Nationwide boss's £7m pay package is an ‘obscenity', says member of mutual
Concerned members who tuned into the online-only meeting on Friday morning criticised the board's plan to increase Crosbie's maximum payout by 43%, saying the move was out of touch and did not align with the mutual's principles.
One member, Ms Andrews, said: 'No one needs to earn more than £1m in salary, and certainly not £7m.' Another member, Mr Fisher, asked 'Does the CEO see both the irony and the hypocrisy of the size of her bonus: an amount in one year that most people would struggle to spend in a lifetime?'
Meanwhile, a member identified as Dr Standon said that Nationwide already had the option of paying Crosbie up to £4.8m, and that pushing that figure to £7m was 'an obscenity'.
'One would expect Nationwide to set an example to others,' she said.
Nationwide argued that Crosbie's pay rises reflected new demands after its £2.9bn takeover of Virgin Money, and its remuneration should be close to packages offered by rivals including Lloyds Banking Group and NatWest.
'We pay more than most building societies, but then again, we are larger,' the head of Nationwide's remuneration committee, Tracey Graham, said. 'We are five times larger than Coventry, we are more complex, and we are more important to the UK economy than other building societies … We are now the second largest mortgage lender and savings provider in the UK, and yet we pay less than compared to the high street banks.
'Our job is to ensure that we have the very best leaders here at Nationwide, and we do operate in a competitive marketplace. That is what we need to pay them, for us to believe that we are paying them equally or fairly.'
Standon acknowledged that Nationwide had done 'lots of good things for members … and it's commendable that you followed through on the principles behind mutuality by not prioritising profit'. But she said that while the building society claimed to value people over profits, its justification for the rise 'suggests that unfortunately, your executive team are primarily motivated by money'.
'If they do leave purely because of the money, then, is it not the case that they were not in line with Nationwide principles in the first place?' Standon asked.
The Nationwide chair, Kevin Parry, defended the building society's bosses saying: 'I don't think that money is the primary motivation … I'm very confident in saying this is not about personal greed. This is about equity with people that do similar jobs elsewhere.'
Members ultimately gave the green light to the pay policy, and 627,982, or 94.8%, voted in favour. Nationwide said 34,492 members, accounting for 5.2% of voters, rejected the new pay package.
Nationwide's board was criticised by one member over the fact that members were not given a binding votes. Parry, confirmed that while votes to re-elect board members are binding – meaning members have a final say – Nationwide is not required to hold binding votes on pay under building society rules.
Sign up to Business Today
Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning
after newsletter promotion
The board was also forced to admit during the livestreamed AGM that a £316m accounting error was missed by the building society and its auditor EY, and only came to light as a result of one of its eagle-eyed members, Mr Dugan.
Nationwide explained that while it did force the building society to correct its 2024 results, the mistake related to the way it had deducted expenses from its income, but did not affect profitability.
Dugan pushed the matter, saying the error was six times larger than the £55m threshold at which errors are deemed material, meaning the point at which they could end up influencing business decisions. He asked why Nationwide was willing to reappoint EY on that basis.
'We were very grateful last year when you identified the issue,' the chair of Nationwide's audit committee, Phil Rivett, said during the AGM. However, he said the society was still 'very satisfied with the quality of the work they [EY] do, and the challenge that they provide to management on accounting judgments and issues.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
a minute ago
- The Independent
What to know about the Royal Mail changes effective from now
Major changes to Royal Mail 's delivery services have commenced, allowing second-class letters to be delivered on alternate weekdays and no longer on Saturdays. Delivery targets for both first and second-class post have been relaxed, though Ofcom has introduced a new enforceable backstop to ensure 99% of mail arrives within two days of the target. Regulator Ofcom states these reforms are crucial for Royal Mail's survival, aiming to cut annual costs by £250 million to £425 million due to declining letter volumes. The changes follow Royal Mail's £348 million loss in 2023-24 and recent fines for poor performance, with a review into stamp prices also planned. While criticised by consumer and business groups, the overhaul comes after Czech billionaire Daniel Kretinsky's EP Group completed its £3.6 billion takeover of Royal Mail owner IDS.
The Independent
a minute ago
- The Independent
EU-US deal avoids damaging trade war, says Irish premier
The Irish premier has welcomed a new trade agreement between the US and EU as having 'avoided a damaging trade war'. Taoiseach Micheal Martin also said there is 'much to be negotiated' following what he termed a 'framework agreement'. Speaking to the media in Dublin on Monday, Mr Martin said it 'opens up the prospect of more significant strategic collaboration between the US and Europe on quite a number of issues'. 'It also avoids further escalation, or indeed a trade conflict, which would be very, very damaging to the economies of the United States and of the European Union,' he said. 'It's important to say that Europe never sought tariffs, or never sought to impose tariffs, and fundamentally, we are against tariffs: we believe in an open trading economy.' Mr Martin said it is a very different situation than before April 1. 'New realities are in play and so at a broader level, the stability and predictability that this agreement brings is important for businesses, is important for consumers and indeed patients when it comes to the manufacturing and distribution of medicines,' he said. 'In essence, we have avoided a trade conflict here which would have been ruinous, which would have been very damaging to our economy, and to jobs in particular. 'The challenge now for Europe is to work on its own inefficiencies, to reduce barriers within the single market, to press ahead more ambitiously and more proactively on trade diversification and trade deals with other countries that would facilitate that market diversification that is required. 'Meanwhile, there is much to be negotiated in the aftermath of this framework agreement.' Asked about mixed reactions to the deal in Europe, Mr Martin said: 'Nobody is welcoming tariffs with open arms. 'I think we've been consistent in saying that we don't agree with tariffs, that we prefer if there weren't tariffs, but we have to deal with realities. 'I understand people criticising, but given the balance and the options here… in my view, I would appreciate the work of the (European) Commission in this regard, and the avoidance of a trade war is preferable, in my view, and that's the key issue.'
Daily Mail
2 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Loophole that lets you gift without worrying about inheritance tax
I am one of the people that will be adversely affected by Rachel Reeves' unwarranted raid on unused pension pots. Currently, this change will mean an additional inheritance tax charge of about £270,000 for me, if I died. I have been looking at the gifting rules and the sums you can give away are measly, £3,000 each year, or unlimited £250 gifts but only one per person. Harvey Dorset, of This is Money, replies: Recent changes mean that considerably more people are in line to incur inheritance tax bills on their estates in the years to come. Pensions are set to fall into the inheritance tax net from 2027, meaning that many will find their estate is worth well above the inheritance tax allowance. Inheritance tax receipts recently increased to £8.2billion from April 2024 to March 2025, more than £800million higher than the same period a year before. One of the main ways to go about reducing a potential IHT bill is to make the most of gifting allowances to lower the value of your estate. However, the current gifting allowances have been in place since the mid 1980s, with a maximum total annual inheritance tax-free gift limit of £3,000. This has made it all the harder to meaningfully reduce the size of an estate by using this allowance. The rules state: 'On top of the £3,000 annual allowance, the rules stipulate that you can give as many £250 gifts to whomever you like, but this won't be immediately exempt if the recipient received the annual gifting allowance or part of it.' This is where your novel solution comes in. If you can find 400 willing participants – something I dare say you might have trouble with – why can't you give them each £250 to then gift to your two daughters? Unfortunately, as David Denton, tax expert at Quilter Cheviot, discusses below, you might not have found the genius solution that you might think. Luckily though, there are other options that might be available to help you pass your wealth to your two daughters. David Denton, tax expert at Quilter Cheviot, replies: As the tax burden hits a recent high and rumours swirl of more tax rises to come, it is understandable that consumers may wish to find ways to reduce their tax bill. However, the tax authorities are rightly switched on to the potential for abuse of the system and people finding what they think to be new and novel ways to avoid tax. Some may be legitimate but for the vast majority they are likely to cause more problems than it is worth. The UK introduced the 'General Anti–Abuse Rule' (GAAR) in 2013 and this is designed to target those taxpayers who avoid paying tax in ways that are not in the spirit of the rules, despite some aspects being potentially legal. Abusive arrangements can include as a series of pre–ordained steps, where HMRC would look at the overall effect of the series or combination of transactions in order to identify the real purpose. The GAAR applies to a number of personal taxes, including inheritance tax, so if enough tax was at risk, it could come into effect here given there is a pre–planned element and involves a number of people. Instead you should be looking at how they can use the rules to still make substantial gifts. For example, should you expect to live for another seven years then it may be worth making a gift above the £3,000 limit as a potentially exempt transfer. After seven years of being gifted these assets will no longer be taken into account on death and be free from inheritance tax. There are other possibilities for exempt gifts, such as marriage gifts, which can be up to £5000, according to the relationship between the donor and recipient. Finally there is also the option of making gifts out of surplus income, where the gift is part of your normal expenditure and leaves you able to maintain your usual standard of living. These gifts can come from salary, dividends, pension income or rental income, so it does give you some options that are very much within the rules of the UK tax system.
