NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

freddiemae

goodbyepci wrote: »

Did anyone else notice right at the end of the Channel 4 News item yesterday.............Mark Durkan said that the PMS "got into areas of banking business that an industrial and provident society should not have been in"

Link below
http://www.channel4.com/news/news_category/business_money

I didn't know that did you?

Who was regulating the PMS?

Have they done something illegal?

Having watched this news bulletin and posted the following

"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 was flamed for this. I would have thought that Mr Durkin would not have made that statement on News unless he had cleared it with officials. Therefore I assumed that he was stating that Mutual societies should not be indulging in risky investment.

On Newsline MrCairns came over very professionally and stated that with a new professional financial savvy board (hard nosed was the way he put it) then the Society could go on make up its losses.

I think it is unfortunate that the blame is being put towards the UK government. The PMS had the choice of registering with the FSA but chose not to. They had the choice of only investing in their Church and its members and they chose not to.
It appears that dissenting voices on here get labelled "trolls". The definition of a troll is someone who posts abusively or inflammatory material. For this thread to be successful you need to hear arguments from all sides and get as much information as you can from all sources to make up the whole picture.
If my money was involved I would be writing to Arlene Foster asking why the gagging order was put on the Administrator and requesting a public inquiry into the investment practices to see if they met the criteria of the information booklets supplied to new members. If the investment criteria was not met - did the Directors have insurance cover for bad financial decisions. If they did have cover then this is another avenue that could be explored for compensation. By focussing only on Gordon Brown you could miss out on other avenues of compensation.

36square

"you need to hear arguments from all sides"
Well said FreddieMae.
Too many people think this thread is just a forum to air their grievances however witless they might be and expect general endorsement.

Newsline last night reported that one of the proeprties owned by PMS was a building in the centre of Glasgow acquired in 2004 and let to the Scottish government (little likelihood of them not beind able to pay the rent). I haven't seen any firm figures, but from figures that have been mentioned the PMS property portfolio appears to have a yield of over 6%. That kind of yield doesn't suggest reckless speculation so hopefully we will now read less of that on this thread.

sickasaparrot

UTV are running a poll re PMS

http://www4.u.tv/polls/

brick

marford101 wrote: »

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

This suggests you are ill-informed regarding many of the savers, who wouldn't have touched buy-to-lets and development land with a barge pole. They are not speculators, and it is wrong and unhelpful to create the impression they were.

marford101 wrote: »

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.

But you did then immediately soften, recognising that a (substantial?) proportion of PMS' instant access savers were unaware of what was actually happening in practice:-

marford101 wrote: »

Weather they invested in property knowingly or not is perhaps open to question!

brick

freddiemae wrote: »

For this thread to be successful you need to hear arguments from all sides and get as much information as you can from all sources to make up the whole picture.

Yes - helpful suggestions/info from all perspectives appreciated.

sharkey8

expat68 wrote: »

Best ignore the trolls - they're very clearly a bunch of bankers
Lots of new contributors (some good (welcome), some bad (you know who you are)

I am not a PMS investor, nor am I a Presbyterian or a banker by profession. I am very sympathetic to your cause. However, as several other posters have pointed out there are a number of anomalies with the PMS that the general public, especially outside NI, will find difficult to understand. If the British taxpayer is being asked to bail out the PMS these anomalies need to be addressed and countered effectively. Sceptics and doubters will need to be 'won over'.

Having followed this thread I have not spotted any trolling. On the contrary, there has been some constructive, informed and reasoned observations from several posters. In order to build your case these points need to be addressed constructively. It should help you (collectively) to present a more convincing front!

fivealive_2

goodbyepci wrote: »

Did anyone else notice right at the end of the Channel 4 News item yesterday.............Mark Durkan said that the PMS "got into areas of banking business that an industrial and provident society should not have been in"

Link below
http://www.channel4.com/news/news_category/business_money

I didn't know that did you?

Who was regulating the PMS?

Have they done something illegal?

Yeah, I had noticed that and had even replayed it to see if I could make sense of it, I even thought of emailing Mark Durkan. However I then decided that it was all a bit too complicated for me. I have never "indulged" in politics and I have no training in financial matters.
If anyone else can shed some light on this please do so. Remember the old Presbyterian adage to "never refuse light from any quarter".
Before anyone corrects me I know that I am using this phrase out of context.

fivealive_2

freddiemae wrote: »

The definition of a troll is someone who posts abusively or inflammatory material. For this thread to be successful you need to hear arguments from all sides and get as much information as you can from all sources to make up the whole picture.
.

Thanks, this whole on-line discussion thing is completely new to me and I couldn't figure out what a "troll" was supposed to be in this context. I am, of course, familiar with "The Three Billy Goats Gruff" but I could not follow the analogy, so thanks again.

Nomad25

I have some questions:

My understanding, which may be incorrect, is that the PMS is not regulated by FSA/FSCS. Who does regulate them? Are they self-regulating? To whom are they accountable?Who gives them authority to take/lend money? Surely they can't just set up on their own remit?

Too many people think this thread is just a forum to air their grievances

Well, for some it is! It's also a place for 'punch-drunk' PMS savers to link up and keep up-to-date. Some of them are feeling very isolated and abandoned right now.

marford101

sickasaparrot wrote: »

UTV are running a poll re PMS

http://www4.u.tv/polls/

Their question is:

''Churchmen have urged Gordon Brown to help the Presbyterian Mutual Society savers, who face losing millions in investments. Should the tax payer be expected to bail out building societies/banks that fall victim to the financial downturn?''

Even UTV seem unable to distinguish between a bank/building society and a mutual society! What will that poll achieve other than causing more confusion in an already confused situation?