NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

BETRAYED

brick wrote: »

Is it likely that "due diligence", had there been cause to undertake, would have identified fatal flaws not picked up by "corporate governance reviews"?

2004 - Your Board has given serious consideration to the future of the Society in the light of its remarkable expansion and at present is carrying out a review into its corporate governance in order to make sure it is soundly based and wisely administered in the future.
2005 - Since last year, as a result of our consideration of corporate governance, we have introduced some changes...
2007 - Last year I reported that we were looking carefully at the governance of the society and this has now been fully carried out.

AND
Directors' Report to AGM for year ended 31 March 2008
Risk Management
" The directors have conducted a review of the major risks to which the Society is exposed. These risks are considered regularly by the directors and they have developed systems to monitor and control these risks in order to mitigate any impact they may have on the Society".

BETRAYED

Newsletter Today

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/Executive-to-discuss-PMS-rescue.6594030.jp

ballyblack

http://www.staffordcarson.com/2010/10/a-sense-of-relief/

expat68

[FONT=Humnst777LtBT,Italic][FONT=Humnst777LtBT,Italic]

The congregations of Presbyterian Church in Ireland have suffered as a result of the PMS collapse, both as individuals, and collectively. Legally, it appears that the Church has no liability. However, the Society was linked to the Church, its role was advertised at the General Assembly,it was the subject of pulpit calls and it enthusiastically endorsed by many of its ministers. We
consider that the Church cannot evade responsibility for what happened, and should consider whether it can help in any way. (Paragraph 42).

[/FONT][/FONT]

The Government hopes that dialogue between the Northern Ireland Executive and the Presbyterian Church in Ireland will result in the Church finding means to offer financial support to members of the Presbyterian Mutual Society, particularly those who were hardest hit by its collapse.

So Stafford - the time for excuses on why the Church cannot contribute any significant sum is past. Its time for action (rather than words) and some recovery of credibility of PCI.

Toastandbutter

Nar, clever with money(!), Darzip

OK guys, I understand you and angry with this whole thing.

You think the church messed up big time and should pick up the tab.

If you had been following this thread for anytime - as opposed to just dropping in with glib comments on what is for many people a major personal crisis of great emotional depth - you would know that in fact most of the PMS members on this thread share your anger and analysis of the church's actions.

NOTE HOW NOBODY IS DEFENDING THE CHURCH AGAINST YOUR CRITICISMS. WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH ALL THE 'NEW' POINTSYOU ARE MAKING MANY TIMES OVER TWO YEARS.

But what does not seem to register with any of you is that the Prime Minister, Chancellor and Treasury Select Committee are all agreed that while the church has been responsible for significant failures in this, the overall responsibility lies with them for their regulatory failure. (It remains to be seen how the church will get out of formal investigations).

I'm not conversing with you any more because you will not even broach this subject.

Neither will you accept that at least £175m but possibly the entire £225m we are expecting is LOAN WHICH THE PMS WILL HAVE TO PAY BACK TO THE TAXPAYER!!!

HELLO!!!!!! - ANYBODY ON PLANET NAR, DARZIP OR 'CLEVER WITH MONEY(!) ?????

THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE MONEY (POSSIBLY ALL OF IT BEING OFFERING TO RESCUE PMS SAVERS IS A LOAN WHICH MUST BE REPAID AT TREASURY RATES.

HELLO!!!!!

Since you are all 'clever with money' and have not lost any money during the recession, I wonder how you would feel if you lost your life savings due to a fatal regulatory failure?

Why should PMS savers be the only savers in the UK to lose money during the UK's banking crisis due to a government regulatory failure?

HELLO!

[T&B clicks his fingers in front of eyes of Darzip, CWM and NAR - will there be a response?].

T&B

Toastandbutter

David Cameron said in Northern Ireland during the general election;-

"This is all about a simple value, building a society where we reward those who do the right thing. Last year we saw the prime minister betraying those who had done the right thing, when he boasted that 'not one British saver has lost a single penny' in the banking crisis.

"He should try telling that to investors in the PMS who worked hard, saved hard – and then saw their money disappear. Are they not British, did they not lose money? So I give you this pledge.

"If I am prime minister, a Conservative and Unionist government will work with the Executive here to ensure a just and fair resolution of the PMS. It's about saying we're all in this together, you've done the right thing, and you deserve for that to be recognised and rewarded."

Toastandbutter

Unveiling his Spending Review in the House of Commons, Chancellor George Osborne said:

"In Northern Ireland the collapse of the Presbyterian Mutual Society has indeed caused great hardship, and people have been left without their money for far too long.
"I confirm today that we will provide the Northern Ireland Executive with £25 million in cash, and a £175 million loan to help those who have lost their life savings."

NAR

Toastandbutter wrote: »

If you had been following this thread for anytime - as opposed to just dropping in with glib comments on what is for many people a major personal crisis of great emotional depth - you would know that in fact most of the PMS members on this thread share your anger and analysis of the church's actions.
I have contributed on this thread several times - I'm gutted you have missed my posts.

NOTE HOW NOBODY IS DEFENDING THE CHURCH AGAINST YOUR CRITICISMS. WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH ALL THE 'NEW' POINTSYOU ARE MAKING MANY TIMES OVER TWO YEARS.
But are doing nothing about it!

But what does not seem to register with any of you is that the Prime Minister, Chancellor and Treasury Select Committee are all agreed that while the church has been responsible for significant failures in this, the overall responsibility lies with them for their regulatory failure. (It remains to be seen how the church will get out of formal investigations).

I'm not conversing with you any more because you will not even broach this subject.

Neither will you accept that at least £175m but possibly the entire £225m we are expecting is LOAN WHICH THE PMS WILL HAVE TO PAY BACK TO THE TAXPAYER!!!

HELLO!!!!!! - ANYBODY ON PLANET NAR, DARZIP OR 'CLEVER WITH MONEY(!) ?????

THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE MONEY (POSSIBLY ALL OF IT BEING OFFERING TO RESCUE PMS SAVERS IS A LOAN WHICH MUST BE REPAID AT TREASURY RATES.
HELLO Then why don't PMS put up the loans against their enormous collateral?

HELLO!!!!!

Since you are all 'clever with money' and have not lost any money during the recession, I wonder how you would feel if you lost your life savings due to a fatal regulatory failure?

Why should PMS savers be the only savers in the UK to lose money during the UK's banking crisis due to a government regulatory failure?

HELLO!

[T&B clicks his ingers in front of eyes of Darzip, CWM and NAR - will there be a response?].

T&B

Keep your "ingers" to yourself thankyou! :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

BETRAYED

I hear that voting papers for Creditors' Committee have arrived with some people this morning.

BETRAYED

The only two groups for election are

Creditors Up to 46,000
Creditors 187,001 to 425,000

We could have been told who was returned unopposed in the other Creditor groups and in the Shareholder group.

I would like to know if any of them are solicitors, accountants, Presbyterian ministers or representing the interests of PCI.

Lack of contest in the other groups shows how hard it was to get ten names to support a nomination.

The administrator is well aware of this.