NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

crazymess

links


In a previous post - it referred to how the Rural Settlement Trust (previous name for Presbyterian Mutual Society) was formed etc etc etc. This was in 1945 - its seems again to have been done by the General Assembly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Also the 1982 minutes of the General Assembly supports the name change to Presbyterian Mutual Society etc etc etc ........................

You can ask for copies of the above two sets of minutes from PCI Secretary - oops Clerk of the Assembly.................



Do you remember about the part ............... "in the event of the PMS being wound up ........... who got the surplus? The PCI - General Assembly - call it what you wish?????



Without a shadow of a doubt the PCI and PMS are inextricably linked - and that is why they were told before the rest of us, that is why they had a Presbyterian Mutual Society Agency on the Board Mission of Ireland and allowed to vote, and that is why the PCI were to get the surplus in the event of the PMS being wound up - of course it is being wound up and yet the PCI don't seem to want to pay the deficit - yet were willing to take the profits!!!!!!!!!!!!!

crazymess

Brick to explain investors, shareholders, savers:



Many of us believed our money was safe: we put our money in the PMS for safekeeping. £1 in £1 out with interest

However:

The sad reality now is that The Directors of the RST and PMS all those years ago - set it up as a Friendly Society - then changed it to an Industrial and Provident Society - now it seems that because they did it this way then the first £20 k is risk capital - this is what NIO etc are telling us now - and seemingly we should have been told this when putting our savings in the PMS!!!!!!!!!!! we weren't - now either we weren't because the Directors and Company Sec didn't know or they decided not to tell us!!!!!!!!!! It certainly did not say risk capital in the Rule Book.


I also remember a certain person in PMS telling me that people are phoning asking what their shares were worth? The certain person kept saying that they are worth the same!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reality here is this is a Company in broad terms and is in administration and because of this a vote will need to happen and when it does - it is possible that the Creditors could get paid first - this is what happens in normal Company administrations.

This is why a cash injection is needed to support ALL - shareholders and creditors - but not one Government or Church has said to date that they will help - 7 months on - we have been left to suffer this.

Meetings happening here, there and everywhere - yet the very people and lives that this is directly affecting - they decide not to tell them - we are last to hear everything.

It seems that really the savers are in a difficult position - some do not want to upset their church - it is an awful state of affairs to lose your savings and to lose trust in the very people you believed in - it really is a grieving process.

There may be theories for this that and the other - but there is no reason why the church cannot help us.

D.A.

I can summarise everything:

1. The idea behind PMS was laudable.
2. PMS was connected with PCI, whether or not a legal connection can be proved.
3. PMS got too big for its boots and got involved in areas of the market where it shouldn't have.
4. PMS was run by a right bunch of numpties, many of whom had nothing whatsoever which would have qualified them to run it.
5. PMS hopes that no-one will notice.
6. PMS collapses and everyone notices.
7. PCI shoves the debate on the issue which has the potential to cause the most damage to the church's witness into a wee half hour slot at the Assembly.
8. PCI seemingly spends more time thinking about the presence of children at Communion, when, quite frankly, no-one really cares.

Do I win a prize?

crazymess

The PCI/Church House/Gen Assembly

Its very sickening- at the fobbing off technique of the above

The PMS is now in the hands of the Administrators and we cannot possibly get involved. Its all legal etc.

Nonsense -

All we want you to do is sort out the shortfall - tell the savers in your Church you will help them! We do not need to know the exact figures at this stage - I'm sure even the Admin can't tell exactly the amount of the return of our savings.

But we do know there is not enough in the pot to pay all.

So what are you waiting for PCI?????????

ordained

It is quite clear that no one in church house is prepared to give us definitive answers to the many questions that have been highlighted on this forum and are hiding behind "legalities" and being good Presbyterians we will all eventually accept their rulling!!
The only way to open up this dialogue is to threaten "legal"
action and to follow through !! This is the only way that the numerous cases of hardship will get public attention.
I wonder how many members of the legal profession are
investors / savers in PMS ?

Which raises another question :- Is the Clerk an investor or how many of his admistering staff are ?

We are unlikely to get an answer to that !!

Dr._Who_2

Just noticed tonight - Assembly Reports 2009 p.154 BMI Report (you can access these reports through PCI website):-
Finance Committee:-
(3) BMI held £699,937 invested in PMS as at 31st December 2008. The value of this investment has been written down by 40% and this means a loss of £279,974. It is not expected that much of the balance of £419,963 will be received during 2009

Question:- considering that no one seems to know how much loss investors will experience how did BMI Finance Committee come up with this loss figure of 40%? Was it just good accounting guesswork or do the Finance Committee of BMI know something the rest of us don't know? Did the PMS Agent on BMI suggest to BMI that this would be the case?

Question:- does the fact that this figure of 40% is mentioned - and it would have needed to be arrived at some time ago to allow for being in the printed Report - indicate that long ago PCI both understood, and accepted, that there would be this level of loss for investors?

Question:- could PCI give me my 40% please i.e. the shortfall which BMI seem to be predicting.:D

fivealive_2

Dr._Who wrote: »

Just noticed tonight - Assembly Reports 2009 p.154 BMI Report (you can access these reports through PCI website):-
Finance Committee:-
(3) BMI held £699,937 invested in PMS as at 31st December 2008. The value of this investment has been written down by 40% and this means a loss of £279,974. It is not expected that much of the balance of £419,963 will be received during 2009

Question:- considering that no one seems to know how much loss investors will experience how did BMI Finance Committee come up with this loss figure of 40%? Was it just good accounting guesswork or do the Finance Committee of BMI know something the rest of us don't know? Did the PMS Agent on BMI suggest to BMI that this would be the case?

Question:- does the fact that this figure of 40% is mentioned - and it would have needed to be arrived at some time ago to allow for being in the printed Report - indicate that long ago PCI both understood, and accepted, that there would be this level of loss for investors?

Question:- could PCI give me my 40% please i.e. the shortfall which BMI seem to be predicting.:D

Thanks Dr Who for keeping your eye on the ball; scarey stuff. :eek::eek::eek::eek:

crazymess

Well done Dr Who

They have probably taken a calculated guess as to the figure and probably heard !!!!!!! It would be interesting to find out how they HEARD the figure or WORKED it out!!! I thought we were told on a news programme in November "I can understand people thinking they have lost their savings, but this just isn't the case!" "our money is lent out to congregations etc etc etc - or something along those lines.

The problem is that really nobody knows the return figure or percentage - would imagine the Admin would not like to tie it down now either - reality is all the properties need to be sold !!!! and then of course the rental income for same, stops - the loan books need to be refinanced or else someone purchases them - this will take a long time to resolve unless someone steps in now with a cash injection.

How can this be over in ten years - let alone five years?

Seven months on - not a word of help from Government, not a word of help from PCI and its seems the Directors and Co Sec have gone into hiding.



What a way to treat honest hard working people who were led to believe by the Church and PMS leaflets that this was the safest place for our savings!!

BETRAYED

freddiemae wrote: »

Quote from report""

. The Moderator’s Advisory Committee met on two occasions to
consider the response of the Church to the evolving situation of the Presbyterian
Mutual Society. On 21 November the Clerk of Assembly outlined the position
of the Society as it was then known. The Chairman of the Directors and
Secretary of the Mutual Society had asked for a meeting on Monday, 27
October. At that meeting they indicated that the Society was no longer able to
meet demand for payments and the Directors had invoked the rule delaying
payment for 21 days. They indicated that a letter was being sent to all
shareholders.
4. At a routine meeting of Clerks of Presbytery, held on 6 November,
the Clerk of Assembly alerted Clerks of Presbytery to the problem, but took the
view that shareholders had the right to be told by the Society before any
comment was made by the Church. There was useful discussion as to how
Presbyteries might be able to support their members and the Clerk of Assembly
agreed to alert all Ministers as soon as it was clear shareholders had been
informed. It was recognised that Ministers in Congregations would be critical in
offering support to those deeply affected and upset.
5. On 12 November, the Clerk wrote to all Ministers including a copy
of the Presbyterian Mutual Society Directors’ Statement to shareholders and a
Press Statement issued by the Society. (Copy of letter appended). In the letter he
stated:
“It is easy to point out that the Mutual Society is a separate legal entity
which is quite separate from the Church. It is also clear that the Church cannot
in any way underwrite the commitments of the Society. However, the reality is
that many Presbyterians who have invested in the society are now
understandably worried and we have a responsibility to care pastorally for
them.”
Since then the Church has been considering all possible ways to fulfil its
responsibility to care, recognising that much of this support must be given at a
local level.
6. On 14 November, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and
Investment announced that it had rushed through urgent legislation to allow the
Presbyterian Mutual Society the option of going into administration or a
voluntary arrangement. This information was e-mailed to all ministers the
following day, again emphasising the Church’s responsibility to those deeply
Quote""

Pardon me but if the Church has nothing to do with the legal entity of the PMS why on earth were they told first before the shareholders. This beggars belief. I cannot understand why you are not out marching in the streets to be honest. All the ministers are emailed and told and you are left in the dark. Its an incredible insult to you as shareholders.

Incredible.
Notice how the dates of meetings etc. in this report are not in chronological order.
Does the scribe in Church House think we are all fools.

freddiemae

With regard to my previous post about the fact that PCI was informed before shareholders -- someone should tell the Newsletter about it and see if they will run with it as they did with the missing FSA info about illegal actions. Let all the Presbyterians in the country know how information about their congregational and private money was leaked to an alleged non interested party before them. You have to overcome the natural allegiance to the church to get your money back. You need anger now not supplication and begging someone to help you. You appear to have been betrayed at the highest levels.

It is crucial to get this in the press and media before the General assembly starts next week.