NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

brick

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/religion/credit+crunch+hits+northern+ireland/2915177

Bannside_2

Marford101, I expect you will receive a fair few replies to your post. I suppose the answer is we all live in a society where in an ideal world we all help each other. I have never been a member of the RBS, HBOS, Lloyds TSB, Northern Rock etc yet my hard earned tax went to bail out these banks and all their various customers. Should I and others like me have been excused from bailing these banks out?

Mark789

marford101 wrote: »

Am I missing something here? As I understand it the PMS is a mutual society and was formed for the mutual benefit of it's members. To be a member I understand that you had to belong to the Presbyterian Church. I and the majority of UK tax payers would of been excluded form being members of the PMS as we were not members of the Presbyterian Church. So it follows that in good times we non members of the Presbyterian Church were always to be excluded from any gains made by the PMS. So what confuses me is the fact that although I would never of been allowed to join the PMS or gain from any profits made by the PMS I am now expected by members of this mutual society to stump up for their loss!
Now don't think that I have no sympathy for the PMS members who have lost some or possibly all their investment. I do feel sorry for them. But then it is no different to the millions of investors from all walks of life who have lost out recently. If I am wrong about this can someone please explain the difference?

Our whole argument is that it IS no different.
As a UK taxpayer you could have participated in the profits of the banks that caused this problem by buying shares. You were not disbarred from the PMU. You could have decided that it was such a good thing that you wanted to convert to Presbyterianism, joined a PCI congregation and become a PMU member. Not the best reason for conversion, but certainly possible.

On the wider point, male UK taxpayers contribute to treatment for medical treatments that only effect females and vice versa - where would you like to draw the line?

freddiemae

warmhands.coldheart wrote: »

I see what you are saying in that why should taxpayer potentially bail out the PMS..

Basically the PMS was never really under any magor threat as such until the government made the decision to garauntee up to £50,000 in Banks & Building societies for all savers (At tax Payers expense!!) but decided to leave Mutual societies out in the cold.. which in turn frightened the begeepers out of people who in turn withdrew vast amounts of cash in a short period of time putting the society in metldown... so basically it's the Governments fault the PMS is in this situation... Had they garaunteed all savings in all socities (Giving an even playing field) then I personally believe the PMS would still be happily ticking along as before..

Your comment that "To be a member I understand that you had to belong to the Presbyterian Church."
I thought that too but seems the rules were "bent" a bit in some occasions...

I understand your grievance but then it's the government creating this one rule for one and one for the other situation... Why should we (as taxpayers) have bailed out banks and garaunteed savings in Bank savings accounts?

The Garauntee should have been made across the board...

Firstly - PMS was not registered with FSA so does not qualify for guarantee. If it had been registered then it would not have been allowed to speculate.

Secondly - the FSA guarantee of bank savings is funded by the banks not the taxpayers.

Thirdly - I have every sympathy with people who lost money but if you take financial advice from your church then you must apply to your church for remedy against its shortcomings not the UK taxpayers.

There will be little sympathy from a diverse public towards a restrictive mutual society. Your remedy should be found within your membership. At 300,000 members they would only have to contribute 500 pounds each to make up the shortfall if the society is liquidated and only 150 million is realised.

The piece on Channel 4 news was well balanced.

freddiemae

Link to Newsletter article about developer allegedly involved with PMS
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/Developer-goes-into-liquidation.4929479.jp

warmhands.coldheart

freddiemae wrote: »

Firstly - PMS was not registered with FSA so does not qualify for guarantee. If it had been registered then it would not have been allowed to speculate.
Response:-
This is harldy a time to be spewing out rules and regualtions when the government threw that book out a long time ago!! and as far as "If it had been registered then it would not have been allowed to speculate." what a load of tosh... so what were sub-prime mortgages if not speculation

Secondly - the FSA guarantee of bank savings is funded by the banks not the taxpayers.
Response:-
Ah right.. so the government (Basically the Taxpayer) haven't gauranteed any savings, the government (Basically the Taxpayer) doesn't now basically own Northern Rock & 70% of RBS.. so all those news articles we've read and listened to are all a massive lie... All a conspiracy..

Thirdly - I have every sympathy with people who lost money but if you take financial advice from your church then you must apply to your church for remedy against its shortcomings not the UK taxpayers.
Response:-
True and it's not like this hasn't been tried... seems they have wahsed their hands of it... they will suffer in the long term for it no doubt from loss of members and reduced donations..


There will be little sympathy from a diverse public towards a restrictive mutual society. Your remedy should be found within your membership. At 300,000 members they would only have to contribute 50 pounds each to make up the shortfall if the society is liquidated and only 150 million is realised.
Response:-
OK so you could say Northern Rock was restrictive.. Haven't seen many Branches in Northern Ireland.. Same Could Be said for Bradford and Bingley

The piece on Channel 4 news was well balanced.
Response:-
It's hardly Balanced.. it's 4 paragraphs of about 3 lines each.. hardly an indepth analysis of the situation..

Oh and weren't you and your sister Fannymac bailed out to??

expat68

Secondly - the FSA guarantee of bank savings is funded by the banks not the taxpayers.

freddiemac , understand your perspective but it really is the government that is recapitalising the banks. If you dont believe me look at the current level of government borrowing vs this time last year and read the business news. The taxpayer via the government has pumped billions into the banks to prop up their balance sheets and ensure they retain sufficient liquidity. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but you will be paying for this for many years to come - assuming you are a taxpayer.

D.A.

Coldhands.warmheart (sounds better ), I think you'll find that the poster was referring to the video report on Channel 4 News, not the text which went along with it.

freddiemae

BBC Newsline at 6.30pm report on PMS and how they invested the money

freddiemae

warmhands.coldheart wrote: »

Oh and weren't you and your sister Fannymac bailed out to??

I would say that your argument on restriction is difficult to swallow. Northern Rock took money from and gave money to --anyone with a pulse. Banks take risks but mutual societies are expected to be investing in their own community/fellowship not investing in highly speculative development land.

I am a presbyterian and find it distasteful that the Presbyterian Church is seen by the public and media to be concentrating on their own financial woes when the poorest people in the world are suffering and starving.

How many petitions were in the Church foyer for Gordon Brown to help the starving in the world?