NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

fivealive_2

Nomad25 wrote: »

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?

Quote: "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.

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

purt

leskerr wrote: »

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).

You miss the point entirely. The PMS is not and was not a bank. The Government provided guarantees for banks not private members societies (which is effectively what a mutual society is). Why did it move to guarantee the savings of investors in banks? Because, unlike small mutual societies, the banks are vital to our economy. If a series of runs had started on the large banks, they could well have collapsed and that would have serious implications for the economy. Somehow I can't see the same thing happening if one, or a number of, mutual societies went down the pan.

It now sickens me to read some of the posts on here. The Church has washed its hands of the whole thing yet it is the one with the moral obligation to those who invested in the PMS. And of course, like sheep, you all continue to do as your Ministers tell you: sign a petition to the Government and Prime Minister asking for them to help. In other words; "sign the petition, petition the Government and take the emphasis on blame away from us (for we know we have a huge share of the blame in this mess)". So the Church gets off scot free and doesn't have to answer to the very congregations it told to invest in the Presbyterian Mutual Society.

purt

freddiemae wrote: »

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.

And who would fund such an inquiry? The tax payer? Probably. And why should we?

Forgive my ignorance but, did the PMS not issue an annual report every year? Did that annual report not contain information on where the society had invested its investor's money?

marford101

I have been accused of being ill informed, a troll and even worse....a banker on here. I have no time for bankers, financial advisors or in fact anyone who tells me that they know what is best for my money! I have a background in small business and I suffered too much at the hands of such vultures in my more gullable days.
Actually I am totally on the side of the investors who stand to loose part of their savings but some of them don't want to hear the truth about their situation. I really can't see the government helping out for the reasons I have already stated in previous posts.The two main points being that it was a closed mutual society and the fact that it indulged in property speculation.

It is the same as if I and a group of friends had decided to buy property and land in order to make money. We buy land and property and all goes well untill a couple of the friends suddenly decide they want their money back all at once. In the mean time property has become hard to sell and we can't raise the actual cash to give then. So would there be any point in asking the government for cash? I think not.

So what I am saying is that I think this petition to the government is a bit of a red herring in order to divert attention away from the real culprits in this affair. I think your time and energy would be better spent looking at who advised you and who was in charge of your money after you handed it over.

freddiemae

Nomad25 wrote: »

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?



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.

[A]The PMS is regulated by the DETI Arlene Foster"s ministry. That is why she moved so fast to get an order putting the PMS into administration before it could be made bankrupt. This effectively saved a firesale of the portfolio and means the savers have a chance of getting a good percentage of their money back.
You should try not to let your justified feelings of anger turn you against people who are only trying to help. Attacking people and calling them names does not help. There are people on here who have more experience of using the internet and can help you. They may not say exactly what you want to hear but may have valid suggestions which could help.

Personally I would think that the appointment of a savvy board of financial experts and property experts like Mr Cairns and an agreement of everyone not to take any money out for a year ---would allow this society to find it's own level and the interest and rental money to could go some way to rebuilding the finances. Lets face it -no-one is getting much interest at the bank just now.
The buy to lets could be sold off - to Presbyterian young people who have been kept out of the housing market through the greed of others.
The church halls would not need to be re-financed - just keep paying into the fund. Its all about re-trenchment and running a tight ship.

purt

marford101 wrote: »

I have been accused of being ill informed, a troll and even worse....a banker on here. I have no time for bankers, financial advisors or in fact anyone who tells me that they know what is best for my money! I have a background in small business and I suffered too much at the hands of such vultures in my more gullable days.

Actually I am totally on the side of the investors who stand to loose part of their savings but some of them don't want to hear the truth about their situation. I really can't see the government helping out for the reasons I have already stated in previous posts.The two main points being that it was a closed mutual society and the fact that it indulged in property speculation.

It is the same as if I and a group of friends had decided to buy property and land in order to make money. We buy land and property and all goes well untill a couple of the friends suddenly decide they want their money back all at once. In the mean time property has become hard to sell and we can't raise the actual cash to give then. So would there be any point in asking the government for cash? I think not.

So what I am saying is that I think this petition to the government is a bit of a red herring in order to divert attention away from the real culprits in this affair. I think your time and energy would be better spent looking at who advised you and who was in charge of your money after you handed it over.

Thank you. An excellent synopsis of this situation.

freddiemae

some more good press
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/PMS-petition-putting-pressure-on.4933117.jp

Nomad25

You should try not to let your justified feelings of anger turn you against people who are only trying to help. Attacking people and calling them names does not help. There are people on here who have more experience of using the internet and can help you. They may not say exactly what you want to hear but may have valid suggestions which could help.

You really are a self-righteous twonk aren't you.

I fail to see any relevance in your response to my questions and if you read this thread properly you would get your facts straight.

1] I have not allowed personal feelings to turn me against those who would help.

2] I do not need help using the internet thank you, I have been competetently posting on this particular forum for a number of years.

3] Again if you read posts before pontificating in your replies, I was asking a number of valid questions, hoping for an informed, intelligent responder [unfortunately I got you!].

I would still like more comprehensive answers to my questions.

I will not allow your adversarial posts to sidetrack me from contributing to this thread or to detract from the supportive and helpful general nature of this thread.

However, if you have any constructive or impartial comments to make, I'm sure they would be welcome.

sharkey8

culchied wrote: »

You miss the point entirely. The PMS is not and was not a bank. The Government provided guarantees for banks not private members societies (which is effectively what a mutual society is). Why did it move to guarantee the savings of investors in banks? Because, unlike small mutual societies, the banks are vital to our economy. If a series of runs had started on the large banks, they could well have collapsed and that would have serious implications for the economy. Somehow I can't see the same thing happening if one, or a number of, mutual societies went down the pan.

It now sickens me to read some of the posts on here. The Church has washed its hands of the whole thing yet it is the one with the moral obligation to those who invested in the PMS. And of course, like sheep, you all continue to do as your Ministers tell you: sign a petition to the Government and Prime Minister asking for them to help. In other words; "sign the petition, petition the Government and take the emphasis on blame away from us (for we know we have a huge share of the blame in this mess)". So the Church gets off scot free and doesn't have to answer to the very congregations it told to invest in the Presbyterian Mutual Society.

Although this post does not 'pull any punches' I have to agree with Culchied. With any financial investment it is always a case of 'read the small print'. The PMS is a private savings & investment 'club' run exclusively for a specific religious group. This cannot in any way be compared with the banks. You also have to acknowledge the risk, where appropriate, if expected returns are higher than the norm. After all, number of unregulated savings/investment products in the UK fall into this category.

If any other grouping, (religious denomination or otherwise), provides its members with their own exclusive saving & investment 'club'. Surely you would expect that grouping to be the default setting for dealing with any solvency issues. Particularly when said grouping already possesses substantial physical assets of its own. This is clearly not happening at all! As Culchied bluntly points out, you should be holding your own church and its leadership to account in the first instance, not the taxpayer at large.

I do not mean to sound unsympathetic but sometimes a 'reality check' is important. I am also a saver/investor in a variety of products, some not covered by the FSA umbrella. I obviously take a risk as a result, but would still be very pi**ed off if they fell over. I would look to the investment management and parent company for answers/recompense if they did so.

purt

Thank you sharkey. A reality check is what's needed here. Perish the thought that an investor would actually stand up and challenge (in public) those who advised them to invest in the PMS in the first place (i.e the Presbyterian Church!)