NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

Noz

fivealive wrote: »

Please don't go. This thread is for everyone with a direct/indirect interest in the PMS.
D.A. you are representing some people's views, just as NoMoreF.W.O. represents some people's views. This should be a "safe" place for people to ventilate and there is room for us all.
:smileyhea

I would agree with your post fivealive.

KingVardas

I popped back into this Forum because I read that members/creditors had voted overwhelmingly for the Administrator's proposal for a formal arrangment to wind things up over time and repay as much of the money owed as possible. I expected to find some happier people. But I must say most of the posts are appalling rants about getting back at somebody. I'm afraid it was the shareholders who owned this company, it was their responsibility to pay attention, attend meetings, read the accounts, appoint or dismiss directors etc etc. When I see that you, over time, might get the vast majority of your money back through the sale of assets at the appropriate times - while others have lost money forever through falling pensions funds, market investments etc etc - I realise how narrow-minded SOME of the members are. At least there are only 100 or so people registered, some not even PMS members, and the vast majority of the 10,000 odd PMS members have had faith in the process of Administration. If you can't do more than complain and swap daft ideas about how to get revenge on the people you employed to run the company, then you should frankly not contribute. If the government is reading this forum, they certainly won't be encouraged to help you out - and maybe they shouldn't.

KingVardas

When I see that you, over time, might get the vast majority of your money back through the sale of assets at the appropriate times 60% is not the vast majority in my book. 60% is what you would get if the assets were sold at the value placed on them in the Director's statement of accounts ie if they were sold straight away in a liquidation. A CVA or other formal arrangement is designed to get you a greater return over time. It was up to you to vote and most of you voted to wait for more - v sensible.


I'm afraid it was the shareholders who owned this company, it was their responsibility to pay attention and are we not allowed to be angry at shareholders who jumped ship....goes against what 'mutual' really is
I don't see a great deal of mutuality here anyway. Yes you are correct, some people took out their money when they realised last October that there were guarantees elsewhere. Millions of people in the UI prefered saftey over rate of return. But ranting against them won't help maximise your return.

At least there are only 100 or so people registered, some not even PMS members, and the vast majority of the 10,000 odd PMS members have had faith in the process of Administration so far off the mark its unreal. Sorry, I thought I had read that 90% of members had voted and of them around 90% accepted the Administrator's proposal for a formal arrangement. Is that off the mark or have you just got no real answer?

crazymess

Ok folks - we have written and viewed all of these posts for this last three months. What are we actually doing that is constructive in getting our savings returned in full? We have just talked about it, what went wrong, who didn't do this, who did, etc etc,

Our only hope of getting our full savings returned is GOVERNMENT HELP AND INTERVENTION.

I therefore suggest a Rally at Stormont, with all of the 9500 - men, women and children involved - with all of the media, newspapers etc informed and getting our voices heard.

We can do this together -

We are relying on a few to write letters to Stormont, MPs etc - we need to do this for ourselves.

LIKE IT OR LOATHE IT PCI ARE NOT LEGALLY CONNECTED AND WE SHOULD THEREFORE BE ASKING THEM TO SUPPORT OUR RALLY! AND BE SEEN TO BE WORKING TOGETHER TO GET A POSITIVE RESULT.

POSITIVE COMMENTS AND HELP IN SETTING THIS UP PLEASE.

BelfastGran

Iam so angry at this moment

Did anybody hear UTV news, or am I not hearing correctly.

Was that the Presbyterian Mutual Jimmey Delargy was speaking about, who is giving this information.

quote
:
(Correct me if I am wrong Please I hope I am)

Nobody wants to take any responsibility

Perhaps a Trust is going to be set up so that these old people can get their money back before they die, these old critters( critters is my word) took the risk and now they might only get back about 80% of their money. I cannot believe I am hearing this !!!!!! Somebody tell me I am not hearing correctly

Does Jimmy Delargy know something that I don't

freddiemae

BelfastGran wrote: »

Iam so angry at this moment

Did anybody hear UTV news, or am I not hearing correctly.

Was that the Presbyterian Mutual Jimmey Delargy was speaking about, who is giving this information.

quote
:
(Correct me if I am wrong Please I hope I am)

Nobody wants to take any responsibility

Perhaps a Trust is going to be set up so that these old people can get their money back before they die, these old critters( critters is my word) took the risk and now they might only get back about 80% of their money. I cannot believe I am hearing this !!!!!! Somebody tell me I am not hearing correctly

Does Jimmy Delargy know something that I don't

That's what he said - only 80% was just a suggested amount. And he did say you took the risk.

Witless

freddiemae wrote: »

That's what he said - only 80% was just a suggested amount. And he did say you took the risk.

Surely any investment carries an element of risk?

There was almost certainly an element of maladministration though I would challenge those posting to name any financial institution that hasn't performed poorly; however investors made a conscious decision where to invest. They may have been badly advised by clergy, however it was their choice; personally I tend to take advice from specalists.

There seems to be a consensus of opinion that the government (ie the taxpayer - you & me) should make up the shortfall.

Does this hold true for all failed investments? I have investments (not in PMS - I wouldn't have been elligible AFAIK) that have lost approx 35% - should the government cover that loss too?

I have every sympathy with those who are now facing difficulties; however if they are to be compensated - it should be by the PCI.

crazymess

Witless

My money in the PMS was savings - I chose this mutual society because I believed that the Society was well run and the Directors did not speculate with my savings. I had no issue with the Commerical Property purchases. I was not told the truth about the loans for development land or my savings would have been instantly withdrawn.

If I wanted higher interest with higher risk I would have gone to stocks and shares.

So therefore the reason for pressing Government on this is that exactly all of the other Directors in the other Banks that have been bailed out to date - were speculating with Savers' monies.

john2009

crazymess wrote: »

Also we can then also discuss - Administrator's lack of answers, Creditors' Committee etc. - we can go to the courts and request this.

SO IF YOU WANT TO TRY AND GET THE BEST RETURN OF YOUR SAVINGS - I BELIEVE THIS IS OUR ONLY OPTION.

I agree with everything you say but wanted to pick up on one point which is above. I understand the frustration at the lack of answers and a creditors committee but I don't think you can simply go to court and request this. In England you couldn't and I understand the law is the same in NI. Administration will not answer all the questions about the management of PMS until DETI has decided if any action should be taken. A court will not change this. Also, the court cannot order a creditor's committee to be set up, you need a creditors meeting to do this.

sickasaparrot

The following is an extract from PMS documentation.



Is my investment safe?

The Directors give a categorical assurance that they do not under any circumstances speculate with investors' funds entrusted to their care, but use such funds specially for the purpose of advancing loans to those shareholders who wish to borrow from the Society. The Society uses surplus funds to purchase commercial property from which it derives a rental income and retains a percentage of the total capital in cash that is invested in established banks in Northern Ireland.