NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

HOPE

jon_groovy wrote: »

totally, PCI by name may be a christian organisation, but in practice, their actions show that they hang on to the term 'christian' very loosely.

it is falling apart at the seems now anyway and i think it is damage limitation for them now, they have handled things very badly from the outset.

and pensiongone...........donald patton is a clown and stafford carson isn't much better :-(

I will be no longer reading this forum as of now. As a christian I feel that I cannot associate with such criticism of the Church or personal attacks on Dr Patton and Dr Carson who are doing their best to resolve this crisis and have worked tirelessly behind the scenes for many months. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. PCI got off to a bad start but we are where we are and one of the main reasons for this is because of their hard work. Ask yourself what you have done for all the savers before you start casting allegations on those who are trying to find a resolution. By the sound of it you would be happy if the Presbyterian Church fell on it's knees

KingVardas

totallyletdown wrote: »

if there is 23 million, and there was a 100 million shortfall, then why can't they just put this money to the overall money and then the shortfall would only be 75 odd million ?

Without getting too complex, the shortfall is what you are owed and during an insolvency the administrator will return what you are owed, or as much of it as he can, over a period of years. So he is reducing the amount you are owed by making a first distribution if he can. If no-one rides to the rescue of the PMS then you will receive a series of payments as money comes in and assets are realised in the hope that over time you would get all your money back. that's the theory.

BETRAYED

What are clergy comming to.

The Times reports on a Yorkshire vicar who has some interesting views about shoplifting.
'Better option'
The Ten Commandments are pretty specific: "Thou shalt not steal."
But Rev Tim Jones has come up with a new interpretation, advising hard-pressed parishioners to shoplift.
There are a few provisos though - he says they should only do it from big shops, and it would probably be best if they didn't take any more than they needed.
In his Sunday sermon, Rev Jones said that shoplifting was a better option for desperate people than turning to prostitution, mugging or burglary.
And he added that his advice didn't contradict the Eighth Commandment because God's love for the poor and despised outweighs the property rights of the rich.
The paper says that North Yorkshire Police have taken his remarks the wrong way.

totallyletdown

KingVardas wrote: »

Without getting too complex, the shortfall is what you are owed and during an insolvency the administrator will return what you are owed, or as much of it as he can, over a period of years. So he is reducing the amount you are owed by making a first distribution if he can. If no-one rides to the rescue of the PMS then you will receive a series of payments as money comes in and assets are realised in the hope that over time you would get all your money back. that's the theory.

so IF we get a payout from the 23 million, will this reduce our capital we hold or is it just like a dividend/interest ?

BETRAYED

totallyletdown wrote: »

so IF we get a payout from the 23 million, will this reduce our capital we hold or is it just like a dividend/interest ?

It can not be dividend.
Return of capital. Tax Free.
To eleviate hardship I begged administrator some months ago to make a payment to savers of 3% -5% of people's funds by cheque which they would have to endorse on the back
stating that in the case of the Society going into Liquidation this payment would be part of a final settlement.
He was adamant that he could not do this.

KingVardas

totallyletdown wrote: »

so IF we get a payout from the 23 million, will this reduce our capital we hold or is it just like a dividend/interest ?

It's as Betrayed says, a return of some of your capital - provided the court approves as required by law. I'm aware its more complex in your case because of the distinction between those with shares and those with loans and those, of course, who have both. I've not had experience of such a situation - only with straight winding ups where creditors get preference to the company shareholders.

Flinflon

HOPE wrote: »

I will be no longer reading this forum as of now. As a christian I feel that I cannot associate with such criticism of the Church or personal attacks on Dr Patton and Dr Carson who are doing their best to resolve this crisis and have worked tirelessly behind the scenes for many months. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. PCI got off to a bad start but we are where we are and one of the main reasons for this is because of their hard work. Ask yourself what you have done for all the savers before you start casting allegations on those who are trying to find a resolution. By the sound of it you would be happy if the Presbyterian Church fell on it's knees

I’d like to address two points.
It’s unfortunate that Hope has chosen to boycott the forum, but now that she/he is gone, there’s something that bears repeating: If you wish to view or take part in this forum, don’t do so simply to find people who agree with you. Ain’t gonna happen—and nor should it. If you feel the views of some posters are irresponsible, poorly informed, etc., surely you’re mature enough to ignore them, and to take part in efforts to redress the balance. Hope was like that: someone who felt a desire to support the moderator and his predecessor, despite the comments of those who felt otherwise. We are poorer for the departure of Hope. However, each of us has a right to express our opinions, just as Hope did. On my second point: In August, a small delegation met with the Moderator and Dr. Watt at Church House for a couple of hours. I spoke with all but one of that delegation afterward, and each one of them left the meeting quite disheartened (and I’m being charitable with the use of that word) with both Dr. Carson and Dr. Watt. The single delegate I was unable to reach nevertheless was equally upset, as he threatened at one point to walk out of the meeting (the other delegates all confirmed this to me afterward). These were mature, dependable members of the church—not raving, irresponsible fanatics. In my own view, little has changed since that time. The PCI leadership’s performance has been almost entirely pro forma, lacklustre and self-serving. When will it call upon the total organisation to take imaginative, helpful and public initiatives to deal with the PMS crisis? Is the PCI leadership exercising extreme caution (to the point of failing to act appropriately) because it’s concerned that its historic relationship with the PMS has compromised its own Christian principles? Maybe, maybe not. But if not, why has it failed to take a strong stand with us, to help in organising us, etc.?

Lester_F

If a high court judge decides that creditors have first right to their money imagine the scenario. In a nutshell it would mean that the wealthy get their money before and maybe at the expense of the less well off!

joylikes2shop

dmxdave wrote: »

HOPE
Last Activity: Today 9:22 PM
Viewing Thread NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

Despite receiving much encouragement, from many people over the last year for my humble efforts, I have found that it has become increasingly more boring to read the many repetitive and negative comments from the same few contributors.

Jon_groovy, by now I think that regular viewers of this forum know that you obviously have a 'bee in your bonnet' and some (insider ??) knowledge about 'ministers who withdrew large sums of money' which contributed to the current situation...:think:
Your repeated requests for the Directors to make public apologies for their involvement has not gone unrecognised either....:rolleyes:

Having followed and contributed to this forum from day one, and having become as 'involved' as I possibly could in all activities relating to the current situation, I too (along with many of the original 'regulars' it would appear) have chosen to 'take a rest' from the forum for our own personal reasons.:sad:

However, as this thread continues to be the main (and only ??) regular source of reference/update for all things PMS related, and since viewing it on a daily basis has been ...and will continue to be...a daily 'habit/obsession/compulsion' for me, I can relate to HOPE's comments about 'no longer reading this forum as of now' but can totally understand why it will take a while to 'break the habit'..if ever !!:undecided

readyforaction

Lester_F wrote: »

If a high court judge decides that creditors have first right to their money imagine the scenario. In a nutshell it would mean that the wealthy get their money before and maybe at the expense of the less well off!

Lester, please note that you are assuming that the above is the case.
It is not as cut and dry as you state.

Think about the following:
Those with less than £20,000 may have money deposited in other accounts and many do.

Those with over £20,000 who have deposited their life savings in the PMS and have NO access to savings elsewhere are therefore in more hardship than the above mentioned group.

Perhaps it would do well to remember that these people with life savings frozen in PMS are in EXACTLY THE SAME hardship as the pensioner with less than £20K who has NO money deposited elsewhere either.

Please spare a thought for these people whose lives have been severely compromised and placed on hold.

Be careful of the spin put on things as it may not be as simple as it first appears. I think that I can say this with some confidence since the debacle in PMS is not as simple as it first appeared!

I welcome your comments.