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

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

masonic

Finally a comment from Nationwide on the issue: "A Nationwide spokesman said the campaigners' calculations were 'wrong, misleading and ill-informed'.

'Any serious and accurate assessment of the test set out in the Act must take into account all relevant income, including from liquidity and hedging associated with mortgage activity,' he added."

So it looks like there is a clear justification for not having a vote, and something that the campaign can test in court if they really believe Nationwide has wrong.

26left

masonic said:

Finally a comment from Nationwide on the issue: "A Nationwide spokesman said the campaigners' calculations were 'wrong, misleading and ill-informed'.

'Any serious and accurate assessment of the test set out in the Act must take into account all relevant income, including from liquidity and hedging associated with mortgage activity,' he added."

So it looks like there is a clear justification for not having a vote, and something that the campaign can test in court if they really believe Nationwide has wrong.

Quite a tetchy comment from the spokesman, perhaps the campaign hit a nerve?

I think challenging in court is definitely a route the campaign is considering - see their recent call for volunteers including “legal experts”. Would need someone to either represent pro bono or the campaign to raise funds though. 

masonic

26left said:
I think challenging in court is definitely a route the campaign is considering - see their recent call for volunteers including “legal experts”. Would need someone to either represent pro bono or the campaign to raise funds though. 

I'd imagine a fund raise would be needed even if the campaign is able to find free legal support. Either that or have a lot of members joined to the legal action. Nationwide will inevitably have costs in defending any legal claim, and if they do so successfully, a costs order may be awarded in their favour. It would not be very good for Mikael if he gets lumbered with that personally and potentially has to then rely on the kindness of fellow campaign members to chip in after the fact. But with over 5,000 signatories to the campaign and 250 active supporters on facebook, it should not be hard to find people willing to chip in to the legal campaign. It is in the interests of any member who really believes they will be personally disadvantaged by this deal, has confidence in the campaign, and is convinced by the case that the vote is legally required, to contribute. Like the SGM petition, the money could be refundable upon winning the case. The legal advice the campaign receives would need to be quite compelling, however.