NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

expat68

crazymess wrote: »

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/Court-ruling-blowfor-PMS-savers.6069775.jp



"any redress must be found elsewhere" - what does this actually mean??

It means Stafford is saying anywhere other than the presbyterian church who have already made it clear that they will not help but will instead blame everyone else.

Lets not forget that the presbyterian church passed a resolution every year commending the good work of the PMS and encouraging their members to save their money there. Most people saved there because of the presbyterian connection - fact

PMSSaver

expat68 wrote: »

It means Stafford is saying anywhere other than the presbyterian church who have already made it clear that they will not help but will instead blame everyone else.

Lets not forget that the presbyterian church passed a resolution every year commending the good work of the PMS and encouraging their members to save their money there. Most people saved there because of the presbyterian connection - fact

Most people put their money in the PMS because of the 6 percent dividend, if it had been the 1 or 2 percent that banks were offering, most people would have had their money elsewhere - fact.

Silent_Witness_2

(1) The Directions of the Court are now in the public domain.

(2) The Report of the Treasury Select Committee is due out this week.

(3) PMS shareholders should set a deadline of 31 March 2010 for the great and the good at Stormont to deliver whatever it is that they have been promising to deliver for months and months and months!!

At the moment, unless the great and the good deliver, the reality is that One hundred and one million, five hundred and seventy three thousand pounds in PMS shares are worthless!!

brick

PMSSaver wrote: »

Most people put their money in the PMS because of the 6 percent dividend, if it had been the 1 or 2 percent that banks were offering, most people would have had their money elsewhere - fact.

Actually, that's an opinion (IMO).

And I'm prepared to be corrected, but I don't recall PMS rate being anywhere near 4-5% better than rates available for other savings accounts available at the time.

Speaking personally, a combination of factors which made it a "natural" (if in retrospect unwise and blindly trusting) decision included:-
i) the safe Presbyterian brand - and how many times did I imbibe that full page of glossy PMS blurb in the Herald...
ii) the undisputed assertions of no speculation
iii) an attractive (nothing more) rate of interest
iv) endorsement of a congregational office bearer with relevant experience in banking industry
v) supposition that it was a "good" thing to do, by way of furthering work of PCI

abeliever

Silent_Witness wrote: »

(1) The Directions of the Court are now in the public domain.

(2) The Report of the Treasury Select Committee is due out this week.

(3) PMS shareholders should set a deadline of 31 March 2010 for the great and the good at Stormont to deliver whatever it is that they have been promising to deliver for months and months and months!!

At the moment, unless the great and the good deliver, the reality is that One hundred and one million, five hundred and seventy three thousand pounds in PMS shares are worthless!!

SW - This is because at least some of the creditors (& the judge) did not accept the notion that PMS really was/is a "mutual" organisation.

There are some of us who still believe that PMS was (& is) "what it says on the tin" !!

BETRAYED

19 February 2010 Royal Courts of Justice Chancery Court with Judge

09:45 REVIEWS AND SUMMONSES 09/001140THE PRESBYTERIAN MUTUAL SOCIETY LIMITED (IN ADMINISTRATION)

PMSSaver

jon_groovy wrote: »

no offence but i think you are talking a load of rubbish in my opinion of course

I probably am. I'm sure the 6% had nothing to do with your investment Jon.
Still I make the point... The Government MUST act now. Politicians will shortly be looking for our votes.

goodbyepci

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/PMS-saver39s-offer-to-members.6077780.jp

BETRAYED

From above link to NewsLetter 17 Feb.

A SAVER in the collapsed Presbyterian Mutual Society has offered to start a fund for less fortunate fellow members.
Ballynahinch man Jim Kelly has a substantial part of his pension in the society and is willing to donate six per cent of any money he gets back to any members who are not legally owed money by the society.

A number of larger creditors who hopefully understand mutuality will consider supporting Jim Kelly. I shall for one.

Administrator has court protection for the names of shareholders who hold no loan certificate.
Perhaps he would need another day in Court to sort that out as he states today that for legal reasons he can not involved in Mr Kelly's proposal.

fivealive_2

brick wrote: »

Actually, that's an opinion (IMO).

And I'm prepared to be corrected, but I don't recall PMS rate being anywhere near 4-5% better than rates available for other savings accounts available at the time.

Speaking personally, a combination of factors which made it a "natural" (if in retrospect unwise and blindly trusting) decision included:-
i) the safe Presbyterian brand - and how many times did I imbibe that full page of glossy PMS blurb in the Herald...
ii) the undisputed assertions of no speculation
iii) an attractive (nothing more) rate of interest
iv) endorsement of a congregational office bearer with relevant experience in banking industry
v) supposition that it was a "good" thing to do, by way of furthering work of PCI

And so say all of us :T