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

masonic

WillPS said:

masonic said:

I don't think Section62 or anyone else contributing to this thread has designs of getting themselves onto the board of Nationwide to ram through such a change. Even if so, it would likely be just as futile as attempting to change the rules via a petition or motion at a GM, as they'd need to get elected and find a majority within the board for such a plan first of all.

Agree; but that's not the same as willing others to disrupt the business to achieve the same aim.

Then I am confused about who is being accused of trying to be clever. The only incitement to disrupt the business is from the campaign. I've not seen any intent to be 'clever' in any actions they have taken so far. Is the thinking that bungling the petition attempt was deliberate subterfuge, and beneath the surface lies a cunning plan to let the acquisition proceed while using the campaign as a recruitment ground for a carpetbagger's coup? I'm not one for conspiracy theories.

friolento

I am having nightmares at the thought of having the 16 million Nationwide members in charge of the company's strategy and policies. Should it ever happen, I will immediately end my 24 year (so far) membership.

WillPS

masonic said:

WillPS said:

masonic said:

I don't think Section62 or anyone else contributing to this thread has designs of getting themselves onto the board of Nationwide to ram through such a change. Even if so, it would likely be just as futile as attempting to change the rules via a petition or motion at a GM, as they'd need to get elected and find a majority within the board for such a plan first of all.

Agree; but that's not the same as willing others to disrupt the business to achieve the same aim.

Then I am confused about who is being accused of trying to be clever. The only incitement to disrupt the business is from the campaign. I've not seen any intent to be 'clever' in any actions they have taken so far. Is the thinking that bungling the petition attempt was deliberate subterfuge, and beneath the surface lies a cunning plan to let the acquisition proceed while using the campaign as a recruitment ground for a carpetbagger's coup? I'm not one for conspiracy theories.

I'm not going to finger point, but there are certain members who have post histories which will reveal they are clearly motivated by a desire to engineer a situation such that they'd get their payday. 

As you can see, they don't like being reminded of this because it's incongruous with the argument that their objection is anything to do with democracy or the society's sustainability. 

I would care far less if they were straight forward about it, as some are, and simply stated their interest and that they will take any and all opportunities to assert their displeasure. It'd be a helpful nudge to members like myself who had always passed up on the democratic opportunities provided that there is still a real threat from other members intent on maximising theirs with differing intentions.

eskbanker

26left said:

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.

That's blurring the boundaries - I was talking about the petition, signed specifically by those who wished to add their name to the list of those proposing an SGM, for which there's a clearly published fixed threshold figure of 500.

The wider campaign spun off from that original petition and, while it's not an unreasonable assumption that most petition signatories will support a broader campaign, that's not necessarily what everyone (especially the early ones) were pitching for, when there was no mention of active disruption, etc, so to me they are essentially separate entities, and the campaign should naturally benefit from volume, unlike the petition.

26left

Latest update from the campaign states that "Nationwide are using Virgin Money swap income to deny member vote"

There's a much longer press release published this morning which also tackles some recent correspondence between the campaign and the society secretary in a lot of detail:

Nationwide members demand “clarity and balance” on proposed Virgin Money deal and rationale for denying vote

WillPS

Appreciate this is run by people who clearly don't know what they're doing rather than professionals, but that press release is an absolute mess. Why was it embargoed? What within it was time sensitive?

Why, if you're trying to use an embargo for maximal impact would you time it for just as the media began coverage of the local elections?

The section at the bottom appears to shift in function from being a bit-by-bit take apart of recent correspondence to being yet another diatride, veering in to jingoism at times. I gave up half way through as I found it increasingly inpenetrable.

Clown show.

Interesting that they're factoring in swaps tho.

gravel_2

I love the way these people type.

masonic

It would seem members of the press have respected the embargo, perhaps even giving a little more time to be on the safe side.

friolento

This much longer press release is a superb example for a "How Not To" course for budding communication professionals

26left

masonic said:

It would seem members of the press have respected the embargo, perhaps even giving a little more time to be on the safe side.

Agreed, there was limited pickup in the press - there was this piece in the Mail on Sunday / ThisIsMoney yesterday: 

Baroness Bowles: Nationwide using sneaky tactics to avoid Virgin vote

friolento said:

This much longer press release is a superb example for a "How Not To" course for budding communication professionals

The campaign is run by volunteers working part-time, so no great surprise that they’re not the best at PR. Seem to be keeping the story alive though given they’re up against a reported £1.4M spend on PR with one of the 10 largest PR firms globally: FGSglobal (known pre-merger as Finsbury). 

WillPS said:

Interesting that they're factoring in swaps tho.

I find that interesting too. I think the campaign has a point as to whether this inclusion by Nationwide's board is "morally and legally safe" (from the long notes under the press release): 

Campaign press release:

"A mortgager pays income to Virgin Money as payment for the mortgage, and as part of the mortgage contract Virgin Money registers a charge on the title of the mortgager’s property as security. Please explain how a swap contract between Virgin Money and a financial counterparty is contractually linked to a secured loan – or whichever such way that the board is comfortable that Nationwide is abiding by the spirit of the law."

The jump in "Swap income/other" from 104M in the prior year to 600M in 2023 (against just 1,537M of mortgage income) also looks somewhat unusual - perhaps it's just a temporary blip given the move from 1% to 5% money, so as new fixed mortgage are issued and rates stay relatively level, this swap income will dissipate back to its previously level? Perhaps another reason for pushing a deal through this year.



FYI, another campaign update was published yesterday:

5K supporters, sneaky swap income, misleading communications debunked, and more great press coverage