NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

sharkey8

This evening's BBC NI Newsline programme link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsline/content/articles/2009/01/30/presbyterian_money_feature.shtml

sickasaparrot

marford101 wrote: »

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.

I believe that before you started posting here you should have done some research as it is clear that you are ill informed about the way that business was carried out at PMS. Having money in a mutual society cannot be compared to having shares in a stockmarket registered company. Personally I put money into PMS to avoid the volatility and sometimes unethical nature of some of the companies listed on the stockmarket. PMS staff assured me and others on many occasions that our money was used to buy property for rental income or lent to congregations and members secured against property.

expat68

Best ignore the trolls - they're very clearly a bunch of bankers

Votes all in and will now be a case of sitting tight and waiting for the next missive from the administator so fact can be separated from fiction. Seems to have been a few more positive signals of late and I do hope these are not misplaced. Press still hanging onto the story which is good and expect a few more stories this weekend followed by more again when the vote comes out.

Lots of new contributors (some good (welcome), some bad (you know who you are)

fivealive_2

crazymess wrote: »

BIG THANK YOU TO MARTIN LEWIS AND HIS TEAM FOR THIS INVALUABLE WEBSITE - WHICH REALLY HAS GOT ME (AND I'M SURE OTHERS) THROUGH THIS ORDEAL UNTIL NOW.


THANKS................

Hear, hear, :T :T :T :T :T :T :T :T

fivealive_2

goodbyepci wrote: »

(they've obviously locked Donald Watts in a broom cupboard somewhere in the basement of Church House, with a thermos of tea and a packet of digestives till all this is over!)

:rotfl:

Thanks to those that inject some humour into their posts as it can get a bit "heavy" and a tad depressing at times. I really laughed at this one.:rotfl:

crazymess

fivealive wrote: »

Thanks to those that inject some humour into their posts as it can get a bit "heavy" and a tad depressing at times. I really laughed at this one.:rotfl:

You're really getting into this fivealive - well done!!! I laughed at that one too!

purt

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...

I have to disagree. Whilst I can understand the pain investors are going through, I don't think it's fair to blame the Government for this mess. All too often they become the scapegoat for corrupt organisations and individuals who pour misery on the innocent.

The people to blame are the ones in whom you all entrusted your cash. The directors of the PMS and the Ministers who, from their pulpits, encouraged you all to place your cash in it. They who placed the cash in risky investments and who, if the posts on this thread are accurate, lent money to people who should never have been part of the Society in the first place.

I'd be demanding answers from your Church, not the Government.

purt

Similarly, whilst you point the finger of blame at the Government for not protecting investors in mutual societies, bear in mind that credit unions also aren't covered by the FSA guarantee. So, what if one of those goes bust? Should the Government bail them out too? I think it's a risk we all take when we invest anywhere - we entrust our savings with the managers of that particular institution.

marford101

sickasaparrot wrote: »

I believe that before you started posting here you should have done some research as it is clear that you are ill informed about the way that business was carried out at PMS. Having money in a mutual society cannot be compared to having shares in a stockmarket registered company. Personally I put money into PMS to avoid the volatility and sometimes unethical nature of some of the companies listed on the stockmarket. PMS staff assured me and others on many occasions that our money was used to buy property for rental income or lent to congregations and members secured against property.

This is a classic case of wanting to shoot the messenger!

I have three questions for you in reply:

What research did you do into the PMS before you invested?

What exactly did I say that shows I am ill informed?

Do you still believe the assurances given to you by PMS staff and others? Or were you by any chance ill informed?

I am sympathetic to your plight and all the other small investors who may be at a loss because of this situation at PMS. But the hard reality of life in 2009 is that millions of small investors are loosing out in many ways and none will receive government help or tax payers hard earned cash. Many people will have reduced pensions and many small investors who thought they were putting their life savings into relatively safe investments like bank shares have lost everything that had. Still there is no help for them and there will not be any in the future. Thats how investment goes even in low risk investments like banking once was. Property investment on the other hand always offered high reward for a higher risk. The question you have to ask is who was taking the risk and who was taking the rewards in PMS?

I think most people who read this will see who was ill informed. Sadly you may never see the truth.

'' There are none so blind as those do not wish to see''

leskerr

...really annoyed with the BB - typed a long post in, all lost because it appears that my "login" had "timedout" :mad:

Anyway, a bulleted summary will probably be easier for you to read :rolleyes2

• For those disagreeing with the argument that the governments direct action in introducing bank guarantees led to the PMS problems...remember that a significant factor leading to the introduction of these guarantees was the introduction of bank guarantees in other countries, some of which had bank branches operating in the UK. This lead to a flow of money from banks without guarantees to banks with guarantees. Sound familiar? In my view the government should accept responsibility for their actions.
• The PMS investment strategies sound less risky than many of the mainstream banks that received support.
• The likely reason for the government not offering support is that other mutuals would then look for similar support.

Given that the government support may not be forthcoming, perhaps it could "lean on" the PCI to take responsibility for the PMS - by threatening penalties for misleading investment advice (not just that the literature is blatantly misleading, but I also suspect that some church ministers may have been regurgitating the misleading statements).

Les
PS: I have no financial or spiritual involvement with the PMS or PCI.