NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

BETRAYED

Money Box BBC Radio4 Sat23 and Sun24 Oct.

Go to 17 minutes on.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00vg8h9/Money_Box_23_10_2010

Toastandbutter

expat68 wrote: »

"About two-thirds of savers will get a very substantial amount back, but we can't be sure if it is 100 per cent," he said.

He suggested that the package could get larger savers/creditors back 80 per cent in the short term but that if they forced a liquidation they would be selling off PMS assets in a bad market and would not get such a good return.

As far as I know this is the only detail on any proposal - possible plan may be that everyone gets first £20,000 back and those with greater than £20,000 will receive a percentage initially with more to follow as value of assets increases but that is just speculation on my part.

Dont forget there was further detail on executive proposals here from the day before the CSR;-

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/39Full-refund39-aim-for-smaller.6592463.jp

Toastandbutter

darzip wrote: »

T&B, read my post. I've got no problem with the PMS being rescued by the taxpayer. I've read this thread since day one to keep my family informed, I didn't feel the need to post until I read that idiotic post from a Ballymena resident which riled me.

I understand more than most the destress this has caused people who placed their money and faith in the PMS. I'm genuinely sorry if you've lost money, but your response is way over the top and unwarranted.

Thanks Darzip - that puts it in a bit of context thanks.

Its just that there are no shortage of people willing to stick the knives in PMS savers with their 'superior' after-the-event-financial-savvy.

You never thought to warn your family members about how unsafe their money was in the PMS?

darzip

Toastandbutter wrote: »

Thanks Darzip - that puts it in a bit of context thanks.

Its just that there are no shortage of people willing to stick the knives in PMS savers with their 'superior' after-the-event-financial-savvy.

You never thought to warn your family members about how unsafe their money was in the PMS?

I did, I warned at the time not to put money in, but the power of the Presbyterian seal of approval was too strong for my elderly parents.

I actually TOLD them to remove their money before the run happened. They called the PMS office and spoke to Colin Ferguson who fed them a pack of lies. A few days before everything came to a head my father called the office again and Colin reassured him that the money was safe. Since then they've been living on next to nothing as have so many other elderly people in similar situations.

Has Colin been hauled over the coals for his part in the PMS shambles?

pensiongone

darzip wrote: »

They called the PMS office and spoke to Colin Ferguson who fed them a pack of lies. A few days before everything came to a head my father called the office again and Colin reassured him that the money was safe. Since then they've been living on next to nothing as have so many other elderly people in similar situations.

Has Colin been hauled over the coals for his part in the PMS shambles?

Exactly the same thing happened to me, I phoned 3 times from the summer of 2008 when all the financial uncertainty started.

I was told lie after lie after lie by Colin Ferguson, and I have informed the appropriate authorities of all the conversations with him, as I took shorthand notes at the time.
He assured me each time that "UNLIKE THE BANKS, THEY DID NOT SPECULATE WITH THE MONEY!"

Colin Ferguson even told me that my money was far safer in PMS than in the bank because it was lent to the congregations, there was no mention at all of buy to let lending or lending to property developers.
If that had been true it would have been the case, if the money had been lying out with congregations, paying for their new halls and renovations, and them all beavering away to repay it.


I don't know how he sleeps at night now :mad:

Toastandbutter

The Treasury's £200m will not be available to the NI Executive until April - but John Simpson doubts they will be ready to ask for it by then;-

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/Treasury-PMS-money-not-ready.6599084.jp

expat68

Toastandbutter wrote: »

The Treasury's £200m will not be available to the NI Executive until April - but John Simpson doubts they will be ready to ask for it by then;-

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/Treasury-PMS-money-not-ready.6599084.jp

Great - another Christmas without for many savers !!

Odd to see that Stafford needs Sammy Wilson to "formally" ask him for money - what does he actually mean by that? Church Palace still seems to be lacking any common sense or conscience.

ordained

Why not pay out each saver/ investor 50%o of their investment/loan right away and hold the balance until a method of distribution is worked out. This would immediately elevate the suffering of the less well off members and safeguard the overall
well being of the funds ?

Treasurer

Thank goodness for the people on this forum and the Newsletter .. I have been following the happenings via both and without them I would have felt totally isolated .Where was our Church when we most needed it ?

Toastandbutter

ordained wrote: »

Why not pay out each saver/ investor 50%o of their investment/loan right away and hold the balance until a method of distribution is worked out. This would immediately elevate the suffering of the less well off members and safeguard the overall
well being of the funds ?

One obvious problem appears to be that the NI Executive cant even get the Treasury's £200m until April.

Another is that they want to make sure it is legally watertight before they do anything - there has already been one high court challenge!

Thus I imagine the distribution method and the EU state aid rules will have to be settled before a penny can go out.

For similar reasons, a creditors vote will have to be settled before shareholders can get any money.

However, 12 per cent has already been paid to creditors, it does seem feasible that a further payement could be made anytime from PMS income to creditors.

This would then mean that when shareholders do eventually get paid, they would be morally if not legally in a stronger position to get a bigger immediate share.

However, it appears the executive is very bullish about its plans to give shareholders as close to 100 per cent anyway at the first bite, so this could be quite a moot point.