NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

expat68

absoluteutopia wrote: »

Agreed, was in a shop in Ballymena today and the conversation was about this. A lot of taxpayers VERY unhappy about OUR money being used for this.

On that point most English taxpayers are none too happy about their money being used to keep the Northern Ireland economy solvent - once Northern Ireland is self financing then i guess you can justifiably debate how your tax revenue us spent.

john2009

absoluteutopia wrote: »

Agreed, was in a shop in Ballymena today and the conversation was about this. A lot of taxpayers VERY unhappy about OUR money being used for this.

....you are a sad little man/woman if thats how you feel about the plight of some 10,000 people in NI. You also show a total ignorance about a complex situation. I would suggest that you have a read at the Tresury Select Committee's report on the failure of PMS. You may then realise that the Gov had no option but to do something.

It's a worthy cause and well done to all those who kept the pressure on the politicians.

PCI.U.O.Me

Here's a revelation, ......PMS Savers are....wait for it .....also British Taxpayers!!!!! Many of us PMS Savers, believe it or not, pay quite a lot of tax to the Revenue and Customs each year. Indeed my taxes pay for schools, even though I don't have children, it pays for hospitals, even though I've not needed one since I was born, I pay for people to recieve unemployment benefits even though I have never received any benefits in my life and on it goes...... I'm not moaning about paying thousands of pounds out every year and getting absolutely nothing back in return. Some people appear to delight in other people's misery and would be more than happy to see honest, hard working citizens lose all of their savings. Gives us all a insight into a very unfortunate side of human nature.

Grrrandad

NAR wrote: »

IMHO you lot of whingers are very lucky to have got anything from us taxpayers. Go force the hand of the church for the shortfall of any money, which is where it should be all coming from.

How sad it is to note that along with 'absoluteutopia' you would be a lot happier to see ordinary people, like yourselves, losing a lifetime of savings - but I suppose it 'takes all sorts'

I am not an expert but I'm sure that the contribution from the individual taxpayer would not amount to a lot compared to some of the other uses the Govt puts our taxes to - I think it is obvious to everyone, no matter how much the Church may be to blame for promoting the Presbyterian Mutual Society, they are in no position to fully address our current situation.

darzip

absoluteutopia wrote: »

Agreed, was in a shop in Ballymena today and the conversation was about this. A lot of taxpayers VERY unhappy about OUR money being used for this.

You miss the bigger picture, I'm originally from NI and I've got no problem with my taxes going towards this. The people affected seem to be decent (albeit naive with investments) church going folk. The amount allocated to the PMS is buttons compared to the money Northern Ireland gets from UK taxes. I've got a major problem with my taxes going back home into a black hole.

Complain all YOU want in YOUR big shopping centre in Ballymena-hi while the rest of the UK keeps YOU afloat. Bumpkins.

expat68

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/Full-refund-aim-for-smaller.6592463.jp

expat68

Lets hope he does this quicker than he organised the creditors committee (2 years and counting......)

Update from the Administrator 20th October 2010

General Update
The Administrator has issued a statement in which he said he very much welcomed the announcement today by the Chancellor that funding was being made available to assist the PMS. He said: “I am acutely aware of the difficulties and distress that have been caused to many members of the Society over the past two years. Today’s announcement that funding is being provided for proposals put forward by the Northern Ireland Executive will provide the basis for a speedier return of capital to members/creditors than would otherwise have been possible through the Administration process. There are complex matters to be resolved in terms of how the funding will be applied and in due course I would plan to make a proposal to members/creditors for them to vote upon. The specifics of that proposal cannot be formulated until I have further details.”

NAR

Grrrandad wrote: »

How sad it is to note that along with 'absoluteutopia' you would be a lot happier to see ordinary people, like yourselves, losing a lifetime of savings - but I suppose it 'takes all sorts'

I am not an expert but I'm sure that the contribution from the individual taxpayer would not amount to a lot compared to some of the other uses the Govt puts our taxes to - I think it is obvious to everyone, no matter how much the Church may be to blame for promoting the Presbyterian Mutual Society, they are in no position to fully address our current situation.

And where did I say I was happy for anyone to lose a penny? :mad: I love the way people twist statements!
So you are telling me that the Church could not put up £25m in cash and collateral of £175 for a loan? Don't make me laugh!
The Church should have ensured the PMS was properly regulated before advising parishioners to invest.
This is a completely different situation to the regulated UK banks having to be bailed out.

Who all thinks that the Church's contribution should only be the £5m it has to stump up?

Toastandbutter

A word to absoluteutopia, NAR, Darzip.

The formal investigation into this by the Treasury Select Committee found that PMS savers were innocent victims of "a fatal regulatory gap" – chairman John McFall’s words.

Savers were repeatedly assured there was no speculation with their money. The select committee said no lay person could reasonably have known about the regulatory pitfall Darzip (see TSC link below) - will you retract the "naive" jab Darzip?

The TSC said PMS savers were assured there was no speculation with their money; the value of their 'investment' could not rise or fall, according to the terms of their savings. All they could do was get interest.

Anyone else who saved under those terms in the UK had their money guaranteed by government. And as the government was responsible for overseeing the PMS, approved its constitution and collected the PMS accounts every year, surely nobody is suggesting they should not be treated like other UK savers on account of....their religion?

"Fatal regulatory gap", remember?

In any event, it was a cinch to join a Presbyterian Church to gain access to the fund if anyone was interested and by all accounts at least some people did exactly this.

Furthermore, *at least* £175m of the £200m loans offered yesterday are LOANS which must be repaid (the PMS still earns some £9m a year in rent and loan repayments etc and its assets will recover).

I have come to wonder if at least some of the people who attack support for the PMS might;-

- Be looking to lash out after having lost much money in risky investments (savers did not speculate with the PMS).

or;-

- Did not save at all and are jealous of those who did.

or;-

- Have an axe to grind against people who choose to have faith.


absoluteutopia, NAR, Darzip - would the three of you care to tell us if you fall into any of these three categories??????



BACKGROUND INFORMATION;-
http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2010/02/mps-call-for-regulatory-gap-closure-following-presbyterian-mutual-society-losses/

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmtreasy/260/260.pdf


T&B

ballyblack

Radio Ulster this morning

Wind forward 2 hrs 16 min into prog

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00v7qg5/Good_Morning_Ulster_21_10_2010