´óÏó´«Ã½

The church should send someone competent to answer these questions out for interview. It's the right thing to do.

The Presbyterian Church should give clear explanation regarding the issue to avoid misleading thoughts form the people.

it's typical. Whether it's a bishop crisis in the catholic church or a financial crisisin the presbyterian church, these guys think their best policy is to hide from the cameras. That never works. The church just ends up looking like they have something to hide.

Jovial, ever wondered if that might be because they have got something to hide?

In this case I rather think they do. I became interested in the plight of the small investors affected by the effective failure of the PMS and asked someone I know, well-qualified in this field, if he would 'burrow around' and tell me what he found.

What he told me just after Christmas made the hairs stand on the back of my neck. There are real questions investors in the PMS should be asking of the company's directors but it will require a person, not just of great moral courage, but I venture to suggest, great physical courage, to ask them.

John, in another thread, recommends investors to hang on in there and wait for the recovery of the property market - the assumptions behind that suggestion pass responsibility for the collapse rather neatly over to global economic conditions. I would contend that that is only part of the story. There has been, not just a collapse in the value of the investment property portfolio, but also serious doubt as to the recoverability of major loans made to borrowers. The loans practice followed by the directors, therefore, would merit the closest scrutiny. I rather wonder if I am not as much of a Presbyterian as some of those who have been lent substantial funds.

Jesus Christ taught that it is not possible to serve God and Mammon, as usual it would appear he was right.

I don't think its about what the church has learned, but more what we have learned about the church.

Portwyne,

I'm quite interested in a couple of the things you said - rather cryptically - in your comment.

1) What do you mean by "physical courage", and why would it be necessary to possess it in order to ask the most useful questions of the PMS board of directors?

2) Loans made by the PMS. It's very normal within the financial industry to assume that a certain percentage of loans are going to be written off as bad debt. In these economic conditions, the percentage increases, not just for the PMS but for all. Are you suggesting that the PMS involved sub-prime lending of some sort, of a nature not congruent with either ordinary lending practices or the PMS's stated standards?

John - I have had an extremely busy week with my own work and have not yet had time to study the Administrator's report but, on the basis of my post-Christmas conversation, I would reply to you as follows:

With regard to your first point I think I'll just quote Pilate and leave it at that: "What I have said, I have said".

On your second point, if I were a shareholder, among the questions I should ask would be:

The Directors report in the March 2008 accounts (signed off in June 2008) details a comprehensive risk management strategy - was it fully implemented? If not, why not? If it was, why did it fail?

In a year in which they appear to have made no significant Investment Property acquisitions and in which they considered it appropriate to revalue the property they already held downwards by approximately 7.7%, did they consider it prudent to make net mortgage advances in excess of 30 million pounds (an increase in lending of 21%)?

Did they fund large scale speculative development-land acquisition? What was the timing of any such lending, if there was any, and was it appropriate given the knowledge of then-prevalent economic conditions diligent management might be expected to possess?

Is such lending in keeping with the ethos of the society and the church?

What were the individual amounts of any loans advanced in excess of one million pounds?

Was the scale of lending on individual applications appropriate and in accordance with good risk management practices?

How recoverable are the most recent major loan advances made by the society? For what loss, if any, would a prudent accountant provide on those loans alone?

I am not sure how being a Presbyterian is defined - were the board sure - what is their definition of a Presbyterian?

Industry knowledge is cited as a credit risk management factor - how great was the board's knowledge of the full range of business activities and associations of those to whom they made major advances?

I think that would do for starters - I could go on but the post would definitely be pulled.

Great points portwyne.

It's a real mess. I had a real feeling of despair and anxiety on Friday morning when I awoke. I really felt that it was a bad dream. I find the silence of the church deafening and to be honest I think that trying to enrol the help of ministers is futile, unless they have been personally impacted.
Anybody who is a Presbyterian, have you ever felt as isolated or alone as you do now? Where is the church in our hour of need?
Why aren't they working on Gordon Brown to gaurantee funds? Where is their love and compassion? Can they not understand that generations of families will be ruined by this. PCI and PMS have made working class and middle class Presbyterians poor and I am not exaggerating.
What about those people who struggled over Christmas and had been depending on lifting an amount our of PMS to see them through the festive season, particularly older people? Has anybody been approached by a minister to ask how they are coping? Why are PCI saying and doing nothing? I hope William Crawley can get somebody to break this silence. I am totally disgusted at the lack of leadership that the church has shown to its people. Shame on you PCI. Time to stop contributing to the offering plate I think.

This has been a disaster for PCI, connected or not they have come out of it very badly and its far from over yet.

Their PR machine needs looked at as it has messd up completely as the silence speaks volumes and the media have picked up on it.

Loads have stopped contributing to PCI and not much wonder.

The delivery of the administrator's report has revealed some devastating truths.
I was personally told by the PMS secretary that my money was £100% safe, and that the money was lent out to the congregations.

It seems that only £12 million was with the congregations
£85 million on development land
£26 million on buy to let property

This contravenes PMS own assurances that they do not speculate with investors funds.

Also I have had to face up to the unpalatable truth that I was lied to by the PMS secretary on more than one occasion.
I categorically asked him if my investment was safe, and at no time was I told about the investment in development land or buy to let.
Just that the money was lent out to congregations (in my opinion that would be a safe loan)

It would be good to ask the Directors the questions suggested by portwyne, but does the High Court order limiting disclosure prevent this?

Does anyone know?

Would it be worth writing to the administrator?

A couple of questions that I have not been able to get an answer to:-
1. What are the names of the directors of PMS?
2. Can it be confirmed that NONE of the directors WITHDREW money?
3. Was the PMS overseen by the FSA?

The directors names are publicly known and were sent out to all members of the society last week with the voting papers.

1. The directors names are available in the report which is here: s_Proposals.pdf

2. No; if I'm not mistaken, the court injunction prevents any details of investments being divulged (see the report).

3. Also from the report, it appears that the FSA has been asking questions about aspects of the Society. No more details on that one.

Thanks to those who have answered my questions. One other question... under what legislation was PMS established?

Hello Portwyne....remember me ??

I became a bit axious by the nature of some of the posts that were appearing in the Will Crawley bloggs in November/December (not yours !) so decided to avoid it altogether until now.

I've been busy plodding along, reading all the comments and contributing a few of my own,on the MoneySavingExpert website.You're possibly are keeping an eye on it too ??

I told you in the past that I thought you were a 'star' because of the amount of effort you were putting in to providing a 'financial help' group- not to mention the general type of information you were offering.

I know that the meeting didn't take place before Christmas because there weren't enough 'takers',but now that the Administrators report is out, and people are in no doubt about the severity of the situation I wonder if there might be more interest in the help group now ? Only a thought.

Re PMS

"Activity:to promote thrift among members of the Presbyterian Church and to create source of credit for the benefit of its members at a fair and reasonable rate of interest"

The first question to be answered were all members of PMS also members of PCI?

With deposits being withdrawn at such levels why did it take so long for the Directors to act to protect the interest of the shareholders?

What are the professional qualifications of the society's secretary?

What was the reason minuted for the Director who resigned in Srptember 2008?

How many investors were advised by Ministers of the Church and or elders to invest in the Society and were those giving investment advice duly authorised to give such advice?

Were any investors advised by professional independent advisors to invest with the Society?

In reality the investors have ended up investing in a high risk poorly managed property fund and their recourse shold be against the Directors personally and the Society's advisers if in either case it can be shown there was any failure. The next step has to be a cessation of all giving to PCI until such times as there is an acknowledgement of substantial substantial support for those who have suffered.

There must be no question of any Government financial support until such times as the legal process is exhausted and then any compensation must not exceed the amounts about to be proposed by Bishop Eames Commission.

The PMS was not a bank and the monies placed with the Society were not investments but share investments and loans. Remember there are a only 2 emotions when it comes to investing money..."greed and fear" the greed phase has passed and now fear has kicked in.

In reality the gloves need to come off and a fighting fund created to fight for the rights of the PMS investors unfortunately it so happens Depositor Compensation should not be an option.

Slight correction to post No 16 penultimate paragraph should read:

The PMS was not a bank and the monies placed with the Society were not deposits but share investments and loans. Remember there are a only 2 emotions when it comes to investing money..."greed and fear" the greed phase has passed and now fear has kicked in.

At what stage can people be given a proper forum to raise many and expect clear answers to the issues already raised, especially in para 16 re role and accountability of directors and the secretary? At the moment the stock reply appears to be "all hidden behind the cloak of a court order".

I was concerned to note on another blog the suggestion that:

1) The PMS Director who resigned in September 2008 may hold either a partnership or senior management position in the legal firm now acting for the Administrator.

2)One of the main recipients of developments loans may not even be a member of the PCI.

Not much wonder there is such disquiet.

I've just posted the following comments on another blog but as it relates to today's interview with the moderator I'm adding it here too.

Having just listened to the Moderator on Sunday Sequence I am appalled. It seems that PCI's strategy now is to keep repeating the mantra that Gordon Brown is to blame because of the guarantee given to the banks!!!!!!!. He actually said that everything was going along nicely in the PMS until this happened - is he serious?! What about the major loss of value in the assets that was already underway before the guarantee was put in place? This is typical PCI policy to blame someone else and accept no responsibility.

The blame for what happened with the PMS lies firmly, and only, with the decision to invest so heavily in development land, commercial property and buy to lets without any regard for the possibility that the value could fall, despite warnings in the past couple of years that the property bubble was about to burst. Whoever made these investment decisions is entirely to blame. The fact that it seems that these investment decisions were made without the knowledge of PMS members only adds to the injustice of this whole situation. PCI is desperately hoping that the petition will work so that everyone will go quietly away and the questions that need to be asked about what happened in PMS in the past year will never see the light of day. No wonder the Moderator is so keen to push the petition, it's his only hope. I wonder how keen he would be to promote a petition seeking a transparent investigation into PMS actvities? He wants the taxpayer to pay for PMS mishandling but many taxpayers will object to this you can be sure. I want to see the ordinary trusting members of PMS reimbursed but PCI cannot throw this entirely on the taxpayer whilst they sit on £42 million.