NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

Lakeland

Sadly for members of Presbyterian Mutual Society, Moore family business is indebted to several other financial institutions.
Some deeper research has revealed Moore family has borrowed
heavyily from Bank of Scotland Ireland, Northern Bank, Ulster Bank, Salt Commercial (Derbyshire Building Society), UCB HL i.e. Home Loans (Nationwide Building Society).
Some cold comfort, Presbyterian Mutual Society did not fund Rally Cars or Helicopter, another lender, since bailed out by tax payers, wrote that particular business.

trying_to_help

This accords with my information Lakeland. I am informed also that the PMS accounted for about 12% of Moore borrowings

BETRAYED

trying_to_help wrote: »

This accords with my information Lakeland. I am informed also that the PMS accounted for about 12% of Moore borrowings

If Moore ows PMS circa 20m and shares and loans of PMS were circa 300m surely that means that our directors approved 15% of our total funds in loans to one builder/developer.

trying_to_help

Sorry, Betrayed, you misunderstand me - I refer to Moore's total borrowings from all lending institutions. My information is that PMS comprises 12% of that and also that PMS did not finance the car and helicopter

BETRAYED

Fully understood trying to help . Thanks. I was just trying to point out how reckless it was for PMS to advance so much of our funds to Moore.
We were told in the last Annual Report before the 'run' on funds that a satisfactory risk assessment of the PMS Society's business had been carried out.

Dr._Who_2

Haven't posted here in a while - don't really want to see the directors who are facing DETI charges in court as some of them are quite elderly - but think there needs to be accountability and explanation - can somebody please explain what went wrong and when and how such alrge sums of money were lent regardless of the PMS rules. As a member of PCI and considering that PCI supported the PMS and encouraged our people to put money in it aren't we also owed an explanation - or is the turht too murky!!

PCI.U.O.Me

You are correct Dr Who, we do deserve an explaination and the truth.....not a pack of lies. Those with the responsibility for the management of people's life savings, should be accountable whether they took a salary or not. There's a wee lesson in all of this for anyone taking on a job, be it in their local church or on the board of a organisation managing hundreds of millions of pounds of other people's money.....if your not capable of the task, don't take it on....because if it goes wrong, there's no excuse, you're responsible and will be held to account.

Lakeland

In his reports Arthur Boyd has been strait and honest. The Volunteer Directors, some professionals and some very successful business women and men have not been found to have acted in anyway dishonestly.
Since summer of 2008 we have witnessed a world wide melt down of large financial institutions. If Lehmans RBS and the rest could not survive how were the Directors of a small group like PMS to steer a course to safety?
It is clear some poor decisions were made by loans committee, but we need a rigourous programme of debt recovery.
It cannot be right that individuals are holding on to assets while owing fellow PMS members large sums of money.
PCI U O Me. General assembly will be held in late May, why not ask your minister to ask the question about honesty and transparency. This forum is not that widely read by PMS members but General Assembly is perfect forum

D.A.

Your minister probably won't have to ask it. It's already mentioned in the report of the General Board (at least I think this is the right one!):

http://presbyterianireland.org/assembly/pdfs/General_Board.pdf

BETRAYED

The Rev Dr Donald Watts reports:

1. The Panel is relieved that after a very long time of uncertainty for Presbyterian Mutual Society savers the scheme of arrangement was finally agreed and a distribution made. Thanks are due to the many savers who waited so patiently and to those who worked diligently to bring about this result. They were thanked at the last General Assembly but the Panel still notes the contribution of many people with gratitude.

2. The General Assembly should also note that the distribution to smaller savers was only possible because many larger savers, both individuals and congregations, were willing to allow an additional voluntary amount to remain with the PMS supervisors. Indeed there was a greater response to this request than was needed. It was a welcome demonstration of the mutuality and concern which is shared widely within the Church.

3. It was intended that this might be the final report of the Panel, but as reported to the last Assembly it is hoped to reflect on lessons to be learned. One outstanding concern for the Panel, however, is the situation of those directors who face Court proceedings to disbar them from holding any future directorships. While pastoral care is being offered on a number of levels, it is the individuals and their families who face the daily stress of this unresolved action. Until it has been settled the Panel do not feel it appropriate to bring a final report. In the meantime the Panel makes two recommendations for immediate action:

(i) that all reports and resolutions to the General Assembly should be carefully considered so that only work fully owned and approved by the Board is included;

(ii) that the General Assembly should consider its relationship with any organisations over which it has no control and which is not responsible to the Assembly, but in common perception is considered to be "Presbyterian".
[FONT=Times,Times]
[/FONT]