NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

Nomad25

Hello Josef.

The PMS is not mentioned in our church and we so depend on this thread and all the links.

This is woeful and an utter disgrace. The word evil springs to mind.What does PCI hope to achieve by keeping congregations in the dark?

BelfastGran

I will miss you all over the week end. Will keep writing and Emailing.
Take Care

goodbyepci

BelfastGran wrote: »

I will miss you all over the week end. Will keep writing and Emailing.
Take Care

Have a good weekend BelfastGran, all PMS folk, and our supporters.

I'm going to try to catch up in the garden!


weather permitting ;-)

goodbyepci

Nomad25 wrote: »

Hello Josef.

This is woeful and an utter disgrace. The word evil springs to mind.What does PCI hope to achieve by keeping congregations in the dark?

Same in our church Josef, we didn't get the petition either

Needless to say it's no longer our church!

Ballygal

Sorry if someone else has already posted up a similiar reply to one which i have just received from Clive Barbour who i imagine is shaun woodward's PA.
Here are a few sad truths from our Sec of State for NI!!

'The PMS is not a Building Society, nor a Bank like the Dunfermline Building Society, nor indeed is it a Credit Union - all of which have some degree of financial protection which I shall describe later in this email. The PMS is an Industrial & Provident Society into which people bought shares and invested risk capital. So they are not savers depositing money in say, the Northern Bank or the Progressive Building Society, but shareholders buying an equity stake in the Presbyterian Mutual Society.

All Banks and Building Societies are regulated under the Financial Services & Markets Act and all member organisations contribute a levy that makes them eligible for protection under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme overseen by the Financial Services Authority. (This is the scheme that guarantees savers up to £50,000 of their deposits.) But being an Industrial & Provident Society PMS was not permitted to take deposits as an IPS such as the PMS is prohibited under the legislation from carrying on any banking activities. You will understand that I can't comment on the relationship between the Presbyterian Church in Ireland and the PMS, nor how they marketed the PMS to potential investors as that isn't a matter for Government. I do understand however that the Administrator of the PMS said in his report that he was assisting the Financial Services Authority with enquiries that they are making into how the activities of the PMS were run.

The legislation governing the IPSs is the Industrial and Provident Societies Act (Northern Ireland) 1969. This was an Act of the old Northern Ireland Parliament and means that the governance arrangements for IPSs such as PMS are devolved to Northern Ireland and are not matters for Whitehall Departments like the Treasury. So any assistance or financial guarantee for investors in PMS would have to come from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI) which sponsors the IPS legislation.

You also mention Credit Unions, it is important to point out that a Credit Union is another type of organisation entirely different to banks, building societies and Industrial & Provident Societies. Northern Ireland Credit Unions are devolved and so (like IPSs) are the responsibility of DETI who legislate in respect of them.

'

'Again let me again express my sympathy for you and your family. We have received many other letters from investors who are in a similar situation and it is very sad to see the distress that has been caused but I regret that all can do is point out the facts and advise that responsibility for legislation in respect of the the PMS is a matter for DETI in the devolved administration in Stormont to consider'


So as we say au revior for the weekend we can mull on the fact he sees it as our own problem, not the UKs and we are NOT savers but only shareholders!! Do you think he is not aware of the difference between the loans and shares we hold (like we were when we gave them the money!)??
Any comments before we go off ??

goodbyepci

Ballygal wrote: »

Sorry if someone else has already posted up a similiar reply to one which i have just received from Clive Barbour who i imagine is shaun woodward's PA.
Here are a few sad truths from our Sec of State for NI!!

So as we say au revior for the weekend we can mull on the fact he sees it as our own problem, not the UKs and we are NOT savers but only shareholders!! Do you think he is not aware of the difference between the loans and shares we hold (like we were when we gave them the money!)??
Any comments before we go off ??

Oh dear
It seems our Secretary of State is as anxious to wash his hands of us, as the Presbyterian Church in Ireland.

Jim Allister talked about EU support, and there seems to be an attempt to define the activities of the PMS as banking.

Sobering stuff.

Have a good weekend, and try not to think about it all too much!

brick

Ballygal wrote: »

Here are a few sad truths...
Any comments before we go off ?

Reads like a warm, caring, helpful sort... surprised you weren't thanked in advance for the taxes you will be paying for years to underpin the chosen/favoured financial institutions.

Can't say I noticed risk warnings on the PMS literature - just categoric assurances of no speculation.
Was I not looking?
Was there mis-selling / misinformation?

And how silly of me not to realise that that PMS was in fact an "Industrial and Provident Society as per the Industrial and Provident Societies Act (Northern Ireland) 1969", and the associated ramifications.
Plain English or what.

What about a bit of straightforward justice, equality and good government?

Oh, and the response mentions £50K... but conveniently omits to mention when it became £50K and impact on PMS.

Need to put this department in a room with DETI and let them slug it out - so we get a consistent story.

freddiemae

non_member wrote: »

http://www.compropscotland.com/news/archive/21343665/

Apparently a buoyant market helped joint venture property fund AWG Property/WG Mitchell make a profit of £3.75 million in just seven weeks.
In August the joint venture paid £9m to Taylor Clark Properties for Citypoint 2, the 42,000 sq ft, five-storey office building in Tyndrum Street, Glasgow, and the price reflected a net initial yield of 2.5 per cent. It then let 25,000 sq ft of the building to Scott Wilson Scotland on a 15-year lease with a break at 10 years.

The JV then sold Citypoint 2 to a Mutual Society for £12.75 million, reflecting an initial yield of 5.25 pc.

AWG property director Stephen Kelly apparently said: “The sale of Citypoint 2 represents a fantastic return just seven weeks after purchasing the building. We invested in IT on the back of our overall confidence in the Glasgow letting market and hoped an aggressive marketing campaign would attract a few tenants in the first 12 months.
“However, we had not banked on the level of interest we received in Citypoint 2 so soon after purchasing the building. The fact that we were approached by two tenants shortly after we purchased the building bodes well for the Glasgow letting market.”

AWG Property / WG Mitchell was advised by Knight Frank and Lambert Smith Hampton, while Gilfillan Paterson acted for PMS......

It looks like a good example of old fashioned capitalism and a great fee earner for the advisers.

For the record :GILFILLAN PATERSON LIMITED
Reg No. SC229350
Registered Office 11 ELMBANK STREET, GLASGOW, G2 4PB, G2 4PB

You would love to read how this was minuted by the Directors and exactly who introduced the opportunity to PMS!!

update on the company who sold on to PMS
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/columnists/article6025047.ece?openComment=true

sickasaparrot

Hi again everyone.

This month's Herald had the following letters regarding PMS.


ONE LITTLE WORD MISSING
Dear Sir,
I read with interest Mark Orr QC's response to queries on the state of affairs at the PMS. What struck me was that nowhere in the interview was the little word "sorry" mentioned. Sorry for the distress caused to the small savers of the church who trusted the Society, sorry to the churches who invested their funds for the mutual benefit of the church at large, sorry to all those other savers who considered the Society an ethical home for their money for the benefit of others. There has been a certain amount of arrogance from the invisible Board of the PMS which does not reflect well on the witness of the Church. To say that the lending policy was never questioned at an annual general meeting is naive. Under the requirements of governance it was the duty of the Directors to set out their lending policy in the annual report for all to see and query if they wished.
A Portadown investor.

and

PMS DIRECTORS

Dear Sir,
In your Q&A with Mark Orr of the PMS, he is challenged on their loans, some of which are considered to be "very high risk". His answer of 75% of value may seem prudent for houses but is clearly high risk when loaned to builders for development land. The Administrator's figures show that they advanced to builders for land £85million out of a total loan book of £184million. This large weighting further compounded the high risk and the Directors should have seen this as excessive risk taking. Again, the Administrator's figure show that they increased their position from net assets of £202m in 2006 to £310m in 2008. This growth was, apparently, on the back of generous dividends and this was attracting more than thrift. The Directors should have been aware of this danger. People outside the Church see the PMS debacle as caused by greed and gambling and our Church's witness has been tarnished by it. We should not cover up the Directors' conduct but we should severly censure them and condemn their actions and their inactions.
Carryduff investor.

freddiemae

It's very sad when genuine savers are betrayed by those who should have been looking out for them. I hope the guilty parties (whoever they are) are insured and can be sued to make up lost funds.