NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

Arnold_Don

An interesting "challenge" for the new Moderator's home church [First Portadown] which would seem to have One Million Pounds or thereabouts with PMS. Under Administration Rules - First Portadown [using the figures outlined at page 38 of the Administrator's report] could expect to get £879.423 or something to that order. Under the "old PMS rules" [see page 5 of the report] £600,433.

expat68

goodbyepci wrote: »

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/PMS-troubles-feature-in-Mandelson.4954362.jp

Many ministers are probably feeling as hurt of some of you - having entrusted their congregations funds to the PMS based on Church House advice they are probably now feeling rather let down by the PCI hierarchy. Clearly like all organisations there are sub groups and at least one of those groups within the bigger group probablyn got some nods and winks last September/ October. No one will tell us but it would be interesting to know how much of the £21m was ministers and church funds rather than "private investors".

abeliever

Is it time to shift the emphasis to ....."how best to get funds back"?

Surely PCI can persuade HMG to loan it whatever is needed to pay out to individual investors who presently wish to realise their investment ....& over time this loan can be repaid by PCI to HMG from the available & ongoing PMS cashflow stream.

john2009

abeliever wrote: »

Is it time to shift the emphasis to ....."how best to get funds back"?

abeliever wrote: »

Surely PCI can persuade HMG to loan it whatever is needed to pay out to individual investors who presently wish to realise their investment ....& over time this loan can be repaid by PCI to HMG from the available & ongoing PMS cashflow stream.

I agree. We need cash not a guarantee. I think we could be letting the Government of the hook by pursuing the guarantee. A guarantee will not give us cash immediately because PMS did not pay into the FSCS fund. So a government guarantee would only kick in if there is a shortfall at the end of the administration.

OldJohn

Thank you John2009 for your insight. I've watched the BBC clip of Shaw Thompson a few times now and read the comments he made in the Newsletter and I must say I did not find it patronising, I regard myself as a good judge of character and after viewing the newsclip I see a sincere individual who seemed to have been duped himself. There is a danger that when folk are angry (justifiably) with what has happened they can turn on others trying to help or comments made can be misunderstood as happened recently in this very forum. The result of the vote should be issued very soon and I feel that we are in better hands than we first thought - re comments from John2009. We have a very good experienced Administrator and cheap as they go. It will all come out in the wash in the end. I have felt the government guarantee would only help for that limited amount if the PMS went down the Swanee, as has been said the best option would be an interest free loan. I just wish I had lots of dosh and could help someone in a tangible manner.

goodbyepci

abeliever wrote: »

Is it time to shift the emphasis to ....."how best to get funds back"?

Surely PCI can persuade HMG to loan it whatever is needed to pay out to individual investors who presently wish to realise their investment ....& over time this loan can be repaid by PCI to HMG from the available & ongoing PMS cashflow stream.

A very sensible suggestion :T

john2009

Did Ministers or directors withdraw their money prior to administration? This is very serious if they had some knowledge about the financial position of PMS? An administrator can set-aside payments by PMS prior to administration if those who received the payments had some knowledge of the pending administration.

If there is anything in this the administrator should be told. If he did issue proceedings to set aside the payments it would be a matter of public record - the individuals would be "named and shamed" in public.


J

freddiemae

I must confess that when I started posting here I was angry. Having lost a lot of my retirement saving in a low performing pension fund -- I said "Why should they get bailed out? No-one is bailing out us. Purely selfish. It's only reading the despair on the part of the small investors on here that's changed my mind.

Basically the PCI and congregations made use of your hard earned money to cheaply fund the Halls and repairs of the PCI Churches. You freely gave to benefit all the congregations -- taking advice from someone you trusted. You have been badly let down by the Board of the PMS who allowed foolishness to overcome their Presbyterian principles.

You have every right to be angry - but I see that the PCI has a massive debt they owe you for your generosity in the past. The ball is now in their court. I have no doubt they do not want to be answering questions on overseeing this debacle in the HIgh Court so if they are wise they will indeed approach Stormont for a loan of money to have an orderly wind down and get the best result for their congregations.

I still think there is life in the PMS. Eric Cairns would not have gone on TV and risked his reputation by saying this if it wasn't true. I think that it needs someone of his calibre as a "paid" advisor to see which development land has decent prospects and could be sold off for a reasonable sum.

Anyway I don't have money in PMS but know several despairing people who do. I hope it works out well for you and I will post any helpful info I come across.

Nomad25

An administrator can set-aside payments by PMS prior to administration

I don't understand how this works. Can you explain it for me please, does it mean he can ask for money back, surely not?

john2009

Yes, it means that the administrator has to find out who withdrew their money in the period prior to administration and find out what knowledge they had about the PMS's financial problems. If they were "in the know", the adminstrator will ask for the money back and if they refuse to pay, he will issue legal proceedings. The idea is that if a company is in difficulty, no one member should be allowed to get their money out before anyone else.