NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

Nomad25

Monday's NL letter

Sorry, not up on this abbreviation, is it Newsletter? If so, let me know,I'll have a go.

Nomad25

Oh right, forget last post, I just scrolled back! I will see if I can get the link for you.

Nomad25

This is proving more difficult than I thought, but look at this wording of an article:

Newspaper article from our research archive:
CORNERSTONE: From strength to strength.(Features)

Article from: The News Letter (Belfast, Northern Ireland) Article date: September 24, 2005
A MUTUAL society, started by the Presbyterian Church in Ireland for the benefit of Presbyterians 20 years ago, has announced after its annual meeting this wek that its total assets at the year ended March 2005 amounted to pounds 134million which enabled the society to pay a ...

This link takes you to all articles in a random manner re the PMS.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-137442918.html

I changed the type to red. Being MSE minded I wouldn't sign up for more info. Hope I haven't breeched any copyrights.

D.A.

goodbyepci wrote: »

While the Moderator the Rev Dr Donald Patton and his party head off to Eastern Europe, Presbyterain Mutual Society members have to suffer in silence

No offence to the writer, but what exactly does he/she think the Moderator could achieve by staying at home (for one week)? Does the writer just think the Moderator should completely forget the other parts of his role and concentrate 24/7 on the PMS?

It would seem that some are allowing their (justifiable) hurt to make them lose all common sense. Also, I have a feeling that there are a few who may be using this just to have a go at PCI...

Campaigning and writing to newspapers is well and good, but for goodness sake, stick to FACTS and remember who it was who caused this problem in the first place (hint: it wasn't the Moderator).

Nomad25

I will see if I can get the link for you.

Well this is all very embarassing . I have tried searching the Newsletter and various other archives and cannot get the link - sorry I have to admit defeat.

crazymess

d.a. wrote: »

no offence to the writer, but what exactly does he/she think the moderator could achieve by staying at home (for one week)? Does the writer just think the moderator should completely forget the other parts of his role and concentrate 24/7 on the pms?

It would seem that some are allowing their (justifiable) hurt to make them lose all common sense. Also, i have a feeling that there are a few who may be using this just to have a go at pci...

Campaigning and writing to newspapers is well and good, but for goodness sake, stick to facts and remember who it was who caused this problem in the first place (hint: It wasn't the moderator).

It is not the Moderator's fault - but like it or loathe it they linked and should start to take some responsiblity for allowing their name to be used and for benefitting from our savings over all these years!!!!!!!!!!

Take for example the presbyterian orphan society - are they any relation to the presbyterian church in ireland??????????? Not legally but but but .................

dmxdave

So will all the bickering make any difference to the outcome.......

D.A.

crazymess wrote: »

BUT HE DOES HEAD THE ORGANISATION THAT LET THE PMS MISLEAD US!!!!

Yes, and exactly how long had he been in the job when the PMS situation occurred? That's right - about 5 months. So how exactly could he have done anything about it? And the PMS misled you themselves, and need to take responsibility for that themselves.

crazymess wrote: »

LIKE IT OR LOATHE IT THEY ARE IN THIS UP TO THEIR WHATEVERS AND SHOULD START TO TAKE SOME RESPONSIBLITY FOR ALLOWING THEIR NAME TO BE USED AND FOR BENEFITTING FROM OUR SAVINGS OVER ALL THESE YEARS!!!!!!!!!!

"They, they, they". Do you realise how the structure of PCI actually works? This "they" is actually made up of thousands of people like you, who elect elders who attend the General Assembly to make decisions on your behalf. If you don't like how PCI and PMS were 'linked', then it's up to you to get your elder to say something about it at this year's General Assembly. But I would guess that most of you won't bother, and will expect this mysterious "them" to do something about it.

By the way, how exactly did PCI benefit from your savings? It didn't - the people who benefited were the investors and congregations; PCI as an organisation didn't benefit.

goodbyepci

Quote D.A.
"By the way, how exactly did PCI benefit from your savings? It didn't - the people who benefited were the investors and congregations; PCI as an organisation didn't benefit"


to quote Rev Sidlow McFarland in his Chairman's report 2007 accounts.

"A useful resource for our Church in its building and renovation activities We fund most of this work carried out by our congregations and are pleased to see their vision for the future......................We are delighted to have a part in helping them"
Later he says
"Our Society is one of the great successes of our Church"

The words of an ordained Presbyterian minister m'lud
Referring to his Church the PCI

I rest my case

:rolleyes:

D.A.

goodbyepci wrote: »

"A useful resource for our Church in its building and renovation activities We fund most of this work carried out by our congregations and are pleased to see their vision for the future......................We are delighted to have a part in helping them"

I ask again: how exactly did PCI as a corporate body gain from the PMS? Answer: it didn't. PCI *as a whole* made no profit from the PMS.

Congregations also made no profit from PMS. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but any congregation which got a loan from PMS would have ended up paying back more money than they borrowed. The only gain for the congregation was in getting easier access to money than would have been available from a bank.

The only people who made any direct profit from the PMS were those who invested in shares and who were paid a dividend (ok, ok, so some congregations may have done this also).

I'll repeat what I've said all along:

Were PCI wrong to have given the impression that they were linked to the PMS? Absolutely, and someone really should have spotted this at the time. Now, PCI needs to do some serious soul-searching to make sure that something like this can't happen again. I would also suggest PCI at Church House level needs to start becoming much more accountable as to how money given by congregations is actually spent (but that's another story...).

Should PCI or ministers have been giving investment advice? Absolutely not.

Should the PMS have stated that "the values of investments can go down as well as up" on its adverts, etc.? Yes, and I can't for the life of me understand why they didn't do this.

Should the PMS have diversified into areas in which it had no real expertise (or legal remit), and should it have grown as quickly as it did? No, definitely not.

But hindsight is great. Like investors with the big banks, no-one complained while the profits seemed to be rolling in. I feel sorry for all the everyday folk who were sucked into the PMS and have lost their savings, but someone with financial nous should have spotted this situation coming a mile off.

However, I will say this again. Directing your anger at PCI is wasting your energy, because they cannot do anything about this situation. Pursue every avenue you can against those who were involved in the running of PMS, and after you've won that battle, make sure that you push your ministers and voting elders to ensure that PCI learns its lesson from this shambles.