NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

Mark789

KingVardas wrote: »

Originally Posted by hilaryconn Is it a coincidence that Taggart Holdings went bust at same time as money began to fly out of PMU. Did people in know realize that their downfall would crash the PMU and deserted the 'sinking ship'. Who would have okayed that size of loan if this is true and i don't recall them being Presbyterian. I have just been trying to work things out, might not be on right path !


FYI: It would be advisable for people to check facts before making allegations. Even a cursory check shows that Taggart Holdings was placed in administration by its bankers who were the Bank of Ireland and Ulster Bank, not the PMS.

Kingvardas

I can understand you concern over making allegations, but that is not how I read the original post. It reads as a set of questions and asks for input. Also, the fact that UB and BoI put Taggart into administration in no way rules out PMU being a creditor.

fivealive_2

goodbyepci wrote: »

What exactly did the Directors do then?

• How often did they meet?
• Did they all decide on lending policy eg upper limits for loans and types of loans, we all know about the development land and buy to lets, but someone said on this board that congregations had been refused loans recently.............why?
• What about their recent risk management strategy, were they all involved in that?
• Why was the number of Directors increased as the Society grew?
• If only 4-5 knew what was going on, what was the point?

I think we may be being told more "porkies" again crazymess?

"Nothing to do with me, I wasn't on the loans committee"

:cool:

A similar (but not identical) discussion took place on this Forum in early February.
At that stage OldJohn in post 840 commented:
"I once held a role similar to the Directors (not with any financial Inst.) I along with other Non paid folk carried a decision making function but our decisions were based on information we were given by the Paid Manager. I felt at times I was a rubber stamper!! How much detail did the Directors go into on the day to day running of the Society. How often did they meet? I would imagine that the paid Manager was responsible for the running of the Society, if not legally certainly morally."
:think:

Bannside_2

crazymess wrote: »

Who was the main person responsible for lending out the money and why is he still employed? Surely the Administrator knows enough information now to get on with his work!!! -

Bit scary that one person was responsible for managing 310 million pounds!!! Of course there was a Loans Committee - made of a 4 possibly 5 Directors.

http://www.presbyterianireland.org/news/news2003/news0450.html

This an interesting article from June 2003.....it says that the fund was managed by three full time staff and there were 17 directors! Not sure how may there are now...but 17 seems like quite a high number!

D.A.

Bannside wrote: »

it says that the fund was managed by three full time staff

No it doesn't, it says that the *Society* was managed by three full time staff, at least one of whom (I would guess) would only be a secretary.

goodbyepci

The actual wording from the press release

"The Society is governed by a Board of 17 Directors representing a range of expertise and is managed on a day to day basis by three full-time staff"

goodbyepci

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7908836.stm

Bannside_2

D.A. wrote: »

No it doesn't, it says that the *Society* was managed by three full time staff, at least one of whom (I would guess) would only be a secretary.

Thanks D.A. for my lesson in semantics....call it what you will fund/society/mutual/PMS......apologies if my use of the colloquial and vernacular caused confusion!! :rotfl:

OldJohn

Anyone who has been in the office would be met by pleasant helpful staff who seemed to carry out the day to day work, decisions regarding loans etc. would be made by THE Secretary CF, assume he took info too Loans Committee for approval - don't know what info was given to them. I believe he had authority to give loans up to some limit. Regarding my earlier post that has just been quoted, as I said I don't regard myself as stupid, but I was conned, puting my trust in the paid member of the organisation who didn't actually tell lies, but didn't tell us what we should have been told. I felt a right !!!! when it all came out and was defending him right up to when it all fell apart. Sometimes everything is not black and white, and yes I felt very betrayed and responsible i.e. if only I had asked....... I'm not defending the Directors or saying they have no responsibility, they do, and I'm quite sure they know this.

crazymess

Bannside - your post re - press release 2003 - important as this is done by S Lynas who is PR person for PCI - why would he get involved in PMS things when its nothing to do with the PCI?



CAN ANYBODY GET HOLD OF 1983 GENERAL ASSEMBLY MINUTES????

goodbyepci

crazymess wrote: »

CAN ANYBODY GET HOLD OF 1983 GENERAL ASSEMBLY MINUTES????

If you write to/email PCI they should send you a copy.