NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

crazymess

goodbyepci

The PCI have not given me any confidence whatsoever. If they were helping financially then I wouldn't be worried - all they have done is try and distance themselves - so I'm not too sure why you are referring to their accounts and properties. If they were going to help, surely they would have intravened before now. This is why I felt that it was important to petition PCI and Government.

They were meant to be setting up a hardship fund - no word of it. Our Church ministers were meant to be helping pastorally - no word of it.

However I do get some comfort that you have faith we will get our money back!!

D.A.

goodbyepci wrote: »

They may not care about the widowed pensioners, but they can't ignore the 3rd world..........they are all about missionary work, they are always encouraging young people to go abroad to do missionary work.

No offence, but this comment is just silly, and it shows you have little idea of how PCI actually works. If PCI were to lend its other funds to PMS (e.g. to help out with the orphanage in Uganda), then this would impact on PCI's *own* missionary work, both in Ireland and overseas.

It has to be said over and over again - PCI and PMS *ARE* legally separate and by law, I would guess that PCI is not *allowed* to transfer money to PCI.

Has PCI handled the situation badly? Yes.

Could PCI handle ALL its financial transactions more professionally? Yes.

Should someone in the PMS have spotted that a run was starting and stopped withdrawals more quickly? Yes (and, to be honest, someone should pay with their job or directorship for this)

Should PCI (and particularly those in leadership positions) make every attempt within their power to help their members who are left in financial difficulty? Yes.

But they CANNOT just transfer money to the PMS while it is in administration. Maybe after the administrator reports, yes, but you need to just wait and see. Likewise with petitions, etc. - wait until you get the administrator's report.

Just to correct one inaccuracy in a post further up where congregations were apparently getting the blame for withdrawing their money; the Presbyterian Herald makes it very very clear that NO congregations withdrew their money, just private individuals (and I would guess many of those private individuals either were well-connected or would already have more than enough money to survive on anyhow). That, and the slowness to act of the PMS directors, is the real scandal here.

D.A.

goodbyePCI, since I am not an investor in the PMS (just avoided it!), you actually probably have more information than me on it.

jon_groovy, the idea that ministers are all on large salaries is actually a myth - apart from those in the larger congregations, many ministers earn very little. And yes, many of them do have holiday homes, but that's because the manse isn't actually their own property, so many have bought holiday homes as an investment (oops) or a safety net. I think you will find though that most younger ministers nowadays do enter the ministry for the right reasons - this may not always have been the case in the past!

One point I forgot to make in my other post though is that maybe PCI will finally wake up and realise that ministers are NOT always the best people to put in charge of running things, or to be in charge of the Boards of the church, or to be directors of the PMS, etc. OK, so many of the church boards do have laypeople on them as well, but far far too many of them are stuffed full of ministers.

PCI, a minister's training enables him to be a pastor, not a manager! There are plenty of laypeople out there with the skills and training to do a much better job of administration, etc. than ministers (some of whom will have skills from previous employment, admittedly). Maybe this is something which PCI/Church House now needs to take on board?

crazymess

I know one has a degree in Agriculture! Some retired business people and some retired Church Ministers and some current Church Ministers. I think there may be an Accountant on board.

loganjh

I'm not sure how many have resigned recently but the annual accounts state the directors occupations as: -
Minister, Minister retired, retired, haulage contractor, head mistress retired, solicitor, corporate banking manager, retired / business advisor, Chartered accountant, Chartered accountant retired etc..

I believe there may have been a specialist investment sub-committee who took key decisons. Best to wait for the administrator report though.
One suggestion is that immediate representation be made to regulator (Arlene Foster?) to ensure that all are disqualified from holding directorships in the future. The excuse that the 'credit crunch' caught everyone out just is not good enough.

Annual accounts state that the directors seek to manage financial risk by ensuring sufficient liquidity is available to meet forseeable needs. (Forseeable is arguable but there certainly was insufficient liquidity available, resulting in a run). Other interesting questions are, who started the run and who benefited. Do the directors still retain their personal funds in the society (as per annual accounts "at the balance sheet date, directors held investments (held directly, jointly or as trustees)of £1,569,014. and borrowings of £26,428".
Were the directors investing in the areas they should have been or were they simply speculating?
Directors fees of £6900 were paid in the last financial year - will the directors return them?
Lets wait for the report and resignations - hopefully due next week (report, not resignations as they were overdue several months ago).

crazymess

Danny Morrison Deputy Leader UUP has made some comments - see uup.org/news

Heard also that we will be receiving letter from Administrator on Monday/Tuesday and its quite a 'fat' envelope.

Bit lonely for those elderly investors etc and perhaps the rest of us to vote on issues without being able to debate or discuss them. Will we be able to understand what is put before us?

At the end of the day the PMS were doing well until 2003/2004 when too much money was invested with them and they spent it on expensive Shopping Centres, which I hope are still tenanted and lent on seriously overpriced land!!!

Will this be all over on Monday or Tuesday?
Will it be too late to lobby for help?

There is also some word that we may get 5% soon.......

Interesting goodbyepci to hear that another company may be dealing with a Meeting!!!! Who is paying for all of this and who is paying for staff and Administrators etc etc etc?


A thought for the future - if the government prints money - re deflation then cash will not be king anymore - perhaps all the ground, buildings, shopping centres etc may work out alright in the end as assets will be better than money!!

goodbyepci

Presbyterian Mutual savers to get options
By Alf McCreary
Monday, 12 January 2009
Presbyterians who have money frozen in a mutual society may be given the opportunity soon to decide on its future.
Borrowers and investors in the Presbyterian Mutual Society, which went into administration late last year because of a run on its funds, are likely to receive information shortly from the administrator Arthur Boyd outlining the options facing them.
There is the possibility of liquidation, which could involve financial loss, or a slower run-down which might allow for a rise in the presently-depressed property markets, in which the PMS is heavily involved. Either way it is a choice which the members — of what had been a hitherto successful financial venture — would not have anticipated having to make.
The society, which is open to Presbyterians only, has assets of £300m, with loans to members of £180m and £130m in commercial property.
Despite the confusion over titles, the society and the Presbyterian Church are separate legal entities, though there have been calls for the Church to help members who are in financial difficulties.
A church spokesman said yesterday that there were a number of benevolent and central funds within the Church which were available to help people in cases of hardship, but that so far there had not been a high take-up of these facilities.
If the impasse continues and the society's funds remain frozen, there might be a greater demand for assistance due to “hardship”.
However if assistance is needed for sums of more than £1,000, there could be legal difficulties.
The Church would have no problem in raising money for a charity or overseas project, but providing significant totals for individuals and organisations with money frozen in a mutual society would be a complex matter, involving the formal position of the Church and other legal considerations.
It is believed that many individuals and a number of churches have large amounts of money at present frozen in the PMS, without any immediate prospect of a change in the situation.

crazymess

Thanks for that goodbyepci

Well now - maybe when all the investors see the real posiition ie no money - they may start shouting!! like in the case of the Northern Rock

Hopefully we have not left it too late!!!!!

The PCI talk about this HARDSHIP FUND - I certainly don't know anything about it - again ALL TALK!!

GOOD LUCK DECIPHERING YOUR LETTERS - and counting the coppers left!!

I think we need serious answers now.

crazymess

Go fot it - jon_groovy

why not set it up and send a link - we will then sign it

warmhands.coldheart

IMHO A lot of this stems from "Human Nature" or to put it another way "Looking out for yourself".
Nobody seems to have considered the "Greater Good" or the fact that if they had left their money and looked at it as a long term investment then things would in time recover (They always do!!)
No matter what anyone says (and I know PMS has to lawful links with PCI) it will effect peoples views on the PCI... I think anyone who doesn't think this is deluding themselves... It's like being guilty by association... OK maybe its not fair but life ain't fair!!

And the thought the PMS invested so heavily in Property... When they saw that the property prices were slumping, they should have managed the situation a lot better. I think they should have contacted members to make them aware that they knew what was happening and possibly outlined how they were going to work through it but at the same time assuring the funds were there for those in need of them.. (Pensioners etc..) maybe then the people who weren't in desperate need for their funds would have left them in the Society looking at it as long term. At present if the society is immediatly wound up then millions may be lost which benifits nobody!!

I never had money in PMS but my Parents churh did and they pulled theirs out based on the fact that it wasn't covered by any Government Guarantees and because one committe member who was (Money Savey) saw the problems comming in the property market and was concerend at the "Heavy" investment in property by the PMS..