NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

fivealive_2

presbyteriannomore wrote: »

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.

Couldn't have said it better myself.
:idea:

goodbyepci

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/My-church-has-1m-in.4948393.jp

red_bertie

OK, I have a couple of questions:

1] When does this new moderator take charge?.

2] Will the previous encumbent then get to walk away and wash his hands of this disgrace, which after all happened during his term?.

and a comment.

The number of voters may not matter to GB, but surely they are the same voters that would elect Stormont MP's and it would matter to them, therefore it makes sense to keep on at them.

expat68

20 May 2004

CREDIT UNIONS AND INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES – MINISTER UNVEILS NEW POLICY PROPOSALS
Enterprise, Trade and Investment Minister, Barry Gardiner, MP, today set out policy proposals for updating Northern Ireland’s policy on Credit Unions and Industrial and Provident Societies.
Mr Gardiner said: "Credit Unions and Industrial and Provident Societies play a significant role in the Northern Ireland economy. It is essential that they have a modern regulatory and policy framework which enables them to function without unnecessary hurdles.



DETI have been very aware for sometime on the situation with Industrial and Provident Societies. While we cannot blame Arlene Foster on these matters as she is a recent appointment I think it is fair to say that local policy makers failed to ensure adequate protection and regulations for ther constituents.

That said I think we all appreciate the efforts of Ms Foster in trying to resolve matters initially through the UK government initially. It is clear though that DETI had and continues to have resposibility for the regulation of these entities.

I think the most frustrating part of all of this is that the members who stand to lose the most are largely kept in the dark by PCI, DETI and the administrator. Hopefully the administrator will be able to give some further clarity to the members next week - it is absolutely essential moving forward that there is some formal mechanism for the communication of information from the administrator to the members. He cannot keep taking members money in fees while feeding the legally required minimum of information. This is not a normal administration process and some flexibility is required - the creditors are not nameless corporations but church congregations, charities and an endless number of trusting pensioners with their life savings at stake.

crazymess

So there we have it - it must have been complicated -


So what does this all mean?

Help?

fivealive_2

red_bertie wrote: »

OK, I have a couple of questions:

1] When does this new moderator take charge?.

2] Will the previous encumbent then get to walk away and wash his hands of this disgrace, which after all happened during his term?.

and a comment.

The number of voters may not matter to GB, but surely they are the same voters that would elect Stormont MP's and it would matter to them, therefore it makes sense to keep on at them.

Todays article in The Newsletter http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/My-church-has-1m-in.4948393.jp answers one of your questions: "Dr Carson, an Ulster rugby enthusiast, will be installed as Moderator at the General Assembly opening in Belfast on June 1."
It also quotes Dr Carson on the subject of the PMS as saying:
"We must support Dr Patton in what he is doing in meetings with politicians and others at a high level and I am prepared, if invited, to join in any discussions and lobbying before I come into office as Moderator in June. During my year as Moderator I will pursue this matter with the utmost vigour," Dr Carson said."The problems are impacting every area of our work and witness in the Presbyterian Church and proving difficult for the Church to deal with."

Sounds positive anyway.

fivealive_2

fivealive wrote: »

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:

I received the following reply from the writer of the article in the Financial Times:
"Thanks for your message . I wonder how far PMS investors recognised the
significance of putting their money into shares as opposed to just putting
it into a savings account that would pay interest like any bank or
building society? (And would be covered by the compensation scheme unlike
shareholdings .)

I hope things work out for you,"

All I can say about that is "dear luck to her wit".:exclamati

expat68

crazymess wrote: »

So there we have it - it must have been complicated -


So what does this all mean?

Help?

I'm confused myself and if we're confused theres a possibility the politicians put it in the too difficult box in the past. I think the best thing to do would be to send an email to your MLA requesting him to ask the question at Stormont why PMS was not regulated by the FSA. Was this a deliberate decision by the PMS directors or was it as a result of NI legislation which precluded the possibility.

D.A.

The whole legislation thing:

I can remember a spokesperson for Credit Unions in N.I. being on "On Your Behalf" on Radio Ulster at least twice to say they had asked for legislation in N.I. to be brought into line with the rest of the U.K. If I remember correctly, the main reason they wanted this was to allow them to offer a wider range of products to their members, although I'm guessing it would also have offered them added protection against what has happened to the PMS.

This was a looooooooooong time ago (probably at least a year, maybe more). Given the shower of numpties we have up on the hill at Stormont (and their Civil Service 'advisers'), obviously, they did nothing at all.

From my perspective, there are three 'people' who should take the blame for this:

1) Whoever made the investment decisions for the PMS; and decided to leave them with very little money for a rainy day. This may of course have been a group of people, but it would be useful to find out who they were.

2) The directors, for not spotting this scenario coming from a mile off.

3) Those who withdrew their money at the first hint of trouble.

OK, so the Government did cause the run by offering the guarantee to banks, but they couldn't possible have foreseen the impact it would have on a little (apparently badly-advised) mutual society in N.I.

36square

A fair enough summary DA.
It would be interesting to know what triggered the withdrawals. can hardly have been the guarantee issue alone for there was already a guarantee in place unless the publicity attending the increase to £50,000 alerted some people to its existence .
An earlier post exonerated the banks but their 'wealth managers' are normally rewarded according to the amounts they gather up for their employer to manage. It would have been natural, if cynical, for them to exploit the absence of a guarantee for PMS for their own ends.
The only way light will be shed on this is if those who withdrew explain why they did. This would be an ideal forum for them to do so under the protection of anonymity.
Goodbyepci
As a point of information a 'buy-to-let' is normally a secured loan as would a loan to puchase development land.