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

26left

eskbanker said:

Having said that, my understanding remains that the objective of the petition was essentially to deliver an SGM, rather than trying to build critical mass as such, so, once the threshold of 500 qualifying members is met (plus some contingency), it doesn't really matter whether 5,000 or 50,000 sign it, i.e. there's no intrinsic value in larger numbers?

Looks like the campaign is evolving. See this piece published today that coincided with crossing the 4,000 petition signatories milestone, looking beyond the SGM attempt, to the AGM and beyond.  

What’s next for the campaign

• Objective is to give members a say on the deal
• SGM request deemed "not valid" and a second one can't happen until September after 4 month lockout period around the AGM, so what's next
• Recognises three different categories of supporters under the same objective: 1) “the democrats”, 2) “the undecided” and 3) those “against”
• Timeline in terms of things that could upset the deal in the short / medium / long terms goals 
• Then goes on to list 7 different ways the deal could be disrupted and/or members get a say.

boingy

Kersland said:

I am concerned about who will benefit from the buyout <snip>

It will be the directors, and regardless of the outcome they will line their pockets just the same. If it turns ugly they will just shrug and move on to their next "big thing". Kinda like politicians do...

friolento

boingy said:

Kersland said:

I am concerned about who will benefit from the buyout <snip>

It will be the directors, and regardless of the outcome they will line their pockets just the same. If it turns ugly they will just shrug and move on to their next "big thing". Kinda like politicians do...

Assuming your prediction is correct and that you don't like it: how would a members' vote prevent it from happening?

26left

friolento said:

boingy said:

Kersland said:

I am concerned about who will benefit from the buyout <snip>

It will be the directors, and regardless of the outcome they will line their pockets just the same. If it turns ugly they will just shrug and move on to their next "big thing". Kinda like politicians do...

Assuming your prediction is correct and that you don't like it: how would a members' vote prevent it from happening?

A member campaign could organise a vote against the re-election of directors at the AGM? So replace them with better ones?

masonic

26left said:

friolento said:

boingy said:

Kersland said:

I am concerned about who will benefit from the buyout <snip>

It will be the directors, and regardless of the outcome they will line their pockets just the same. If it turns ugly they will just shrug and move on to their next "big thing". Kinda like politicians do...

Assuming your prediction is correct and that you don't like it: how would a members' vote prevent it from happening?

A member campaign could organise a vote against the re-election of directors at the AGM? So replace them with better ones?

I'm already inclined to vote against on the basis of last year's (un)fairer share payment. I don't expect it to make the slightest difference, though, due to the quick vote option.

badmemory

I haven't read all this thread fairly obviously.  But I am a long time member who has done quite nicely thank you out of being with the Nationwide without having to spend all my time shifting my money around.  There have been some comments about it ceasing to be a mutual but that they really cannot do without a vote of those that are entitled to vote on that issue.  Which are long term members only.  A lot of us are long term members to a large extent because we wish them to remain mutual.  Just to be clear for me to vote against remaining as a mutual there would have to be more on the table than ten times what there was when the Lancastrian was sold to Northern Rock & we all know what a success that was.

gt94sss2

badmemory said:

 There have been some comments about it ceasing to be a mutual but that they really cannot do without a vote of those that are entitled to vote on that issue.  Which are long term members only.  

I'm not sure that is correct.

All members would be able to vote on demutalisation but only the longer ones would be eligible for shares etc. 

Though Nationwide did once say if they decided to change status, they would give newer members their share as well..

badmemory

gt94sss2 said:

badmemory said:

 There have been some comments about it ceasing to be a mutual but that they really cannot do without a vote of those that are entitled to vote on that issue.  Which are long term members only.  

I'm not sure that is correct.

All members would be able to vote on demutalisation but only the longer ones would be eligible for shares etc. 

Though Nationwide did once say if they decided to change status, they would give newer members their share as well..

Yes you are correct sorry about that.  However every new member does sign to say they agree to NOT getting a share if they change status.  So that could prove interesting.  However if they do demutalise I would take my cut & then all my money, which will obviously impact them seriously (I wish).  Apart from anything else it would be unsafe to leave all the money with them that they have at present.

Section62

badmemory said:

gt94sss2 said:

badmemory said:

 There have been some comments about it ceasing to be a mutual but that they really cannot do without a vote of those that are entitled to vote on that issue.  Which are long term members only.  

I'm not sure that is correct.

All members would be able to vote on demutalisation but only the longer ones would be eligible for shares etc. 

Though Nationwide did once say if they decided to change status, they would give newer members their share as well..

Yes you are correct sorry about that.  However every new member does sign to say they agree to NOT getting a share if they change status.  So that could prove interesting.  However if they do demutalise I would take my cut & then all my money, which will obviously impact them seriously (I wish).  Apart from anything else it would be unsafe to leave all the money with them that they have at present.

Nationwide - through their '(un)fairer share' - have demonstrated they can decide to give any amount of money to any members they wish, and they don't need a member vote to approve it.  So let's say for the purposes of discussion that Nationwide had sufficient cash to give each excluded member the same amount of money as those who were members prior to the charitable assignment - such that all members would get a windfall regardless of status.  So how might a demutualisation vote go then?

I'd invite anyone who might disagree to point to what in the legislation or rules of the society prevents that hypothetical situation happening if it were something the Board believed was in the interests of the membership.

This is one of the reasons why I'm uncomfortable with the idea that big decisions can be made with very little consultation and no need for members to vote. The Board and senior management team currently have a worrying level of freedom to act, and do so whilst the rules neuter the membership's ability to hold them to account.

badmemory

The reason for the original agreement was to avoid new members joining just to ensure demutualisation.  Changing the voting regulations may change the outcome of the vote but the only ones who would suffer from the outcome of that vote would be the charities that were due to be the recipients.  I have no idea how much impact they would have on that if any.  If they do have any then knowing charities I would expect the reaction to be strong & a bit loud.