NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

D.A.

I'm slightly confused as to why PCI congregations are being asked to provide a million quid, when the directors of the PMS could quite easily come up with a million amongst themselves...

Dr._Who_2

This is my conern also - that people with the £20,000 plus will get all their money back. Those with £20,000 or less will have to jump through hoops to get money and only if they can prove hardship - how will that be decided and by whom?
If we get agreement on this on Tuesday then everybody will think "PMS - solved" and walk away leaving the small saver as the one still having a problem.:(

Mixedup

Dr._Who wrote: »

This is my conern also - that people with the £20,000 plus will get all their money back. Those with £20,000 or less will have to jump through hoops to get money and only if they can prove hardship - how will that be decided and by whom?
If we get agreement on this on Tuesday then everybody will think "PMS - solved" and walk away leaving the small saver as the one still having a problem.:(

-that 'people with the £20,000 plus will get all their money back'--???

perhaps the amount in excess of the £20,000 --the creditor bit only, and go and beg for the rest. Am I wrong?? What about the director's indemnity and also the auditor's indemnity ??

Toastandbutter

Disgruntled PMS savers could vote for SDLP – claim






Published Date: 12 April 2010







SOME members of the collapsed Presbyterian Mutual Society (PMS) are considering voting for the SDLP in the General Election, it was claimed yesterday.




http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/Disgruntled-PMS-savers-could-vote.6218867.jp

pms_overload

NAR wrote: »

So do you really not believe that there are millions of your hard earned cash salted away somewhere?

The Presbyterian Church has no money "salted away". If you believe that then you misunderstand the nature of the Presbyterianism

pms_overload

So it is proposed that £51m will be provided as a "hardship fund".

The £100m shortfall includes the larger investors. Given that there are around 6000 smaller investors that means the figure for them is around £63m. The "Hardship Fund" amounts to 80p in the £ for them. On those figures it's clearly being set up so that it won't be hard to show hardship and many will get all their money back.

Congratulations! the investors have won. They've got their bailout.

As someone who has also lost out in this recession and as a taxpayer who is being asked to contribute to the bailout I object to the preferential treatment being handed
out here.

NAR

pms_overload wrote: »

The Presbyterian Church has no money "salted away". If you believe that then you misunderstand the nature of the Presbyterianism

So you think no churches removed their funds before Administration?

goodbyepci

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/plight-of-the-savers-calls-for-some-soulsearching-14764377.html

brick

pms_overload wrote: »

as a taxpayer who is being asked to contribute to the bailout I object

At least you have something in common with PMS savers who objected to being taxed (like you) to faciliate the support of other financial institutions while their preferred Northern Ireland based financial institution was (until now, perhaps?) ignored.

And as regards the debate about whether PMSers were "savers" or "investors" and whether or not PMS was a "bank" or merely an HMG regulated (or unregulated?) financial institution carrying out "banking activity", I'm of the opinion that HMG uses words and applies "rules" whatever way suits it, whenever it suits it.

steveymp

pms_overload wrote: »

As someone who has also lost out in this recession and as a taxpayer who is being asked to contribute to the bailout I object to the preferential treatment being handed
out here.

Great to finally meet the sole Norn Iron Taxpayer :T:T:T

Thank you sooooooo much for supporting us all over the years:T