NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

dmxdave

Any chance of staying on topic? instead of picking on each other?

Spell check has been used :rolleyes:

expat68 you have deleted a ] at the end of your quote

leskerr

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.

LOL..It appears that both of you, culchied and sharkey8, have missed my point (even though I underlined it), a point that other posters have also made in there own ways. The actions of the government were directly responsible for the plight of the PMS.

I didn't say that a bail out in the same form as that given to the banks was expected, in fact I indicated that I didn't expect it. But I DO expect the government to recognise the result of it's actions.

It now sickens me to read some of the posts on here. The Church has washed its hands of the whole thing yet....

I don't know what posts are sickening you, I and many others here have said that the Church should bear some responsibility, and I haven't seen anyone disagreeing.

I haven't signed any petitions, BTW, as I myself don't believe that it is as simple as asking for the PMS deposits to be guaranteed. The government needs to be more "inventive".

I do appreciate the different arguments that are coming through in this thread, it can help people to be more broadminded.

I would be interested in your opinion (and others), on these statements:

• The government was directly responsible for the plight of the PMS
• The government has a responsibility to alleviate the pain it has caused
• The church also has a responsibility due to it's role in encouraging investors to use the society
• The investment strategy of the PMS was/is much more sound than many (all?) of the larger instituitions that required support.

I'm not trying to be provocative - I'm just looking to see what the consensus is now that we have had a lot of information provide on this thread,

regards
Les

purt

leskerr wrote: »

LOL..It appears that both of you, culchied and sharkey8, have missed my point (even though I underlined it), a point that other posters have also made in there own ways. The actions of the government were directly responsible for the plight of the PMS.

Rubbish. It wasn't.

I would be interested in your opinion (and others), on these statements:

• The government was directly responsible for the plight of the PMS It wasn't. It was the people in charge of the PMS.
• The government has a responsibility to alleviate the pain it has caused No it doesn't. If anyone does, it's the Presbyterian Church who lent its name to the failed Society and who encouraged its congregations to invest in it, that has a Christian and moral responsibility to alleviate the pain caused.
• The church also has a responsibility due to it's role in encouraging investors to use the society As above.
• The investment strategy of the PMS was/is much more sound than many (all?) of the larger instituitions that required support. I can't comment since I don't even know if the PMS had an investment strategy. Judging by what I've read on here, it seems they simply speculated with whatever seemed a good investment.

I'm not trying to be provocative - I'm just looking to see what the consensus is now that we have had a lot of information provide on this thread,

regards
Les

I'm not trying to be provocative either and, believe me, I feel for those caught up in this sorry mess. I really do. I know fine well there are pensioners who would never think to question the integrity of their church or a group of clergy who happen to be directors of the Society in which they entrusted their life savings.

Of course, as they did entrust their life savings to that organisation, and it wasn't run as it should have been, I do feel it's time that some serious questions were asked of the Church. How many of you, for example, have put any of the issues you raise on here, in writing, to the Moderator?

Sorry but I do feel the Government is just being used as a scapegoat in all of this. My concern would be that the Government simply won't cave in to pressure and it may not bail out the PMS (for, if nothing else, it would probably set an unwelcome precedent). What are investors going to do then?

fivealive_2

culchied wrote: »

How many of you, for example, have put any of the issues you raise on here, in writing, to the Moderator?

I contemplated writing to the Moderator but I wasn't convinced that I would get a sympathetic hearing. In his position as Moderator he really does have to "toe the party line".
However having heard Rev John Dunlop on Radio Ulster on Friday I thought "Here is a man who might give me a fair hearing and plead my case." I therefore sent him a fairly long email and I await his reply.
Time will tell..............

36square

I've been told that a family-owned housebuilder which has borrowed substantially from PMS is in financial difficulty.
Obviously since this information has not been verified I can't mention any names nor do I know any amounts involved.
I'm led to beleive that the owners are Presbyterian.

freddiemae

programme on BBC MOneybox last night about credit unions and mutual societies in NI
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/moneybox/7862643.stm

sharkey8

Nomad25 wrote: »

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..

No, not a friend of mine. I just have a particular aversion to self-righteousness. But then again I suppose a failure to consider opinions that may differ from your own 'goes with the territory' in some cases. This is an open forum and I will "butt out" when I am ready.:p Sharing opinions from a variety of sources helps to give the necessary focus that is needed in a case like this. That was my positive intent.

sharkey8

36square wrote: »

I've been told that a family-owned housebuilder which has borrowed substantially from PMS is in financial difficulty.
Obviously since this information has not been verified I can't mention any names nor do I know any amounts involved.
I'm led to beleive that the owners are Presbyterian.

This article should provide/confirm some of the answers to your observation:

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/Developer-goes-into-liquidation.4929479.jp

sharkey8

leskerr wrote: »

LOL..It appears that both of you, culchied and sharkey8, have missed my point (even though I underlined it), a point that other posters have also made in there own ways. The actions of the government were directly responsible for the plight of the PMS. Sorry but I do not accept this view. The FSCS has been in operation for a number of years. At any stage from its inception the management of PMS could have applied to join the scheme. In Oct 08 the government simply raised the amount of cover for individual savers from £35K to £50K. See this link for a potted history:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7482914.stm

I didn't say that a bail out in the same form as that given to the banks was expected, in fact I indicated that I didn't expect it. But I DO expect the government to recognise the result of it's actions. Why? The PMS management elected to remain outside the compensation scheme.There are a number of other mutual societies/ credit unions who are not covered by the FSCS that have not (yet) experienced difficulties. Presumably because they have sufficient liquidity and their membership has the necessary confidence in their management.

I would be interested in your opinion (and others), on these statements:

• The government was directly responsible for the plight of the PMS See comment above.
• The government has a responsibility to alleviate the pain it has caused Not really; see comment above.
• The church also has a responsibility due to it's role in encouraging investors to use the society In my view this is where your focus should be.
• The investment strategy of the PMS was/is much more sound than many (all?) of the larger instituitions that required support. Cannot comment; although if there was such a strategy it was not transparent to your membership. I would also suggest that a calculated risk management policy appears to have been completely missing.

I'm not trying to be provocative - I'm just looking to see what the consensus is now that we have had a lot of information provide on this thread,

regards
Les

Thanks for the bridge building. An outsiders (objective) view sometimes helps - even if you do not agree with it. I work in this medium (online research) and will endeavour to help given the opportunity.

freddiemae

freddiemae wrote: »

programme on BBC MOneybox last night about credit unions and mutual societies in NI
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/moneybox/7862643.stm

Also Stormont inquiry into Credit unions/mutual societies 2007 referred to in BBC article above.
http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/enterprise/2007mandate/research/creditunion.htm

According to the BBC article NI govt knew there was no financial guarantee for savers in credit unions/mutual and industrial societies. There are also restrictions on "banking practices" carried out by the societies - this may be what Mark Durkan was alluding to on Channel 4 news.