NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

fivealive_2

goodbyepci wrote: »

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/64067fe8-f25b-11dd-9678-0000779fd2ac.html

Thanks for that. I have sent a message to the email address at the end of that article thanking the writer for highlighting our plight as my brother and sister live in England and had been telling me that the PMS problem was getting no coverage over there. I am inclined to feel that there is no such thing as "bad publicity" in this situation as we desperately need to keep our plight in the news and in the minds of the people until something concrete is done to arrange for us to be reimbursed.
:huh:

Bannside_2

I suppose it will be hard to get the majority of the public in the UK to appreciate the plight of 9500 investors in the PMS when it is such a small % of the popoluation as a whole (~65 million) I reckon that is about 0.01% of the population affected. Not exactly a vote winner for the politicians either.

crazymess

Agree with you Bannside - but remember that the 9500 savers are actually not just individual savers, but also congregations' savings - so it is perhaps affecting 130000 people - presbyterians - still a small percentage - this is why the PCI are perhaps realising the depth of the problem and are now trying to give some help after 2.5 months of distancing themselves.

goodbyepci

Quote crazymess
"They couldn't even afford to lend money to congregations when they asked, as there wasn't enough - the whole point of this Society was to save and lend through our church!"


Do you know of a congregation who requested a loan and couldn't have one?

expat68

Bannside wrote: »

I suppose it will be hard to get the majority of the public in the UK to appreciate the plight of 9500 investors in the PMS when it is such a small % of the popoluation as a whole (~65 million) I reckon that is about 0.01% of the population affected. Not exactly a vote winner for the politicians either.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/3539277/Government-rescues-savers-as-London-Scottish-Bank-goes-into-administration.html

Check out London Scottish story - similar size, similar no of people affected. But they had FSA protection and all was sorted. Not just the big boys who are getting government assistance.

Bannside_2

expat68 wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/3539277/Government-rescues-savers-as-London-Scottish-Bank-goes-into-administration.html

Check out London Scottish story - similar size, similar no of people affected. But they had FSA protection and all was sorted. Not just the big boys who are getting government assistance.

Think the key here is "FSA protection"......so while size really may not matter it would seem protection is very important.

goodbyepci

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/Bankers-urged-PMS-investors.4939761.jp

crazymess

Bannside wrote: »

Think the key here is "FSA protection"......so while size really may not matter it would seem protection is very important.

........................ em em!!!


I wonder why we didn't have protection - was it that the PMS couldn't get covered being it wasn't offered to NI - why did DETI not see this?????? Isn't it true that the Mutuals in Scotland, England and Wales fall under a scheme and NI wasn't included.

I remember asking why we didn't have cover and was told - it was very complicated. WHY????????

Who is responsible for this?

presbyteriannomore

I don't get this about banks targetting savers with money in the PMS - how did they know who had money in the PMS?

If savers told banks perhaps during financial advice discussions then surely the bank would have been acting correctly in protecting the customers interests by pointing out that PMS was not FSA protected. The fact that they would get the business is beside the point.

The focus should be firmly on why PMS wasn't registered with FSA & why they invested as they did knowing that they were unprotected. It seems they may have been acting outside the limits for mutuals & provident societies and now they are running scared to Gordon Brown backed by Arlene Foster.

They kept very little for a rainy day and must have been aware of the risk they were taking with other peoples money. They gambled and the members lost - except no-one told the members they were involved in the gamble.

crazymess

Presbyterionnomore

You see - we would have been told to be careful that the PMS was not covered - but when we telephoned them they said and I quote:

"Our money is lent out to congregations - also we have purchased Commerical Property for which we receive a high yield". Therefore we did not move our money because we were assured, even though they did not have the guarantee, that they had only lent out money to congregations and were told that if the churches go down, we're all in bother. So we thought it was probably ok. But I'm afraid we were not told the full story. Put it what ever way you like.

"Where are you going to put your money?" we were asked

There is no doubt that those who did get their money were probably being advised by other institutions or professionals and word got round.

I also understand the PMS banked with the Bank of Ireland - its probably ironic that members withdrew their money from PMS and then re-lodged in a perhaps a new account in the Bank of Ireland.

Most of the monies withdrawn are now probably lodged with other NI banks!!

Surely when all the telephone calls were happening - why then did the PMS not seek to get Arlene Foster to get them covered ASAP. Thats why I am now beginning to think it was a blip in the legislation that PMS couldn't get covered. Either that - or IS IT BECAUSE THE FSA LEVY WAS EXPENSIVE?