NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

eldivo

Some Nice points John. Glad to get some different thoughts. but...

OldJohn wrote: »

Would it not be better to seek a £120million loan from No10 and pay it back as they did with Northern Rock. The Society could then operate again!

Would you leave your money in the PMS if this happened?
The PMS is not resting. It is dead and its not coming back.

OldJohn wrote: »

I understand that the Property purchased was never intended to be sold off, it's benefit was it's rental income some £8millon per year.

In just 15 years shareholders will get the nominal value of their deposits back!

OldJohn wrote: »

I believe keeping the shareholders information out of the public domain is the right thing to do as all dealt with the Society in confidence and I'm sure most would not want their savings/borrowings details made public!. Can you imagine the work (and cost) of mailing out all 9,500's details.

Confidence in the society was misplaced for everything else:rolleyes:

OldJohn wrote: »

...rumours, exacerbated by banks and financial advisors 'spooking' shareholders into moving their funds. It was mainly due to a loss of confidence in the Society by some of its shareholders rather than anyone having special info!

It is not a simple confidence issue. The society is not illiquid. It is insolvent.

johnnieboy

Has anyone heard of a meeting organised in the Ballymena area to discuss and explain the current situation?

amadan22

i guess at a times like this the word "mutual" either exists or doesn't. i could've missed stuff, but can the charitable situations be put in 1st place? this might already be a directive, but i don't know?

goodbyepci

An article in the Down Democrat

http://www.downdemocrat.com/tabId/289/itemId/445/Hinch-mans-anguish-at-familys-lost-savings.aspx

Study the picture of Jim Kelly.
Look at the back page of the Herald..............yes you're right, it's an advert for the PMS!

No connection there then, no encouragement for Presbyterians to avail themselves of its services.


:rolleyes:

Mark789

Quote from Gordon Brown on Today programme this morning "No saver has lost money". How does he justify this unqualified statement in the light of the PMU debacle? It would be fun if the next time he is interviewed the interviewer asks this question. Sadly I've listened to enough politicians squirming and mangling the English language to guess that the answer will be along the lines of "PMU savers have not yet lost any money, they just can't access it". A bit like saying when you've dropped a tenner in the street that you haven't lost it, you just haven't found it again yet.

ballyblack

"No saver has lost money"

They will argue PMS has investors/shareholders not 'savers'

crazymess

I think we all agree PCI are linked at the hip!!

They say they are not legally involved.


What about going right back to the beginning - 1982 when the PMS was set up.

Who set it up?
Who decided to call it Presbyterian Mutual Society?
Who gave the funds to start it up?
Who were the Directors at the time?
Who were the main Investors at that time?
Who received loans at that time?
Who benefited from the Presbyterian Mutual Society.
Why did they share the same Building?
Why did the PMS move buildings two years ago? (Did they fall out!!!!)

Presbyterian Orphan Society seems to pay rent to PMS - are they legally the same as PCI or not related??????

Few tips:

Rural Development Trust
Irish Mission - now Board Mission of Ireland????
There have already been deletions off the website - DNS error 404.
A bit like the ones where any other links between PCI/PMS were linked have been deleted - Hope you have all kept copies.

(under the auspices of the Church - fine line!!!!)

A little research needs to be done!!!!

loganjh

crazymess wrote: »

I think we all agree PCI are linked at the hip!!

They say they are not legally involved.


What about going right back to the beginning - 1982 when the PMS was set up.

Who set it up?
Who decided to call it Presbyterian Mutual Society?
Who gave the funds to start it up?
Who were the Directors at the time?
Who were the main Investors at that time?
Who received loans at that time?
Who benefited from the Presbyterian Mutual Society.
Why did they share the same Building?
Why did the PMS move buildings two years ago? (Did they fall out!!!!)

Presbyterian Orphan Society seems to pay rent to PMS - are they legally the same as PCI or not related??????

Few tips:

Rural Development Trust
Irish Mission - now Board Mission of Ireland????
There have already been deletions off the website - DNS error 404.
A bit like the ones where any other links between PCI/PMS were linked have been deleted - Hope you have all kept copies.

(under the auspices of the Church - fine line!!!!)

A little research needs to be done!!!!

Additionally - in the event of wind-up, I believe that any surplus funds would be passed to the Presbyterian Church.

joylikes2shop

Some very interesting points in the following article in todays Newsletter......

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/PMS-investors-need-more-information.4906430.jp

OldJohn

As far as I know the PMS paid rent also in Church House and moved as there was no room for them in the 'New' Church House (not a Christmas story), remember when the PCI were going to sell it and move to new premises! Then that all fell through, but the PMS were committed to the move by then. Not a sign that the PMS were attached to PCI I would suggest.
The principle of the Society is great - save your money and help other Presbyterians, so consider anyone in a job with supplied accomodation, if they purchase a new build and let it until they retire, is that wrong?

The Society for many years provided a local, personal service with low overheads giving us a great rate of return while providing a supply of funds to our fellow members and churches. The Secretary ran the Society with a board of NON paid Directors. It had around £25million available as cash just before the panic, with additional funds coming in at regular intervals from rent and loan repayments, is that unreasonable?
If you lend money at low interest rates, your dividend to savers will be low, so the income from the property rent topped up the dividend, sounds good to me and maybe they were a victim of their own success and folk invested just for the good dividend, certainly the banks didn't like it.

I don't believe any of the ministers or directors benefited from insider info or took money out, other than would normally happen on a need now basis. The world looks on at what happens in the Church and just loves to hear us condemn our own leadership, without doubt things could have been handled better, both within the PMS and the PCI, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

The income from rent at £8million per annum plus repayments from current loans will see us all getting paid albeit over a number of years. If the Society reopened on a loan from No10 and under new management with limitations on lending etc. the shareholders who are in desperate need at this point in time could be helped almost immediately. I would gladly leave my funds there and I believe others would to, I can only but imagine what distress some shareholders are in at this time.