NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

sickasaparrot

I understand what Marford101 is saying, however when i read articles such as the following that appeared on The Daily Mail Online 29.1.09 I find the Government stance regarding the plight of PMS investers to be unexplainable:-

"Treasury officials checking the books of the Royal Bank of Scotland, now controlled by the Government, were shocked to discover that £2.5billion had been loaned to Russian oligarch Leonid Blavatnik in his attempt to build a massive business empire.

The RBS has had to write off the entire debt because one of Mr Blavatnik's foreign companies faces going bust - with British taxpayers left to pay the price."

MR Blavatnik is apparently one of the richest men in the world and yet this huge debt is simply written off using UK taxpayers money, (including ours). In contrast however investors in PMS are being left to flounder.

warmhands.coldheart

freddiemae wrote: »

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?

Now old on.. your the one who said

"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."

but now your basically saying Northern Rock and all the other Banks Specualted (Took risks whatever you want to call it)... Is that not against FSA Rules as your first point seemed to imply??

With regards to your other comments.. the church does do a lot of work for the third world and other suffering communities and it is very unfair and downright insulting to imply that we're all just worried about ourselves... there is a lot of Charity money tied up in PMS too.. all potentially could be lost..

As for "How many petitions were in the Church foyer for Gordon Brown to help the starving in the world" The British government does pump a lot of money into the third world.. but money won't solve the problems of corruption and all the other problems associted with these countries.. Look at Zimbabwee.. back in the 90's it was a thriving country (OK it still had it's problems) but Mr Mugabee has taken it into the mouth of Hell... All the money in the world wouldn't sort that problem out..

Bannside_2

To be honest I find the comments from Freddiemae pretty distasteful. Considering the amount of poor and starving people in the world I thought he might have better things to do than post inciteful and ill informed comments on this forum. It was only a matter of time before the "holier than thou" types appeared. But thanks Freddiemae....I can go home tonight and tell my parents that they really shouldn't be concerned about their hard earned life savings as they are obvioulsy 2 selfish old pensioners who should have given all their money to the poor and starving.

sickasaparrot

freddiemae wrote: »

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?

It is not that long ago since the Presbyterian church gathered thousands of signatures to petition the Government to support the writing off of debt in the poorest countries.

JC74_2

GRR, I have to start my post again after losing the last one.
I just felt compelled to reply. I can’t think of one reason why the government shouldn’t protect investors of PMS. These people are British citizens, paying their taxes into the British coffers. Why should they be treated like some sort of underclass and have this looked upon as a religious matter or a provincial one?
As it’s already been noted, these NI citizens money is good enough to prop up financial institutions to which they have no access to? Why is this not a two way street where they can be protected in a time of need? These investors have been let down by PCI, PMS and now their government.
I’m glad that this issue is in the news and I hope that either the PCI or the government are shamed into action to protect its members. People I am close to stand to lose thousands and I for one, will sign anything or do what I can to help them.
I think charity begins at home and why shouldn’t we look after vulnerable in our own society first? Many of these people are elderly and stand to lose the majority of their life savings. A lot of them don’t have access to the internet and don’t enjoy the benefits of support from this online community. I agree that we need to think global and help African nations as well. As it’s already been pointed out, money won’t solve Africa. Corrupt governments need to be addressed first, but that is another day’s debate!
Rant over,

fivealive_2

freddiemae wrote: »

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.

He does have a point but I think that we need a two pronged approach, targeting both the government and the PCI.
I was very impressed with Rev John Dunlop on Radio Ulster this morning http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00h3yd8/Good_Morning_Ulster_30_01_2009/
He said (among other things) that the PMS went into administration "after an unprecedented number of savers withdrew funds, partly caused by the Government Bank Guarantee Scheme."
Now that is the closest to the truth that I have heard any PCI minister come in speaking to the media.
I believe that the world is watching to see if the church will honour it's moral and Biblical responsibilities towards those who have money in the PMS.

James 1:27 "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world"
See also Isaiah 58.

My introductory leaflet to the PMS states
Q. What is the PMS?
A. The PMS was established in 1982 to encourage Presbyterians to save through their own Church by becoming shareholders and to use and manage such savings for their mutual benefit by creating a source of income and also to establish a fund from which shareholders might borrow at a competitive rate of interest.


I have what I would call a modest sum invested with the PMS but I feel deeply for those, especially retired people, whose life savings are with the PMS. I don't know the solution to this problem but I firmly believe that the PCI must shoulder their responsibilities in this matter, before God and man.

loganjh

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.

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.

Whilst not agreeing with your comments I do understand them.

However;

Where money is lent to businesses - they do not exclusively employ Presbyterians

Where life savings are invested - this money would not have been spent exclusively in Presbyterian owned and run shops

etc.

The underlying argument is providing confidence in the financial system. The purpose of increasing the guarantee under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme was to increase confidence. Unwittingly it had unforseen consequences for the PMS.

Yes FSCS is paid for by a levy but it is the Government that has underwritten Lloyds group (HBOS) , RBS, Northern Rock. Additionally, in the Republic of Ireland, the Irish Government is supporting Bank of Ireland and Allied Irish - didn't they have to nationalise Anglo Irish bank as well. I guess Gordon brown doesn't care about RBS writing off billions of pounds of foreign debt.


Whilst the PMs was allegedly 'closed' the impact will be felt throughout Northern Ireland and even wider afield.

marford101

Mark789 wrote: »

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?

I am sorry Mark789 but there is a difference. If I had invested in bank shares a year ago then I would of lost a lot of money by now and the government would not be helping me out. I have money invested in various funds and have lost out during the last year or so. These investments were open to everyone and yet there is no government compensation and rightly so. I have no grounds for complaint. If I invested badly then it's my own fault. If my investment had gone well and made a lot of money I would of course not be complaining either. And I'm sure PMS members were not complaining when property was booming and their mutual society was making a lot of money for them. Or then again did they receive any of those gains and if not then who did?
PMS members invested in what was a mutual society, investing in property, which was closed to those outside the Presbyterian Church and yet they still think that all taxpayers should help them out now!
The fact of the matter is that if you invest in property speculation there is a risk of loosing your money and that is exactly what investors on PMS did. Weather they invested in property knowingly or not is perhaps open to question!

Your suggestion that people should of converted to the Presbyterian Church in order to invest is a contemptible idea and your comment on medical care is irevelent.

dobefan

D.A. wrote: »

Hang on - so it also appears, from yesterday's Telegraph article, that Coleraine Young Farmers also have money invested in the PMS!

Assuming that it wasn't invested by an individual member of the YF, how exactly can the Young Farmers be classified as "Presbyterian"?

Were any checks whatsoever (apart from very basic ones) performed to ensure that all investors and, errr, "loanees" (can't remember the word ) were actually Presbyterians????

I'm not a ''Presbyterian'' and opened an account ... I even told the truth on the application form, so I believe they were taking money in from anyone that wished to invest with them.

Cheers

Mags52

I know two people did the same thing and cheques were returned to them with very nice letters saying that as they were not Presbyterians they could not invest.

BBC Northern Ireland article very heartening.