NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

joylikes2shop

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8623714.stm

brick

Lester_F wrote: »

this action

To the extent that I understand (or misunderstand) it, was the "loan savers first" business not something of an inevitability when the administrator (applying administration rules not really designed for a mutual?) reached stage of considering distribution of funds - and SW's programme just brought this clearly to a head?

I guess if, in due course, SW advances to subsequent stages of his programme, some potential for a route towards a slightly improved story for "share savers" might emerge - and as things stand "share savers" would appear to need any well intentioned help that's going.

I may of course be COMPLETELY wrong - still too complicated for me.

NAR

From what I gather regarding the hardship fund, which has still to receive Treasury approval, is to be for the under £20k savers. However those wanting withdrawels are to be means tested - surely that can't be fair?

ballyblack

withdrawels are to be means tested - surely that can't be fair?

Its not only unfair, it will be totally impracticable to enforce fairly!









.

totallyletdown

Do many churches have less than 20k in the PMS ? Will they be applying to the harship funds ?

How humiliating for you if you've less than 20k in the PMS.

mootercat

I would feel totally humiliated sitting in a pew when they pass round the begging bowl for the PMS. Very degrading - I trust the Church will consider the feelings of the PMS members and make alternative arrangements.

pms_overload

NAR wrote: »

From what I gather regarding the hardship fund, which has still to receive Treasury approval, is to be for the under £20k savers. However those wanting withdrawels are to be means tested - surely that can't be fair?

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.

As regards fairness, neither is it fair that those who did not have the funds to invest in this enterprise are now having to cough up to bail you out

Excap123

pms_overload wrote: »

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.

As regards fairness, neither is it fair that those who did not have the funds to invest in this enterprise are now having to cough up to bail you out

the way I've worked it out is about £100m is owed to "sharehiolders" - so the £51 million is half of that. But I think most PMS savers have both share and loans. The fund is for those in hardship. You dont have to be a "small" saver to be in hardship but at least your loan holding would be repaid so you should'nt be as badly off. It would turn out generally be savers with £20000 or less who would go for this fund. The News letter says it is a loan from goverment, so I suppose if you wanted money from it, you'd have to pledge your shares against it. If you got some of your cash, then you would have to wait a few years to see if the adminster comes up with the rest.

expat68

Re. the hardship fund. Suppose I have £25K with the PMS, £20K in the form of shares and £5K loans i.e. creditor.

Should I receive my £5K back I would then have to apply to the hardship fund for my £20K. Would they not say there is no hardship as you have had £5K returned? That would mean I would lose 80% of my savings.

Someone with £20K shares and £280K loans can clearly get by without applying to the hardship fund as £20K represents only 6.6% of their savings.

I dont understand how this will work in practice and will just force people to be liberal with the truth when they apply to the hardship fund.

Based on the below definition given that all shareholders have suffered over the last 18 months then I think everyone therefore qualifies for hardship

"something that causes or entails suffering"

Wee_Bargain_Hunter

Martin has put up a news story here with an associated discussion thread here.