NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

brick

marford101 wrote: »

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.

Agree, absolutely no point asking government for anything unless they enticed your mates away with a promise that their dosh would be guaranteed/safe if they shifted it elsewhere.

OldJohn

I read a number of these contributions with disbelief and despair, not for the financial aspect but how we treat each other.
I believe that this forum is about the people who are actively associated with the current situation regarding the PMS, obviously outside, informed, contributions would be welcome, however many seem associated with "I not a Presbyterian" etc.
Back to basics I say - Current situation is devestating for some of the shareholders, those who need some money - now! Others can afford to wait as they have no immediate need.
The blame game is understandable, but remember the Society would still be alive and kicking today and probably able to pay around 6% dividend this March. Those who panicked and withdrew their money - £21million in 10days we're told pushed the Society into administration. - end of story. What caused those folk to withdraw their money - they saw that the banks were in dire distress (having speculated on buying RISKY loans from the USA ) and guess what, they stopped lending, and had to be bailed out to the tune of billions - of TAX payers money, we all live with the knowledge that we are all part owners of some banks - with really bad debts!
So this news made a number of people panic and I know of folk who were contacted by their Bank managers and Financial advisors and told that the PMS had no such guarantees and they would be better of with their money in a bank etc. So while the panic brought the PMS to a stop - it was the action of providing the banks with guarantees that started the withdrawels - so I believe the Goverment have a responsibility to all the credit unions and Provodent societys. If only to underwrite them for a limited period. If the PMS had been able to assure shareholders that their money had the same guarantee, I sincerely believe that the withdawels would heve been significantly lower and certainly with the £25million they had on tap.
I beleve the church was Associated with the PMS but NOT owned by them, infact the last minutes of the Assembly I think mentioned that we might see a COI clone of the PMS in the future.
I might recommend an insurance company to a friend - if it goes belly up is it my fault?
Certainly some things within the PMS could have been better managed - no doubt - and if this had been averted that may have happened anyway - who knows - they were very lax in not being proactive and Telling shareholders what was going on, but that in itself may not have affected many folks decisions regarding where to put their money, it was obviously helping a lot of individuals and churches. Apologies for the long post.

purt

OldJohn wrote: »

So this news made a number of people panic and I know of folk who were contacted by their Bank managers and Financial advisors and told that the PMS had no such guarantees and they would be better of with their money in a bank etc. So while the panic brought the PMS to a stop - it was the action of providing the banks with guarantees that started the withdrawels - so I believe the Goverment have a responsibility to all the credit unions and Provodent societys. If only to underwrite them for a limited period. If the PMS had been able to assure shareholders that their money had the same guarantee, I sincerely believe that the withdawels would heve been significantly lower and certainly with the £25million they had on tap.

So a number of folk were contacted by their bank managers (essentially competitors of the PMS for investors' cash) and financial advisors and told that the PMS didn't have the same guarantees as banks had just been given. At any point in those conversations were said folk told that the PMS was in any danger thereby necessitating such a guarantee? I doubt it.

If you're willing to invest your cash in something then you ought to make a reasoned judgement on how safe it will be. Perhaps, in hindsight, said folk ought to have considered whether there was any need to start withdrawing their cash from the PMS. If they considered it such a safe bet in the first place, why would they suddenly see it as an unsafe bet just because other financial institutions (i.e. banks, i.e. different institutions altogether) suddenly started going into difficulties. Did no one think to question the safety of their cash before the knee jerk reaction that obviously led to so many withdrawals?

Obviously, of course, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

OldJohn

People invest/save money for various reasons, I'm sure some saw it as a place where they felt they were helping other Presbyterians and some (in later days) saw a nice return, I would imagine the vast majority of shareholders have hundreds or a few thousands with the society.
Everyone, not just shareholders, was alarmed at what was happening in the UK and abroad when the banks started to show signs od cracking, if my pension or life savings were with the society, I would have been wondering - how is this going to affect the PMS/me.
Virtually all that followed was reactive - few individuals/businesses had foresight and once the snowball started rolling......
It wasn't planned - it happened. Where the PCI or some individual who had the financial means could have helped would have been to set up a hardship fund and buy shares from shareholders and recover the money from the PMS when they start paying out - maybe upto some cap. It would require someone honest and ethical - maybe that's not feasable - nothing ventured etc..

brick

culchied wrote: »

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!)

I'm sure some investors already have, but can't identify links just now.
Here's the closest I can get, Presbyterian albeit not an investor:-
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/business-news/presbyterian-church-must-make-up-cash-shortfall-14146098.html

crazymess

brick wrote: »

Agree, absolutely no point asking government for anything unless they enticed your mates away with a promise that their dosh would be guaranteed/safe if they shifted it elsewhere.

Apparently some did!!!!!!!!!!!

Now for all you newcomers to this thread - please beware that there may be savers from the older generation using this site as a current source of information and perhaps comfort from this horrendous situation.

We are all too aware of all the things you say, however ARE YOU AT RISK OF LOSING YOUR LIFE'S SAVINGS? PERHAPS THE ANSWER IS 'NO'. PERHAPS YOU ARE SMARTTER THAN US................. AND SAVED IN 'SAFER' ?????????? INSTITUTIONS OR PERHAPS YOU HAVE NO SAVINGS!!!!!!!!!!



BE ASSURED FOR ALL THOSE CONCERNED AND VIEWING OR POSTING ON THIS THREAD - WE WILL LEAVE NO STONE UNTURNED AND WILL HAVE OUR SAVINGS RETURNED IN FULL.

eldivo

I know its been posted before but I strongly recomend everyone with an financial interest in the PMS watch Eric Cairns on news line
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsline/content/articles/2009/01/30/presbyterian_money_feature.shtml

Cheery opinion from someone with an interest and who should (from his position) have a fair idea of the state of the loan book, and the "true" value of those loans.

I think we do have a need for "hard nosed" directors rather than "Soft headed"

Good to hear someone can talk some sense and thinks we'll be back in the black before we are all dead:j

sharkey8

Nomad25 wrote: »

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.

:huh: You need to calm down and act as if you have 3 stars or whatever for your 'obvious' net savvy. If you want to attract the serious trolls into this thread with a vengeance your post takes the digestive! Go take a sedative; freddiemae was clearly only trying to help. By the way competently was the spelling you were after.

expat68

freddiemae wrote: »

[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.
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.[/quote

Since we're being all pedantic - companies cannot be made bankrupt under UK law. They are placed into liquidation. Also note that DETI was so on the ball with mutuals under their control that they actually had to pass new legislation to place PMS in administration. There were already a lot of people providing advice, challenge and support over the last few weeks - we live in a democracy so your right to speak is respected but you should really try to ensure you research your facts to avoid confusing people.

Nomad25

Friend of yours then?

It's reply was totally irrelevant and referred to nothing in my post. It made no sense. So butt out

......and yes there was a typo not a sp mistake in my last post. How clever of you to notice.

I refuse to facilitate your attempt to detract from the main topic of this thread - the PMS - and will ignore any of your posts..