NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

HOPE

I agree although John McFall seems to have both. He has been described in the media recently as a very powerful man and can call the Prime Minister (or anyone else) to account and give evidence. He has already threatened this in a previous article in the Telegraph or Newsletter if the PMS crisis was not dealt with urgently and by the Autumn. He stated then that he would be closely monitoring the situation and is very concerned about the hardship of savers. He did this some months ago with Lord Myners with regard to the way he dealt with one of the financial institutions. (I think he is Lord of the FSA but I may be wrong))

BETRAYED

Link to Working Party Terms of reference



http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/presbyterian_mutual_society_tor.pdf

Newsletter 24 July
"The Treasury terms of reference also state that the working group will submit a "draft report" to the Prime Minister in September. It is understood that this may indicate an acceptance that the working group's first report may not bring a final resolution to the PMS situation and that further lobbying may be required."

Is the last sentence of this Newsletter extract presumption by Newsletter reporter?

readyforaction

THE WORD ‘INVESTORS’ IN THE TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE WORKING GROUP
"To consider what, if any, action can be taken to mitigate INVESTORS' losses, particularly those hardest hit by the collapse of the PMS."

I stand to be corrected but I have grave concerns that the working party constituting 4 members of the NI Executive are still referring to PMS savers as investors.

The very word 'INVESTORS' conjures up an image of speculation and risk takers.

RULE BOOK STATES ‘SAVINGS’
The wording in the terms of reference must be challenged at this stage. In line with the Rule Book of the PMS and as noted and reiterated by the administrator in his report dated 15th June 2009 on Page 11 Point 7.4

"The administrator notes that the Rules of the Society state that the objects of the Society are

• to promote thrift amongst its members by the accumulation of their SAVINGS
• to use and manage such SAVINGS for the mutual benefit of members
• to create a source of credit for the benefit of its members at a fair and reasonable rate of interest"

Please note the liberal use of the word SAVINGS.

Therefore I regard 9,500 members of PMS to be SAVERS. How could you take anything else out of that?

LETTER WRITING AND PHONE CALLS
In order to correct this misnomer it is vital that letters are written to each member of the Working Group highlighting that we are NOT INVESTORS but SAVERS.

· Peter Robinson [EMAIL="Peter.Robinson@niassembly.gov.uk"]Peter.Robinson@niassembly.gov.uk[/EMAIL]
· Martin McGuinness [EMAIL="Martin.McGuinness@niassembly.gov.uk"]Martin.McGuinness@niassembly.gov.uk[/EMAIL]
· Sammy Wilson [EMAIL="lewisp@parliament.uk"]lewisp@parliament.uk[/EMAIL]
· Arlene Foster [EMAIL="arlene.foster@niassembly.gov.uk"]arlene.foster@niassembly.gov.uk[/EMAIL]
· Liam Byrne [EMAIL="byrnel@parliament.uk"]byrnel@parliament.uk[/EMAIL]
· Ian Pearson [EMAIL="pearsoni@parliament.uk"]pearsoni@parliament.uk[/EMAIL]
· Shaun Woodward
Telephone number – 01744 24226
Fax number – 01744 24306
To contact Shaun as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, please write to:
Northern Ireland Office
11 Millbank
LONDON
SW1P 4PN
For information on the Northern Ireland Office,please click Northern Ireland Office

PERHAPS TRYING TO PHONE THEIR OFFICES WOULD ALSO WORK.



SUMMARY OF MY THOUGHTS
If the activities of the society changed at any point, why were savers not made aware of this change and that their savings had become ‘risk’ capital?

If the activities changed, why were the Rules of the Society not altered and all members made aware?

Why was the Society not regulated to deal with the activities in which they were partaking?

I am neither naïve nor stupid.

***Let me assure you that if tonight I had my money invested in a policy linked to the stock market or wittingly associated as ‘risk’ capital, then I would only have myself to blame were I to lose all of my investment?

Why would I be to blame? I would have been informed sufficiently to make my decision and would have had a right to waiver. See below:

· I would have been invited to a meeting with my bank/ investment centre where the various products would have been explained to me along with the risks associated. I would have been made aware of how the money would be invested and what proportion of the money would be invested in gilts, bonds or stock market shares.

· I would have acquired the complete knowledge to allow me to make the decision whether I selected low, medium or a high risk policy or none at all.

· I could make up my mind which investment I wanted to accept based on the fact that I knew the risks involved.

· I would have received paperwork indicating that I could waiver my right within 14 days to participate in the policy. The choice would still be mine and I would have the right to make the decision about whether I wanted my money to be invested in such a manner.

If I were to proceed with a risk-associated policy with the knowledge and the right to waiver that the bank had provided to me and I then lost money, I would concede that that was my decision and I have to put it down to a bad investment.

PMS SAVERS ARE NOT TO BLAME
PMS was different – It was £1 in and £1 out. Our savings were not stock market shares.
We are NOT to blame for what has happened to our SAVINGS in PMS. As outlined previously, my money and that of 9,500 others was in an Industrial and Provident Society which cited SAVINGS in the Objects of its rules. Why would I have believed it was an investment? I am neither a gambler nor a speculator, just a Joe Public saving my hard earned cash. I knew where I could go for risk if I had wanted to do so but I wanted SECURITY for me and my family and in the process to help others to buy their car, tractor or home (as the photographs indicated in the literature), not Buy to lets and Development Property. PMS was the custodian of my life-savings and that of 9,500 others.

At no point was I invited to discuss the fact that my life-savings were being used to finance ‘Buy-to-lets’ and Property Developers and therefore my SAVINGS had changed their format from SAVINGS to speculatory risk capital.
At no point was I issued with a ‘Right to Waiver’.
At no point was I made aware that PMS were speculating with my money to such an extent that the society should have been regulated for these ‘new’ activities?
Was anyone else made aware????

Had I realised what was being done with my hard-earned SAVINGS, I would have been out of there like a rocket.
But were SAVERS ever going to be told the truth? Even when some savers phoned in September and October and asked if their savings were safe they were reassured that all was well.

Yes, 9,500 PMS SAVERS are VICTIMS and not of their own making. The sooner the tag ‘investors’ is replaced by the word ‘SAVERS’, then the full comprehension of how innocent people have been wronged, distressed and placed in intolerable circumstances will be acknowledged and resolved. The wool pulling over PMS savers’ eyes has got to stop.

I would welcome your comments.

If you would like to PM me, please feel free to do so.

BETRAYED

Ian Paisley Jun. wrote to me on 23 March 09. He enclosed a copy of a letter from Arlene Foster dated 4 March 09.
Last sentence in her letter reads " If any PMS member has views about how best this might be taken forward they should be encouraged to put them directly to the Administrator for his consideration."

Representatives of Antrim and Down Lobbying Group have an arrangement to meet Arlene Foster and her advisors on 20 August next.
Administrator has still not agreed to a meeting. I know there are things he cannot tell us but we want to tell him something.

E-mail link for Administrator is [EMAIL="pms@arthurboyd.co.uk"]pms@arthurboyd.co.uk[/EMAIL]

Quite honestly I don't think it really matters now whether we are called savers or investors. As someone before in this forum pointed out it is quite in order to say that you invested in a savings account rather that say you deposited money in a savings account.

readyforaction

Betrayed - Points noted.

Unfortunately it seems to matter when it suits the politicians, whether we are called SAVERS or INVESTORS.

I feel much better expressing this in writing. At least I think that it rationalises and clarifies the position of all PMS savers.

HOPE

Only my view but, this point has been argued over a period of months and I see no merit in highlighting it again. Every member of the working party is well aware of the situation re savers/investors Do we really want to detract them from doing the job in hand by taking up their time to answer letters and deflect from the real issue here when they have heard it all before? I think not.

All we want now is a quick satisfactory resolution to get our savings back at the earliest opportunity. Let them get on with it. We have waited long enough!

Have you ever heard the saying "do not teach your granny how to suck eggs?" Thats exactly what you would be doing.

Remember there are qualified legal, financial and highly intelligent members in this working group who have access to the best possible legal advice and I for one have no intention of insulting them or going over ground which has been challenged and debated months ago by politicans.

Let the politicans sort it out. They do not need this sort of interference. It is going to be difficult enough and we are depending on them to pull us out of this mess. This is the last and only chance we have. Do not undo the hard work that thousands of savers have done to get us this far. Betrayed has a valid point.

ordained

Investment shares rise and fall in value depending on market demand. and are bought and sold at various values.
PMS shares were never in this category, their value never varied, cost £1.00
redeemed value £1.00. They were savings by another name and earned intrest like all savings do. Does it really matter what they are called ?

readyforaction

Betrayed, Hope and Ordained - Thank you for all of your viewpoints.

You are correct that there are people well qualified to deal with this and I, for one, would not want to detract from their efforts.

However I just felt it necessary to make the point on this forum just in case the terminology works as a negative. I am sure that you will appreciate my motive. I am delighted with your feedback - It has been much appreciated and I am sure many others appreciate it too.

Whatnow?_3

It is very hard to tell where this is going really.

Is the aim of the working party to resolve this matter or merely to look into it?

It's a wee bit confusing isn't it?

HOPE

My understanding is that the working group which the Prime Minister has set up will bring forward a series of proposals in an attempt to reach a solution.

I was informed of this in a letter from the First and Deputy First Minister received recently.