NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

BETRAYED

[QUOTE=no_morefwo

John Simpson thinks we won't get any money until September![/QUOTE]

John Simpson is a highly respected economist and has been a regular commentator on PMS matters.

I am somwhat more optimistic about an earlier payout than September.

Grrrandad

Really hope you are right Betrayed but unfortunately Mr Simpson is never very far off the mark!!

BETRAYED

Grrrandad wrote: »

Really hope you are right Betrayed but unfortunately Mr Simpson is never very far off the mark!!

Facts I have ascertained.

1 Members of the Creditors' Committee have met only once since their appointment.

2 Arlene Foster wants the PMS issue resolved before she leaves office. She has to bring in necessary legislation before Assembly is dissolved.

3 Judge Deeny wants the issue resolved.

4 As of last Monday afternoon Arlene Foster had not seen even a draft of the Administrator's proposals.

goodbyepci

Front page of today's New Letter - continued on Page 6

Can't find it online yet.

goodbyepci

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/local/accused_directors_of_pms_revealed_1_2520202

expat68

"QUESTIONS are being asked as to why the only directors of failed British banks being prosecuted as a result of the banking crisis are those from the Presbyterian Mutual Society."

Guess it is related to the fact that no other british saver has lost any money and that directors of other banks ensured their members were not subject to regulatory gaps and got access to their money quickly and in its entirety.

BETRAYED

expat68 wrote: »

"QUESTIONS are being asked as to why the only directors of failed British banks being prosecuted as a result of the banking crisis are those from the Presbyterian Mutual Society.

This article in Daily Telegraph shows that the Serious Fraud Office have not turned a blind eye to irregularaties in at least one bank operating in the UK.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/8372247/Tchenguiz-pair-held-by-SFO-in-Icelandic-bank-collapse-probe.html

freddiemae

http://sluggerotoole.com/2011/03/21/six-former-pms-directors-facing-disqualification-identified/

What a shocking breakdown of the loan book of the PMS. Such a small percentage to congregations.

BETRAYED

Interesting posting on Sluggerotoole's website.

jthree (profile) says:
21 March 2011 at 3:58 pm
‘However, one independent expert in the field last night questioned the context of the prosecutions.’
Pure whataboutery.
The PMS was an out-and-out dog. To an extent that some people still seem unaware of.
I invite people to look at the society’s filings, freely available on the Deti website.
They show that the PMS loan book was an absolute shocker.
At Anglo – the developers bank – they had an informal policy of trying to keep development (as opposed to investment) loans to 15% of the book. By the end they’d thoroughly breached that and development land was about 25% of the book. Not good.
We turn to the PMS. A little table in the administrators report tells us their total book at the end was £184m. The column for ‘building sites and development land’ reads £85m.
That’s fully 46% of the book accounted for by development land.
But there’s more. Another £26m was loaned for Buy To Let -14% of the book. A further £17m for commercial property – 9%.
However, only £12m was loaned to congregations (7%) and £11m for own homes (6%).
The people investing in the PMS probably didn’t know it but the directors had built a mono-line property lender with a whopping exposure to undeveloped land.
In terms of crazy property exposures the PMS was worse than either Anglo or BoSI.
Also have a look at the way that in latter years the balance sheet was ballooning in a way that was utterly imprudent and unsustainable. Even if there hadn’t been a liqudity crisis there would soon have been a solvency crisis.
And that’s without even mentioning the fact that the FSA have already found the whole outfit was basically an illegal bank.

Excap123

With respect guys, there is nothing new in the Slugger post. All the loan figures were in the proposals from the Administrator that members voted on in January 09. The state of the loan book has always been the issue, probably why no other financial institutions was prepared to take on the PMS.