regard, hence my second request to be provided with the same information that convinced the Nationwide Board to go ahead with the deal, so that I can arrive at a conclusion on the merits, risks and overall value for money of the proposed deal.

WillPS

LHW99 said:

Exodi said:

Section62 said:

It is a fairly fundamental principle of democratic processes that everyone gets to vote, regardless of whether they fully understand what they are voting for.

I think after Brexit I'm becoming less convinced, part of me thinks that people probably shouldn't get to vote on things they don't understand!

Having clever people wade through strategy and technical legalese all day is one of the main reasons we have a parliament.

Sounds as if you don't support the idea of General (other) elections then

It's a very flawed analogy, but forgiving that a second we have what you might consider analoguous to an 'election' at AGM every year, when directors are appointed and the remuneration policy passed. As with an election, it's broadly up to them to get on with their job, as it is up to politicians to get on with theirs until their term is up.

What's happening here is indeed closer* to a demand for a referendum. (*not close)

WillPS

[Deleted User] said:

All of the publicly available information about the perception of Virgin Money's customers of the customer service they have received from  Virgin Money indicates that the latter is on average relatively poor, e.g. the 000's of ratings stretching over the last 10 years of VM customer service to be found on Trust Pilot, have scored VM an average of c. 1.7 stars out of 5 stars. The latter is similar to Nationwide's own Trust Pilot rating (c. 1.8 stars). Whether in retail or business banking customer service performance is and will continue to be a key performance parameter. However, with their own customers' ratings of Nationwide as relatively poor on that dimension I remain to be convinced that Nationwide has the requisite vision and/ or skills to turn around Virgin Money's AND Nationwide's performance in that regard, hence my second request to be provided with the same information that convinced the Nationwide Board to go ahead with the deal, so that I can arrive at a conclusion on the merits, risks and overall value for money of the proposed deal.

... and, with respect, this is a great case in point as to why members in my opinion shouldn't be relied upon to decide whether individual business manuevers should or should not happen. Takeovers this size are complex and it's too easy for stuff like a 0.1 difference on a (meaningless, I would argue) TrustPilot score to influence an uninformed member.

We're not talking about a business we've all collectively purchased shares in; if our capital was at risk you might argue there's a financial imperative to carefully study the deal, but it isn't. We're talking about a business which people end up having a membership in whether they want it or not; the vast majority of whom have no desire to participate in the business or democratic arrangements at all, they just want decent financial services for themselves.

The board shouldn't have to convince members individually of the righteousness of their individual decisions. They are paid based (and their reputations rest) upon them doing a good job, and they should be allowed the space to do that. If you feel they aren't doing a good job, then perhaps you could seek some way to express that point of view at the AGM.

Welcome to the board btw

eskbanker

[Deleted_User] said:

All of the publicly available information about the perception of Virgin Money's customers of the customer service they have received from  Virgin Money indicates that the latter is on average relatively poor, e.g. the 000's of ratings stretching over the last 10 years of VM customer service to be found on Trust Pilot, have scored VM an average of c. 1.7 stars out of 5 stars. The latter is similar to Nationwide's own Trust Pilot rating (c. 1.8 stars). Whether in retail or business banking customer service performance is and will continue to be a key performance parameter. However, with their own customers' ratings of Nationwide as relatively poor on that dimension I remain to be convinced that Nationwide has the requisite vision and/ or skills to turn around Virgin Money's AND Nationwide's performance in that regard

So your conclusion is that low Trustpilot scores for both businesses means that the Nationwide board doesn't know what they're doing, rather than, say, highlighting how unreliable such scores are as an indicator of anything useful?

Both scores comfortably exceed those of Ryanair, who go from strength to strength financially, despite such numbers - I'm not for a moment suggesting that other businesses should aim to emulate Ryanair's distinctive take on customer service, but just highlighting that Trustpilot scores are a pretty one-dimensional method of assessing the performance of any company, especially in businesses such as banking, where similar or worse scores are commonplace among their (NW/VM) high street peers.

Exodi

LHW99 said:

Exodi said:

Section62 said:

It is a fairly fundamental principle of democratic processes that everyone gets to vote, regardless of whether they fully understand what they are voting for.

I think after Brexit I'm becoming less convinced, part of me thinks that people probably shouldn't get to vote on things they don't understand!

Having clever people wade through strategy and technical legalese all day is one of the main reasons we have a parliament.

Sounds as if you don't support the idea of General (other) elections then

It's obvious what you are trying to do.

[Deleted User] said:

As a member of Nationwide I request (i) the opportunity to vote on the proposed deal
<snip>
VM customer service to be found on Trust Pilot, have scored VM an average of c. 1.7 stars out of 5 stars. The latter is similar to Nationwide's own Trust Pilot rating (c. 1.8 stars). Whether in retail or business banking customer service performance is and will continue to be a key performance parameter.

Also with respect, this is exactly what I mean.

26left

Exodi said

Your proposition of providing a "clear accompanying statement for and against" (effectively trying to quickly educate people on the matter) is wrought with issues of bias, again as was seen with Brexit. Who would provide the against points?

Let's suppose you in your OP are right, the Nationwide board is primarily interested in this merger so they can give themselves and their mates a big bonus bonanza once the acquisition is completed, what do you suppose an accompanying statement they would provide alongside the vote might say? Do you thinking it would be a damning view about how it's a terrible idea that is catastrophic for members?

Most people don't care about the boring details. As with Brexit, it ended up being very easy to influence people with emotive points like 'getting control of our borders' or plastering big (but false) numbers on the sides of buses. To this day, very few people know what the single market is. Having clever people wade through strategy and technical legalese all day is one of the main reasons we have a parliament. In my opinion the same principle applies to the board at Nationwide.

It’s possible to put forward an accompanying statement of 500 words as per the rules. I expect the petition organiser puts the statement together, I expect with input from others that are requesting a SGM, to pass a binding resolution that the takeover cannot proceed without the majority of members voting in favour.  

I anticipate the statement would summarise many of the valid points raised by others on this forum, eg. 

1/ that there is no significant or substantiated benefit to the current Nationwide members of acquiring Virgin Money
2/ that the proposed acquisition would increase the costs and risks to the society 
3/ that contrary to the chairman’s letter, the society would, objectively, be financially weaker due to lower capital ratios and higher leverage ratios
4/ that board and management have not put forward a comprehensive plan in terms of the post-acquisition activities and costs and how this would impact business as usual performance 
5/ that board and management have not articulated the risks of this proposed deal
6/ that the proposed deal requires a member vote to pass a resolution under simple interpretation (and the spirit) of the law (BSA, 1986)
7/ that logically, faced with additional operating costs and a weaker financial position, this deal would reduce the *amount* of fairer share payouts paid to members - contrary to the sentiment from the chairman suggesting the *likelihood* of payments will increase
8/ that prices would be higher due to higher costs and borrowing being more expensive under a combined group with weaker financial standing, which will increase the likelihood of members entering into distressed circumstances, putting their homes at risk
9/ that service and innovation levels would be lower as Nationwide management and staff will have to spend time and resources on integration and restructuring activities 
10/ that progressing with a deal without a member vote fundamentally breaks with the mutual ethos of “one member, and one vote”, the society’s guiding values of fairness and mission “to build an inclusive culture”

cloud_dog

26left said:

Exodi said

Your proposition of providing a "clear accompanying statement for and against" (effectively trying to quickly educate people on the matter) is wrought with issues of bias, again as was seen with Brexit. Who would provide the against points?

Let's suppose you in your OP are right, the Nationwide board is primarily interested in this merger so they can give themselves and their mates a big bonus bonanza once the acquisition is completed, what do you suppose an accompanying statement they would provide alongside the vote might say? Do you thinking it would be a damning view about how it's a terrible idea that is catastrophic for members?

Most people don't care about the boring details. As with Brexit, it ended up being very easy to influence people with emotive points like 'getting control of our borders' or plastering big (but false) numbers on the sides of buses. To this day, very few people know what the single market is. Having clever people wade through strategy and technical legalese all day is one of the main reasons we have a parliament. In my opinion the same principle applies to the board at Nationwide.

It’s possible to put forward an accompanying statement of 500 words as per the rules. I expect the petition organiser puts the statement together, I expect with input from others that are requesting a SGM, to pass a binding resolution that the takeover cannot proceed without the majority of members voting in favour.  

I anticipate the statement would summarise many of the valid points raised by others on this forum, eg. 

1/ that there is no significant or substantiated benefit to the current Nationwide members of acquiring Virgin Money
2/ that the proposed acquisition would increase the costs and risks to the society 
3/ that contrary to the chairman’s letter, the society would, objectively, be financially weaker due to lower capital ratios and higher leverage ratios
4/ that board and management have not put forward a comprehensive plan in terms of the post-acquisition activities and costs and how this would impact business as usual performance 
5/ that board and management have not articulated the risks of this proposed deal
6/ that the proposed deal requires a member vote to pass a resolution under simple interpretation (and the spirit) of the law (BSA, 1986)
7/ that logically, faced with additional operating costs and a weaker financial position, this deal would reduce the *amount* of fairer share payouts paid to members - contrary to the sentiment from the chairman suggesting the *likelihood* of payments will increase
8/ that prices would be higher due to higher costs and borrowing being more expensive under a combined group with weaker financial standing, which will increase the likelihood of members entering into distressed circumstances, putting their homes at risk
9/ that service and innovation levels would be lower as Nationwide management and staff will have to spend time and resources on integration and restructuring activities 
10/ that progressing with a deal without a member vote fundamentally breaks with the mutual ethos of “one member, and one vote”, the society’s guiding values of fairness and mission “to build an inclusive culture”

Lots of conscious bias here.

masonic

There is certainly danger in diluting the core message with side-swipes within which other members will find things to disagree with. But there is plenty of time to come up with an effective statement over the spring and summer months.

Fundamentally, the key point is that there should have been a vote, and the board engineered the situation such that there wasn't one. It will be easier to convince members of this than that the acquired asset must be disposed of without even trying to make the board's plan work.

26left

cloud_dog said:

26left said:

Exodi said

Your proposition of providing a "clear accompanying statement for and against" (effectively trying to quickly educate people on the matter) is wrought with issues of bias, again as was seen with Brexit. Who would provide the against points?

Let's suppose you in your OP are right, the Nationwide board is primarily interested in this merger so they can give themselves and their mates a big bonus bonanza once the acquisition is completed, what do you suppose an accompanying statement they would provide alongside the vote might say? Do you thinking it would be a damning view about how it's a terrible idea that is catastrophic for members?

Most people don't care about the boring details. As with Brexit, it ended up being very easy to influence people with emotive points like 'getting control of our borders' or plastering big (but false) numbers on the sides of buses. To this day, very few people know what the single market is. Having clever people wade through strategy and technical legalese all day is one of the main reasons we have a parliament. In my opinion the same principle applies to the board at Nationwide.

It’s possible to put forward an accompanying statement of 500 words as per the rules. I expect the petition organiser puts the statement together, I expect with input from others that are requesting a SGM, to pass a binding resolution that the takeover cannot proceed without the majority of members voting in favour.  

I anticipate the statement would summarise many of the valid points raised by others on this forum, eg. 

1/ that there is no significant or substantiated benefit to the current Nationwide members of acquiring Virgin Money
2/ that the proposed acquisition would increase the costs and risks to the society 
3/ that contrary to the chairman’s letter, the society would, objectively, be financially weaker due to lower capital ratios and higher leverage ratios
4/ that board and management have not put forward a comprehensive plan in terms of the post-acquisition activities and costs and how this would impact business as usual performance 
5/ that board and management have not articulated the risks of this proposed deal
6/ that the proposed deal requires a member vote to pass a resolution under simple interpretation (and the spirit) of the law (BSA, 1986)
7/ that logically, faced with additional operating costs and a weaker financial position, this deal would reduce the *amount* of fairer share payouts paid to members - contrary to the sentiment from the chairman suggesting the *likelihood* of payments will increase
8/ that prices would be higher due to higher costs and borrowing being more expensive under a combined group with weaker financial standing, which will increase the likelihood of members entering into distressed circumstances, putting their homes at risk
9/ that service and innovation levels would be lower as Nationwide management and staff will have to spend time and resources on integration and restructuring activities 
10/ that progressing with a deal without a member vote fundamentally breaks with the mutual ethos of “one member, and one vote”, the society’s guiding values of fairness and mission “to build an inclusive culture”

Lots of conscious bias here.

Genuinely interested - what in the above is factually incorrect in your view?

masonic

26left said:

cloud_dog said:

26left said:

Exodi said

Your proposition of providing a "clear accompanying statement for and against" (effectively trying to quickly educate people on the matter) is wrought with issues of bias, again as was seen with Brexit. Who would provide the against points?

Let's suppose you in your OP are right, the Nationwide board is primarily interested in this merger so they can give themselves and their mates a big bonus bonanza once the acquisition is completed, what do you suppose an accompanying statement they would provide alongside the vote might say? Do you thinking it would be a damning view about how it's a terrible idea that is catastrophic for members?

Most people don't care about the boring details. As with Brexit, it ended up being very easy to influence people with emotive points like 'getting control of our borders' or plastering big (but false) numbers on the sides of buses. To this day, very few people know what the single market is. Having clever people wade through strategy and technical legalese all day is one of the main reasons we have a parliament. In my opinion the same principle applies to the board at Nationwide.

It’s possible to put forward an accompanying statement of 500 words as per the rules. I expect the petition organiser puts the statement together, I expect with input from others that are requesting a SGM, to pass a binding resolution that the takeover cannot proceed without the majority of members voting in favour.  

I anticipate the statement would summarise many of the valid points raised by others on this forum, eg. 

1/ that there is no significant or substantiated benefit to the current Nationwide members of acquiring Virgin Money
2/ that the proposed acquisition would increase the costs and risks to the society 
3/ that contrary to the chairman’s letter, the society would, objectively, be financially weaker due to lower capital ratios and higher leverage ratios
4/ that board and management have not put forward a comprehensive plan in terms of the post-acquisition activities and costs and how this would impact business as usual performance 
5/ that board and management have not articulated the risks of this proposed deal
6/ that the proposed deal requires a member vote to pass a resolution under simple interpretation (and the spirit) of the law (BSA, 1986)
7/ that logically, faced with additional operating costs and a weaker financial position, this deal would reduce the *amount* of fairer share payouts paid to members - contrary to the sentiment from the chairman suggesting the *likelihood* of payments will increase
8/ that prices would be higher due to higher costs and borrowing being more expensive under a combined group with weaker financial standing, which will increase the likelihood of members entering into distressed circumstances, putting their homes at risk
9/ that service and innovation levels would be lower as Nationwide management and staff will have to spend time and resources on integration and restructuring activities 
10/ that progressing with a deal without a member vote fundamentally breaks with the mutual ethos of “one member, and one vote”, the society’s guiding values of fairness and mission “to build an inclusive culture”

Lots of conscious bias here.

Genuinely interested - what in the above is factually incorrect in your view?

Calling something biased does not mean that it is factually incorrect. For example, "this petition is going to waste Nationwide's resources to the detriment of all members" is a highly and deliberately biased statement, but factually correct. As is the case with "there is no significant or substantiated benefit to the current Nationwide members of acquiring Virgin Money"