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

pafpcg

26left said:

Exodi said

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

What does point 8 mean? 

What prices?  And why would the likelihood of members entering into distressed circumstances increase as a result of the proposed merger?

eskbanker

pafpcg said:

26left said:

Exodi said

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

What does point 8 mean? 

What prices?  And why would the likelihood of members entering into distressed circumstances increase as a result of the proposed merger?

Presumably OP meant "mortgage rates"?

WillPS

If so it's a pretty daft argument in a market with ~200 competitors and a combined market share which would be roughly the same size as LBG when all is said and done.

Section62

masonic said:

26left said:

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"

I'd suggest "waste" is an opinion, rather than fact.

More so as the Memorandum and Rules make provision for (all/part) of the costs to be recovered from those requesting the SGM at a rate of £50 per person - which given there are now 909 names could equal a sum of £45,450 if all names go as far as submitting their 'letter' and paying their £50.

If the complaint is that Nationwide's democratic process is unduly expensive resulting in such "waste" then the alternative to denying members a say might be to introduce a process where members had some kind of input without such excessive costs.  And if Nationwide are that hard up, I'm sure members can suggest some money saving ideas to compensate.  I'd guess the cost of the SGM could be somewhat less than one primetime TV advert.

I'd also query the use of "detriment of all members".  It is fairly clear from this thread alone that some members have learnt quite a bit about how building societies work, and as a result of the petition have declared they will become an active rather than passive member.  Is it really "detriment" if we learn something new about an organisation we own, and become sufficiently enthused to take part, rather than just grumbling/observing from the sidelines?

boingy

That list needs honing down to the strongest 3 or 4 points for maximum impact.
Otherwise you dilute the argument and it starts to sound like "and another thing....".

Not that they will take any notice of it.

masonic

Section62 said:

masonic said:

26left said:

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"

I'd suggest "waste" is an opinion, rather than fact.

More so as the Memorandum and Rules make provision for (all/part) of the costs to be recovered from those requesting the SGM at a rate of £50 per person - which given there are now 909 names could equal a sum of £45,450 if all names go as far as submitting their 'letter' and paying their £50.

If the complaint is that Nationwide's democratic process is unduly expensive resulting in such "waste" then the alternative to denying members a say might be to introduce a process where members had some kind of input without such excessive costs.  And if Nationwide are that hard up, I'm sure members can suggest some money saving ideas to compensate.  I'd guess the cost of the SGM could be somewhat less than one primetime TV advert.

I'd also query the use of "detriment of all members".  It is fairly clear from this thread alone that some members have learnt quite a bit about how building societies work, and as a result of the petition have declared they will become an active rather than passive member.  Is it really "detriment" if we learn something new about an organisation we own, and become sufficiently enthused to take part, rather than just grumbling/observing from the sidelines?

It is a fact that attempting to force a SGM in this manner is not the most efficient way to achieve some of the aims. Other aims cannot be achieved by the actions. So "waste" is an appropriate description. Especially when it would have been possible to add a motion to the upcoming AGM until last week. The very same fact could be used to level criticism at the board for putting members into a situation where they felt they should take this action, from which there will surely be no winners.

Including "detriment to all members" follows from the assumption of mutuality. It is a fact that the society ultimately belongs to its members and they ultimately bear the cost of inefficiencies and waste. Some with other biases would use this very same fact to argue against the acquisition.

The main characteristic of bias is that it weaves facts together into a narrative that removes context and focuses on a narrow perspective. My example did this quite well I think and would only be as objectionable to a supporter of the petition as some of the content proposed above would be to someone supportive of seeing the acquisition through. The point being, if you want broad appeal for your arguments, it is better to take a more balanced approach than use a tribal narrative that would fire up your support base.

But on the final point about us gaining from the discussion that has ensued, I'd agree wholeheartedly that it has been very useful. I have changed my personal view about whether there should have been a vote and am now in agreement that it should have happened. I don't think the petition or any actual request for a SGM was a necessary prerequisite for our discussion here. I also remember some very important learning points and engagement arising from the (un)fairer share threads, where no SGM resulted.

As for whatever happens next, I hope the OP keeps us informed. I'm keen to see how this plays out, and it will at least be a silver lining to see the rules of the society working in practice.

Foxhouse

During the height of carpetbagging, there were plenty of members who voted against 'their own interests' and against mutuality, which saw the demise of many traditional societies.

It was only a determined, daily effort by members of staff engaging with members over many months, coupled with huge advertising and marketing, that saw Nationwide win crunch votes, and then only by a relatively narrow margin.

Remember, discussions on here don't, in my experience, reflect the real world. Opinions expressed here don't necessarily reflect what the greater population is thinking. This forum, as useful as it is to those who use it, is to all intents and purposes, an echo chamber.

Just sayin'. 

 

Section62

Foxhouse said:

...

Remember, discussions on here don't, in my experience, reflect the real world. Opinions expressed here don't necessarily reflect what the greater population is thinking. This forum, as useful as it is to those who use it, is to all intents and purposes, an echo chamber.

Just sayin'. 

The traditional method of finding out what the "real world" thinks is to hold a one-person-one-vote ballot.  Not relying on the opinion of those who think they know best (and sometimes believing that the 'little people' are too stupid to have a valid opinion).

So why are some people in this "echo chamber" apparently so implacably opposed to members having a say - whether through a vote, or sometimes even just talking about the issue?

As for this forum being an "echo chamber", to a degree it is.  But MSE is a respected site and the forum team have indicated in an earlier post that at least part of the media have shown an interest in how this topic is being discussed here.

So maybe it isn't just an echo chamber sometimes. Maybe the "real world" occasionally takes note?

WillPS

MSE is an authority. MSE Forum is a mixture of things but rarely an authority. The media (right wing especially) loves lathering up readers with tales of how they're being done wrong. It's not hard to see why such a thread might be of interest to them; that still doesn't mean that the forum is a good reflection of reality or vice-versa.

I refer the learned member to all the attempts in previous years to cause trouble at AGM, going back the entire history of this forum.

IanManc

boingy said:

That list needs honing down to the strongest 3 or 4 points for maximum impact.
Otherwise you dilute the argument and it starts to sound like "and another thing....".

Not that they will take any notice of it.

This reminds me of when judges interrupt rambling advocates with: "Mr/Miss Xxxx, can you give me your best point?".

If you lead with a very strong, or even unanswerable, argument then your opponents have great difficulty. If you muddy the waters with a lot of weaker points then you opponent will concentrate on possibly successfully demolishing the weak points while ignoring the strongest one in the hope it gets forgotten in the fog of battle.