NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

no_more_f.w.o

ballyblack wrote: »

BELFAST NEWSLETTER

Shape of PMS draft proposals revealed

Published Date: 15 December 2010


"Sources last night said that the aim was still to give those savers with less than £20,000 all their money back. .



Mr Wilson answered that the £25m each from the UK government and executive would go to a Mutual Access Fund for smaller PMS savers.

It doesn't appear that the figures add up

If the £51M to £55M Mutual Access Fund is to pay off the savers with less than £20,000 and give them all their money back, does that mean that those with over £20,000 will get no money back from the Mutual Access Fund?
What if you have £22,000?

Isn't there roughly £100M in "shareholdings"

How will £55M stretch to cover £100M so that all the shareholdings are paid back?

Please can someone explain?

Excap123

no_more_f.w.o wrote: »

It doesn't appear that the figures add up

If the £51M to £55M Mutual Access Fund is to pay off the savers with less than £20,000 and give them all their money back, does that mean that those with over £20,000 will get no money back from the Mutual Access Fund?
What if you have £22,000?

Isn't there roughly £100M in "shareholdings"

How will £55M stretch to cover £100M so that all the shareholdings are paid back?

Please can someone explain?

Clearly there isn't enough to pay everyone. But I don't think anyone can be specific until (a) the terms on which the loan is being made are made clear to the Administrator and (b) the Administrator puts a plan to everyone to vote on. But this £20,000 figure can be misleading. There isn't a simple dividing line between those with £20k and those above. The legal distinction is between share certificates and loan certificates. Many savers are bound to be both shareholders and loanholders. And there are probably many creditors (ie loan note holders) whose holdings have fallen to below £20k - they still rank as creditors not members. The political intention seems to be to give small savers (shareholders) as close to all their money back as possible, to give creditors a large share of their money back (they have already had 12%) and ask them to defer the remaining proportion until the society is finally wound up in maybe ten years. So it will depend on whether the larger investors (creditors) act generously so that smaller savers get treated fairly.
That's the way i see it.

Toastandbutter

Excap123 wrote: »

Clearly there isn't enough to pay everyone. But I don't think anyone can be specific until (a) the terms on which the loan is being made are made clear to the Administrator and (b) the Administrator puts a plan to everyone to vote on. But this £20,000 figure can be misleading. There isn't a simple dividing line between those with £20k and those above. The legal distinction is between share certificates and loan certificates. Many savers are bound to be both shareholders and loanholders. And there are probably many creditors (ie loan note holders) whose holdings have fallen to below £20k - they still rank as creditors not members. The political intention seems to be to give small savers (shareholders) as close to all their money back as possible, to give creditors a large share of their money back (they have already had 12%) and ask them to defer the remaining proportion until the society is finally wound up in maybe ten years. So it will depend on whether the larger investors (creditors) act generously so that smaller savers get treated fairly.
That's the way i see it.

First off - as to what is new today - it is new that the Executive has approved this lifeline; that was a crucial first hurdle.

Next off, approval is needed from creditors, assembly and EU.

As to how the sums work out, they had said previously that the £225m would be weighted towards those with under £20k.

ie that much more than £50k would go into the access fund.

Dont forget creditors already got 12% of loans back and there is cash from rent in the bank too.

As said above, creditors are not expected to get back as much as small savers in the first round, but I still reckon there is enough for them to get around 75-80% of their money back by the first round, while shareholders could get close to all.

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


Just because there is £100m in shareholdings does not mean that all shareholdings will take equal priority.

By my reading the larger savers who have a small proportion in shareholdings will not have their shareholdings treated with the same priority as those who have all their money in shareholdings.

BETRAYED

Meanwhile, it is understood that the Presbyterian Church is still seeking guidance as to whether it, as a charitable organisation,
is legally permitted to make a contribution to the PMS Mutual Access Fund, which it sees as a commercial entity.

Don't make me laugh.

Excap123

Toastandbutter
I think what you're saying is there will be a sliding scale of return depending on the total amount held, is that right? I presume this can be done within the law which dictates that holders of loan notes (creditors) must be paid in full before shareholders can receive a distribution. I guess that is why £50m + is being put into a Mutual Access Fund - in other words it will not be available to the creditors.
But bottom line, we will have to wait until we see what the administrator's proposed arrangment is, and then we can vote - not that there is any alternative other than a lousy deal through liquidation. The elderly relative I speak for will vote for it, on the basis that no-one else is offering savers any money.

Toastandbutter

Excap123 wrote: »

Toastandbutter
I think what you're saying is there will be a sliding scale of return depending on the total amount held, is that right? I presume this can be done within the law which dictates that holders of loan notes (creditors) must be paid in full before shareholders can receive a distribution. I guess that is why £50m + is being put into a Mutual Access Fund - in other words it will not be available to the creditors.
But bottom line, we will have to wait until we see what the administrator's proposed arrangment is, and then we can vote - not that there is any alternative other than a lousy deal through liquidation. The elderly relative I speak for will vote for it, on the basis that no-one else is offering savers any money.

Yep I would go with sliding scale.

Perhaps the key point is not so much what administration law says is possible but more about whether the deal is just sweet enough to buy off creditors, ie good enough to make it not worthwhile for further legal action from them....

if creditors vote for the package I can't see how any of them would have any other legal option but to roll with it.

goodbyepci

http://www.uup.org/index.php/news/item/148

goodbyepci

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/PMS-rescue-plans-pass-another.6662364.jp

goodbyepci

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/Politicians-aim-to-sell-budget39s.6662334.jp

More on the budget, a brief mention of PMS

Toastandbutter

PMS plans pass another hurdle.....

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/PMS-rescue-plans-pass-another.6662364.jp