NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

red_bertie

I ask out of interest, what's the gen on this guy Watts, he appears to hold several positions [are these paid?] on the PCI boards - my question is just as a non preb trying to familiarise myself with all the ins and outs of this.

fivealive_2

[quote=OldJohn;17969859]"This led to 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!"

My Financial Advisor knew nothing until the news went public and he himself has money in the PMS. I personally know of a Minister and church office bearer who were overheard in early October discussing the problems being experienced by the PMS; two weeks before that information became public.
As I said before I don't want a "witch hunt" but I would like to know if those in leadership who have a duty of care towards the members of their congregations have acted less than honourably towards us.

goodbyepci

Folks
There's loads of info in the Newsletter today.

It doesn't seem to be online yet, so I can't post it here, maybe it will be onlne later.

The Moderator's letter is in there, and an article by the administrator.

Interestingly he says he is going to be looking into the activities of the Directors over the past 3 years, and their suitableness to be Directors.

And no..............I don't work for the Newsletter!

:rolleyes:

loganjh

red_bertie wrote: »

I ask out of interest, what's the gen on this guy Watts, he appears to hold several positions [are these paid?] on the PCI boards - my question is just as a non preb trying to familiarise myself with all the ins and outs of this.

Donald Watts holds the elected post of General Secretary / Clerk to the General Assembly - chief administrator role. It is a paid post, commensurate with ministerial salary. He is an ordained minister.

goodbyepci

Link to BBC website

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7848849.stm

Whatnow?_3

Mail sent to you jon_groovy

joylikes2shop

I have become so suspicious of everything I hear to do with the PMS's activities that I cant think straight at times.

I keep having to remind myself of the following (positive ?)facts as I see it :

1)The PMS has successfully 'looked after' the money belonging to individual Presbyterians and congregations, paying good dividends,and offering a friendly personal service from the office staff, for many years.

2)In the last few years, the housing market, and many large financial institutions have been thrown into turmoil due to the general world wide economic situation.

3)Greater numbers of individuals are now becoming more 'savvy' about the guarantee offered by government and more importantly the implications of being in a financial institution which is not covered by the guarantee.

Therefore in all probability, the current PMS situation could have come about purely by points 2 and 3.

However the (negative ?) questions which keep popping back into my head are:

A) What could have caused such a rush of big value withdrawals in such a short space of time ?

Could there have been some sort of 'insider' knowledge which was leaked,purposely or accidentally, which started this rush of withdrawals ?

C) What sort of information could that have been and who would have been privvy to it ?

D) As a Presbyterian,if I wanted to start up an 'Adults only' type club (if you know what I mean ) and wanted to call it the 'Presbyterian Adults Only Club', would the PCI have allowed me to use their name in the name of the club ????? I think not !!! My point is ,that the PCI must have been 'happy' for their name to be linked to the Mutual Society for the last 20 odd years - UNTIL NOVEMBER 2008.

E)The Administrator is only doing his job as required by law, however I would like an opportunity to remind the Administrator to be mindful that many of the people he currently represents are NOT familiar with the administration process (is anyone ?)My particular concern is all the 'wee grannie' and/or 'wee grandad'' aged population (my kid's description and not ment to offend any grannie or grandad aged people out there)

I've more to say but I want to post this now so that I can have my lunch.:rotfl:
BRB

joylikes2shop

Having read the Administrators report for the umpteenth time looking for inspiration/help/guidance, I started Googling names and thought the following information seemed quite unusual-I'm assuming it's good, but I'd be interested to hear some of your thoughts .......

Someone with the same name as the director who resigned from the PMS in September used to be the senior partner in the company that the Administrator is currently using for legal advice.Assuming it is the same person, is this a good thing ??


Also, I think I'm right in assuming that most people would like to have an opportunity to attend a shareholder's meeting.
According to the Administrators report,
It is open to an individual or group of individuals who hold at least 10% of the society's total debts to require the Administrator to summon a meeting.
I took this to mean that a group of individuals would need to get together to arrange this,and thought that it was unlikely that we could get a group of complete strangers -with the necessary %age of debts- together in order to facilitate this request within the necessary timescale .:rolleyes:
HOWEVER....It would appear that if enough INDIVIDUALS with funds totaling the right amount ,INDIVIDUALLY requested this meeting (i.e.-If everyone that wanted a meeting wrote their own letter requesting one,and these collectively amounted to 10% or more of the society's debt,) we could have had ourselves a meeting !!!!:eek:

I wonder if this could still be arranged ???

As far as the cost of arranging such a meeting,if it happened that enough people did request it,how would individuals know how much it would cost or how much to deposit with the Administrator in advance ?
Wouldn't it be an absolutely wonderful gesture, and perhaps restore some faith in the leadership of the Presbyterian church if the PCI were to volunteer to provide a suitable venue and/or pay the costs ???:T :T :T :T :T

Enough for now,but don't forget to post any thoughts on the connection between the director that resigned in September and the Administrators Legal advisors.

goodbyepci

The Director resigned on 30th September 08

There was an emergency meeting of the Board of Directors on 25th October

Administration started on 17th November 08

The last AGM of the PMS was held on 18th September 2008
(were the cracks starting to show then?)

3.3 of the report says

During the month of October 2008 the Society experienced an unprecedented increase in requests for payments.

Thoughts anyone? :rolleyes:

fivealive_2

I take exception to those who suggest that us investors with the PMS were "fair weather friends" who only had money invested with the PMS because of the generous divident each year. I have an offset mortgage with another financial institution (thankfully) and it is far more advantageous for me to have my savings with that institution so that they can be "offset". However I kept a modest sum in the PMS as I saw it as a form of ethical investment and felt that I was helping congregations to access low interest loans for their building projects. I now feel quite let down.
Why were 6 of the Society Directors Ordained Ministers? What financial expertise did they have? I can't accept that it was a "mottley crew" of Financial Advisors who spooked investors into withdrawing £21 million from the PMS in October. Why are Ministers not queueing up to tell the public about the thousands of pounds that they have potentially lost in the PMS? I certainly hope that it is not a case that the real motto of the PMS was "run by Ministers for Ministers"? Am I being too harsh a critic?
In the Moderator's letter of the 23rd Jan'09 he states "We need thousands of signatures to indicate to the Government the widespread concern of the Church at large and to support those placed in personal difficulty by the events which were triggered by the Government guarantee to the banking system."
Is it strictly true or fair to suggest that the government single handedly triggered the downfall of the PMS? As far as I am aware the Credit Union is not covered by the Government guarantee either but I am not aware of a stampede of people rushing there to withdraw all their investments. I actually think that blaming the Government Banking Guarantee Scheme for bringing down the PMS is a Red Herring.
I perceive the PCI and the PMS to be founded on Christian Principles, surely this includes honesty, integrity and transparency?
Let the truth be told whatever it is.