Presbyterian Mutual Society asks for help!!!!

[Tony Baloney]

They should just remember the one about the camel, the needle, the rich man and heaven.

As has been said over and over, the country is coming down with people who have lost everything due to bad investments (or good investments that turned bad). No one is riding to their rescue. Suck it up.

[tyronefan]

Some of the gloating going on here is really disgusting and should be beneath some of you.

So what if a Church wants to do business strictly with its own members? why would anyone else give a shite. This is not sectarian it is called fraternalism and the Presbyterians are entitled to do it under the law so fair fecks to them.

That said, they should not receive one penny in bailout, sorry MW but I just lost $124.500 in my house and over 90k in the holiday home in florida and nobody is sending me any bailout money.

I think the problem is that they are looking for the tax payers to bail them out, not that they only allow Presbyterians to deposit although I would have thought that it was against the law to discriminate against people because of their religion

[Roger]

Some of the gloating going on here is really disgusting and should be beneath some of you.

So what if a Church wants to do business strictly with its own members? why would anyone else give a shite. This is not sectarian it is called fraternalism and the Presbyterians are entitled to do it under the law so fair fecks to them.

That said, they should not receive one penny in bailout, sorry MW but I just lost $124.500 in my house and over 90k in the holiday home in florida and nobody is sending me any bailout money.

I think the problem is that they are looking for the tax payers to bail them out, not that they only allow Presbyterians to deposit although I would have thought that it was against the law to discriminate against people because of their religion

The problem is that public intervention in the financial market caused their collapse and they are therefore seeking compensation from the public purse.  Dunfermline Mutual got assistance (where is Gordon from?) and there is an argument that the PMS should too.  My understanding is that PMS is technically an investment club ie gambled on the market (even though to all intents and purposes the members used it as a savings plan but that's really tough luck) whereas Dunfermline is more of a savings club.  That said I don't see one should receive assistance if the other one does not.  The problem is that this puts the public purse at serious risk from other claims from clubs and unions seeking compensation and therefore I am not really in favour of support.  It is the downside of the actions of HMG in the financial sector and I have a lot of sympathy for the PMS and any other club or union adversely effected by those actions.

It is not illegal religious discrimination for a society to be formed exclusively from a religious organisation.  

[nifan]

I feel sorry for the people who invested, but really their is a responsibility on individuals to know the story with where they place their investments.
I am aware of the liability with regards to my savings by the government, and if lucky enough to have over the limit would ensure to spread the load across multiple institutions to ensure the safety of it.

That said, those ministers who encouraged people to invest, and are now claiming it is nothing to do with them are a disgrace.

[Franko]

Some of the gloating going on here is really disgusting and should be beneath some of you.

So what if a Church wants to do business strictly with its own members? why would anyone else give a shite. This is not sectarian it is called fraternalism and the Presbyterians are entitled to do it under the law so fair fecks to them.

That said, they should not receive one penny in bailout, sorry MW but I just lost $124.500 in my house and over 90k in the holiday home in florida and nobody is sending me any bailout money.

I think the problem is that they are looking for the tax payers to bail them out, not that they only allow Presbyterians to deposit although I would have thought that it was against the law to discriminate against people because of their religion

The problem is that public intervention in the financial market caused their collapse and they are therefore seeking compensation from the public purse.  Dunfermline Mutual got assistance (where is Gordon from?) and there is an argument that the PMS should too.  My understanding is that PMS is technically an investment club ie gambled on the market (even though to all intents and purposes the members used it as a savings plan but that's really tough luck) whereas Dunfermline is more of a savings club.  That said I don't see one should receive assistance if the other one does not.  The problem is that this puts the public purse at serious risk from other claims from clubs and unions seeking compensation and therefore I am not really in favour of support.  It is the downside of the actions of HMG in the financial sector and I have a lot of sympathy for the PMS and any other club or union adversely effected by those actions.

It is not illegal religious discrimination for a society to be formed exclusively from a religious organisation.  

I agree that the society can include/exclude whosoever they wish but the argument that they should in any way recieve compensation from the Government because they 'caused' their collapsed does not hold water.  They were not regulated by the FSA therefore they are not the responsibility of the Government/Taxpayer.  End of.

[Roger]

Some of the gloating going on here is really disgusting and should be beneath some of you.

So what if a Church wants to do business strictly with its own members? why would anyone else give a shite. This is not sectarian it is called fraternalism and the Presbyterians are entitled to do it under the law so fair fecks to them.

That said, they should not receive one penny in bailout, sorry MW but I just lost $124.500 in my house and over 90k in the holiday home in florida and nobody is sending me any bailout money.

I think the problem is that they are looking for the tax payers to bail them out, not that they only allow Presbyterians to deposit although I would have thought that it was against the law to discriminate against people because of their religion

The problem is that public intervention in the financial market caused their collapse and they are therefore seeking compensation from the public purse.  Dunfermline Mutual got assistance (where is Gordon from?) and there is an argument that the PMS should too.  My understanding is that PMS is technically an investment club ie gambled on the market (even though to all intents and purposes the members used it as a savings plan but that's really tough luck) whereas Dunfermline is more of a savings club.  That said I don't see one should receive assistance if the other one does not.  The problem is that this puts the public purse at serious risk from other claims from clubs and unions seeking compensation and therefore I am not really in favour of support.  It is the downside of the actions of HMG in the financial sector and I have a lot of sympathy for the PMS and any other club or union adversely effected by those actions.

It is not illegal religious discrimination for a society to be formed exclusively from a religious organisation.  

I agree that the society can include/exclude whosoever they wish but the argument that they should in any way recieve compensation from the Government because they 'caused' their collapsed does not hold water.  They were not regulated by the FSA therefore they are not the responsibility of the Government/Taxpayer.  End of.

Do you think the Dunfermline Mutual assistance has created precedent for PMS?

[lynchbhoy]

I think ALL of the banks bailouts in Ireland/Britain have caused precedent.

IMO NONE of them should have received money to bail them out from their own crass incompetence or ineptitude.

the presb mutual society are simply another bank that has fraternal/slightly sectarian auspices/membership

[Roger]

IMO NONE of them should have received money to bail them out from their own crass incompetence or ineptitude.

The economic devastation caused by government inaction would have been much greater than the cost of intervening. The "do nothing option" wasn't appropriate and wasn't really a realistic option at all. The problem now is how to deal with these other institutions that have been adversely affected by the necessary actions.

[Maguire01]

The critical difference is that it wasn't a bank or a regulated institution. All of the banks are subject to regulation - i'm assuming the Dunfermline was as well.

[slow corner back]

Some of the gloating going on here is really disgusting and should be beneath some of you.

So what if a Church wants to do business strictly with its own members? why would anyone else give a shite. This is not sectarian it is called fraternalism and the Presbyterians are entitled to do it under the law so fair fecks to them.

That said, they should not receive one penny in bailout, sorry MW but I just lost $124.500 in my house and over 90k in the holiday home in florida and nobody is sending me any bailout money.

I think the problem is that they are looking for the tax payers to bail them out, not that they only allow Presbyterians to deposit although I would have thought that it was against the law to discriminate against people because of their religion

The problem is that public intervention in the financial market caused their collapse and they are therefore seeking compensation from the public purse.  Dunfermline Mutual got assistance (where is Gordon from?) and there is an argument that the PMS should too.  My understanding is that PMS is technically an investment club ie gambled on the market (even though to all intents and purposes the members used it as a savings plan but that's really tough luck) whereas Dunfermline is more of a savings club.  That said I don't see one should receive assistance if the other one does not.  The problem is that this puts the public purse at serious risk from other claims from clubs and unions seeking compensation and therefore I am not really in favour of support.  It is the downside of the actions of HMG in the financial sector and I have a lot of sympathy for the PMS and any other club or union adversely effected by those actions.

It is not illegal religious discrimination for a society to be formed exclusively from a religious organisation.  

I agree that the society can include/exclude whosoever they wish but the argument that they should in any way recieve compensation from the Government because they 'caused' their collapsed does not hold water.  They were not regulated by the FSA therefore they are not the responsibility of the Government/Taxpayer.  End of.

Do you think the Dunfermline Mutual assistance has created precedent for PMS?

According to Alex Salmond the Duinfermline Building Society was not helped out its profitable parts were bought out by the nationwide http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/mar/31/dunfermline-takeover-nationwide. Hope that link works. Anyway Alex got all bothered that Gordon would not bail out the society like he did the banks and was selling one of Scotlands instituitions on the cheap. By the way the Dunfermline was a building society open to all customers anywhere in the UK unlike the PMS. The Dunfermline was regulated by the FSA.

[Main Street]

The critical difference is that it wasn't a bank or a regulated institution. All of the banks are subject to regulation - i'm assuming the Dunfermline was as well.

All investments carry a risk. Even the regulated insured major Bank saver deposit accounts carried a big enough risk before the banks crashed.

The fine print, in basic major Bank savings accounts, stated in all probability according to Euro regulations,  that the Bank was regulated and  passed fit for purpose. That the bank contributed some miniscule % to an insurance fund and the savers account was gaurenteed up to the first  €20k.
Should a bank crash then the insurance fund was the only fund to be used to compensate savers.
If this insurance fund was properly set up then the Government was not obliged to make up any differences.
If the insurance fund was not adequately set up then the Gov were obliged to step in and fulfil the limited guarentees.

In all respects, this private savers club, the PMS, did not fulfill any of these standards.

[Tony Baloney]

The critical difference is that it wasn't a bank or a regulated institution. All of the banks are subject to regulation - i'm assuming the Dunfermline was as well.

All investments carry a risk. Even the regulated insured major Bank saver deposit accounts carried a big enough risk before the banks crashed.

The fine print, in basic major Bank savings accounts, stated in all probability according to Euro regulations,  that the Bank was regulated and  passed fit for purpose. That the bank contributed some miniscule % to an insurance fund and the savers account was gaurenteed up to the first  €20k.
Should a bank crash then the insurance fund was the only fund to be used to compensate savers.
If this insurance fund was properly set up then the Government was not obliged to make up any differences.
If the insurance fund was not adequately set up then the Gov were obliged to step in and fulfil the limited guarentees.

In all respects, this private savers club, the PMS, did not fulfill any of these standards.

If the government do bale them out are they leaving themselves open for bale outs from other unregulated clubs or private individuals? My mate is in a shares club - could he reasonably compare their club to that of the PMS?

[nifan]

very true tony - the PMS simply cannot be bailed out, otherwise as you say any unregulated group could simply demand so.

[Franko]

Some of the gloating going on here is really disgusting and should be beneath some of you.

So what if a Church wants to do business strictly with its own members? why would anyone else give a shite. This is not sectarian it is called fraternalism and the Presbyterians are entitled to do it under the law so fair fecks to them.

That said, they should not receive one penny in bailout, sorry MW but I just lost $124.500 in my house and over 90k in the holiday home in florida and nobody is sending me any bailout money.

I think the problem is that they are looking for the tax payers to bail them out, not that they only allow Presbyterians to deposit although I would have thought that it was against the law to discriminate against people because of their religion

The problem is that public intervention in the financial market caused their collapse and they are therefore seeking compensation from the public purse.  Dunfermline Mutual got assistance (where is Gordon from?) and there is an argument that the PMS should too.  My understanding is that PMS is technically an investment club ie gambled on the market (even though to all intents and purposes the members used it as a savings plan but that's really tough luck) whereas Dunfermline is more of a savings club.  That said I don't see one should receive assistance if the other one does not.  The problem is that this puts the public purse at serious risk from other claims from clubs and unions seeking compensation and therefore I am not really in favour of support.  It is the downside of the actions of HMG in the financial sector and I have a lot of sympathy for the PMS and any other club or union adversely effected by those actions.

It is not illegal religious discrimination for a society to be formed exclusively from a religious organisation.  

I agree that the society can include/exclude whosoever they wish but the argument that they should in any way recieve compensation from the Government because they 'caused' their collapsed does not hold water.  They were not regulated by the FSA therefore they are not the responsibility of the Government/Taxpayer.  End of.

Do you think the Dunfermline Mutual assistance has created precedent for PMS?

Certainly not, it was FSA regulated.

[lynchbhoy]

IMO NONE of them should have received money to bail them out from their own crass incompetence or ineptitude.

The economic devastation caused by government inaction would have been much greater than the cost of intervening. The "do nothing option" wasn't appropriate and wasn't really a realistic option at all. The problem now is how to deal with these other institutions that have been adversely affected by the necessary actions.

as far as I am aware, there is no cost required by any of the existing banks
the bail out for most was the state guarantee in case of any probems (obv not for anglo irish bank here who are getting funded as they were 'taken over' by the state)
so apart from one or two banks/financial institutions that went to the wall there was no action actually required.
The problems were that peole woul dhave reacted like the northern rock situation and the run on banks liqudity/cash could crash them, otherwise witout consumer panic, banks have been fine.
the 'do nothing option' would have been better imo (apart from the scare issue for consumers as above) as at least then no taxpayers money would have been wasted or pledged towards commercial organisations that shoul dhave been able to stand on their own two feet in the first place.
So I am afraid that I cannot agree with your assessment of the situation.
Sounds like you have money invested in this organisation, because you are going a bit to try to justify this institution being 'rescued' !

the precedent is there, but if someone/anyone challenges the dunfermiline scenario, it could very well be overturned !
But down here we have precedent with mutual org 'EBS' that was also part of the gov guarantee with taxpayers money.

Taxpayers money imo that coul dhave been used to better effect to retain jobs, bolster unemployed/redundancies etc !