NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

crazymess

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/Paterson-quizzed-over-39battle39-for.6523819.jp

joylikes2shop

http://www.staffordcarson.com/2010/09/update-from-the-secretary-of-state/

Flinflon

Banbridge meeting as told by me...

I went to the PMS meeting at Bannside Presbyterian Church this evening and took notes. They are here in a condensed form, so I hope I've hit some highlights. These notes also incorporate some of the answers that were given to questions from the audience.
Present on the panel were Ian McGimpsey from the savers lobby, Dr. Stafford Carson of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, and MLA John McCallister (UUP) from South Down.
Ian McGimpsey provided some history, both of the PMS debacle and of efforts and progresss by the lobby group, which began in March, 2009. He and the other panelists stressed the need for more participation by savers in the lobbying of politicians at Stormont and Westminster. He said that real progress has been made, particularly in recent months, but the lobbying pressure has to be maintained.
Dr. Carson said he has heard many heart-rending examples of hardship from savers. This whole situation has cast a shadow across the church and across many families, he said.
He noted the remark by Gorden Brown, former PM, that during the recession not one saver in the UK had lost a penny. Yet PMS savers remain the only group that has not been rescued. And it's been nearly two years. He said it costs each British taxpayer about £3,000 annually to pay for the rescue of other institutions, but it would cost each taxpayer only two or three pounds annually to save the PMS.
He said he will continue to press David Cameron's government for two things: first, the preferred option that a commercial takeover of the PMS take place--one that will return 100 pence on the pound to every saver. And second, that the "iniquitous distinction" be removed between those who have less, and those who have more than £20,000 in the PMS. (You'll recall that the distinction was made, with regret, in the high court last Febuary--the effect of which could mean those with £20,000 or less could lost everything when a settlement is reached.)
He warned that any solution other than a takeover by a financial institution could result in legal actions against the PMS directors, the administrator and the Northern Ireland government. And resolution of such actions could take years--during which time, our money would be frozen. But a commercial takeover would render such actions null, void and unnecessary.
The so-called "Plan B", which would incorporate a hardship fund, would be an unacceptable option, said Dr. Carson. He was concerned that the PM's working group is considering a modified version of this, as well as the so-called commercial option. But any form of "Plan B" raied the spectre of a humiliating means test, and would fly in the face of the "mutual" aspect of the PMS's principles. He was also concerned that Owern Paterson, the Northern Ireland secstate, used the term "investments" earlier Friday, when referring to PMS members, despite repeated insistence over the past two years that we are savers, not investors.
Dr. Carson reminded the audience that David Cameron has pledged a "just and fair" resolution of this situation, and added that the PM was careful to put that pledge in the context of what he called a betrayal of savers by the former PM. Dr. Carson said that, to him, "just and fair" means a return of 100p on the pound to all savers, and that this sets a standard and benchmark for the PM's pledge. He said that if a solution is proposed by the government which causes anyone to lose money, "we will have to say, 'That is not just and fair.'"
He answered several questions from the audience (I'll give a few answers here in capsule form: )
--Banks continue to struggle at the moment and none are expected to rush forward to save the PMS without the government providing some financial guarantee.
--We are into a "very critical and crucial" period, Dr. Carson said, because the treasury's spending review is being prepared now, to be ready in late October; it's hoped that the PM's working group will have a proposed solution ready by then.
--He pledged that he would press Mr. Paterson to specifiy exactly what was meant bya "just and fair" resolution to our situation, though he noted that Mr. Paterson (in a response to Lady Sylvia Hermon's persistent questions on the matter) said there was no black and white answer to that.
--Dr. Carson warned that, even if a solution is agreed, it could take time for funds to work their way back to PMS savers--e.g. if a financial institution agreed to a takeover, due diligence on the PMS accounts, practices, rules, etc. could take some time. Also EU regulations could cause impediments that would have to be sorted...though, with the government's takeover of the Northern Bank (as an example), there appeared to be no problems with EU bureaucracy.

D.A.

Flinflon wrote: »

though, with the government's takeover of the Northern Bank (as an example)

FF, I hope you meant Northern Rock. ;-)

BETRAYED

Moderator as quoted above.

He warned that any solution other than a takeover by a financial institution could result in legal actions against the PMS directors, the administrator and the Northern Ireland government. And resolution of such actions could take years--during which time, our money would be frozen. But a commercial takeover would render such actions null, void and unnecessary.
The so-called "Plan B", which would incorporate a hardship fund, would be an unacceptable option, said Dr. Carson. He was concerned that the PM's working group is considering a modified version of this, as well as the so-called commercial option. But any form of "Plan B" raised the spectre of a humiliating means test, and would fly in the face of the "mutual" aspect of the PMS's principles.

In my opinion Gov. in London and Belfast have a duty to repair and recompense members of a Bona Fide Mutual Society which was exposed to the credit crunch mainly by regulatory failure and assistance given to other financial institutions.

I don't care how it is done as long as it is done. I am sorely disappointed that the society from which the Church, its Clergy, Congregations and Members benefited from over so many years can only see itself being taken over by one of the institutions that were themselves party to the financial crisis.
But 'any port in a storm'.



Interesting that Dr Carson mentions the Mutual aspect of PMS principles

anotherDonald

BETRAYED wrote: »

Moderator as quoted above.

Interesting that Dr Carson mentions the Mutual aspect of PMS principles

Maybe if the PCI had considered a “mutual” response themselves at the outset things would have been different?
As it is they initially acted no differently than the most mendacious politician - trying to wriggle away from their responsibilities.

Maybe if they had...
· Apologised for encouraging us to put our savings in the PMS
· Apologised for endorsing what we perceived as a church based savings club
· Apologised for the pulpit call in the summer of 2008 encouraging us to put money in the PMS
· Apologised for the false assurances we were given when we enquired about the safety of our savings.
· Apologised for the false assurances that our funds would under no circumstances be speculated with.
· Apologised for the posters in the vestibules and full page adverts on the back of the Herald encouraging the illusion that the PMS was part of the church.
· Apologised for the PMS Chair telling us in 2007 that the Society was one of the great successes of our Church.


Maybe if they had....
· Not ignored us when we stood outside Church House with our placards at the General Assembly in June 2009.
· Not made us sit silently in the gallery like naughty children at the same Assembly
· Not applauded when Rev McKelvey branded us sinners for going to the law – diplomatically ignoring the fact that PCI went to the law long before the savers did.


If only they had....
· Made an office and personnel available immediately in Church House as a central base to focus lobbying efforts, update on the situation, deal with enquiries, and with an easy access fund to deal with financial difficulties.
· Not been so publicly miserly about agreeing to put together a measly £1M for a “hardship fund”
· Been a bit more sensitive about spending £4.2M on refurbishing Church House, maybe the money cannot be diverted from its original purpose, but once again PCI have shot themselves in the foot.
· Openly explained the General Investment fund of £43M alluded to in the press, which “cannot be touched”.



Then they will be in a position to lecture us about "mutuality"

Flinflon

FF, I hope you meant Northern Rock. ;-)[/QUOTE]

Yup. Thanks, D.A.:o

BETRAYED

This week I was approached by a well known NI journalist asking if I knew that there was a list circulating of the names of those who had withdrawn substantial savings in PMS just prior to PMS going into administration. ie those who had inside information.

I have not heard of such a list and I don't know where it could have come from but I told the journalist that I did hear the names of several of those people mentioned. including one who was a PMS director and that I was also told of a trustee of PCI who withdrew substantial funds and advised others to do likewise after attending the 2008 Annual General Meeting.

Anybody heard of this list ?

Stafford Carson ........I am looking for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth

Bye the way......I think the latest posting by anotherDonald is one of the best postings on this forum.

Lester_F

anotherDonald wrote: »

Maybe if the PCI had considered a “mutual” response themselves at the outset things would have been different?
As it is they initially acted no differently than the most mendacious politician - trying to wriggle away from their responsibilities.

Maybe if they had...
· Apologised for encouraging us to put our savings in the PMS
· Apologised for endorsing what we perceived as a church based savings club
· Apologised for the pulpit call in the summer of 2008 encouraging us to put money in the PMS
· Apologised for the false assurances we were given when we enquired about the safety of our savings.
· Apologised for the false assurances that our funds would under no circumstances be speculated with.
· Apologised for the posters in the vestibules and full page adverts on the back of the Herald encouraging the illusion that the PMS was part of the church.
· Apologised for the PMS Chair telling us in 2007 that the Society was one of the great successes of our Church.


Maybe if they had....
· Not ignored us when we stood outside Church House with our placards at the General Assembly in June 2009.
· Not made us sit silently in the gallery like naughty children at the same Assembly
· Not applauded when Rev McKelvey branded us sinners for going to the law – diplomatically ignoring the fact that PCI went to the law long before the savers did.


If only they had....
· Made an office and personnel available immediately in Church House as a central base to focus lobbying efforts, update on the situation, deal with enquiries, and with an easy access fund to deal with financial difficulties.
· Not been so publicly miserly about agreeing to put together a measly £1M for a “hardship fund”
· Been a bit more sensitive about spending £4.2M on refurbishing Church House, maybe the money cannot be diverted from its original purpose, but once again PCI have shot themselves in the foot.
· Openly explained the General Investment fund of £43M alluded to in the press, which “cannot be touched”.



Then they will be in a position to lecture us about "mutuality"

I don't want an apology. I want the truth.

I want the truth about the running of, and the run on the PMS. I want the directors and secretary of the PMS to be made accountable.

Stafford Carson is not responsible for the PMS crisis. Furthermore, I think that he deserves credit for his actions on this issue.

crazymess

PMS was raised at PM's Questions in the Commons today:
http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/latest-news/2010/09/prime-ministers-questions-11-55072

Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP): Before the election, the Prime Minister said:
“If I am Prime Minister a Conservative and Unionist Government will work with”
the Northern Ireland
“Executive to ensure a just and fair resolution of the PMS”—
the Presbyterian Mutual Society—and continued:
“you’ve done the right thing and you deserve for that to be recognised and rewarded.”
How soon will that pledge be honoured?
The Prime Minister: I am determined that we will honour that pledge. This is important. I know how angry people in Northern Ireland are when they hear British politicians say, “Of course, nobody lost any savings in the crash.” People did lose money, including in Northern Ireland, and they are right to be upset and angry.
A working group is trying to go through those issues and to find an answer. My right hon. Friend the Northern Ireland Secretary is involved in that, and the Chancellor is engaged in the issue. It is not easy, but we are determined to find a solution so that we can give satisfaction to people who lost money in Northern Ireland and who currently feel that they have been let down.


There was a little mention of PMS on UTV at teatime - Ken Reid's interview
http://www.u.tv/UTVMediaPlayer/Default.aspx?vidid=132462



It's nice to see the Chancellor is involved now ......
It is not easy ......determined to find a solution ......



Apparently the Working Group chaired by Right Hon Owen Paterson are meeting again next Wednesday 22nd Sept.