Presbyterian Mutual Society asks for help!!!!

[lynchbhoy]

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.

maybe the six counties are different but down here mutual organisations have the same rating /status as banks - eg the EBS building society !

[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.

maybe the six counties are different but down here mutual organisations have the same rating /status as banks - eg the EBS building society !

Yes, presumably because they're regulated by the Financial Regulator. The PMS wasn't regulated by the FSA.

[lynchbhoy]

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.

maybe the six counties are different but down here mutual organisations have the same rating /status as banks - eg the EBS building society !

Yes, presumably because they're regulated by the Financial Regulator. The PMS wasn't regulated by the FSA.

fair enough
would have expected all institutions that deal with money were bound by law to be affiliated and adhere to financial regulations !
AFAIK its only the loan sharks that are not !
It begs the question, what sort of an 'institution' was that pms anyhow ! ! !

btw, dont mention 'financial regulator' they were a fecking joke/mess disgrace down here !

[Roger]

Sounds like you have money invested in this organisation, because you are going a bit to try to justify this institution being 'rescued' !

If you read my posts you will see I don't want it bailed out.  I just have some sympathy for the PMS situation as it was adversely effected by government actions.  I am not a member of PMS and have been a victim of the most blatant religious sectarianism by this corrupt cultist oppressor 

[lynchbhoy]

Sounds like you have money invested in this organisation, because you are going a bit to try to justify this institution being 'rescued' !

If you read my posts you will see I don't want it bailed out.  I just have some sympathy for the PMS situation as it was adversely effected by government actions.  I am not a member of PMS and have been a victim of the most blatant religious sectarianism by this corrupt cultist oppressor 

well neither of us agree with bailing the banks(and financial institutions) out then !

however the pms are at best guilty of negligence by not having sufficient failsafe measures and also not investing their investors money wisely.
Neither did the banks, but thats the point, they are all like a shower of lemmings and couldnt see the woods from the trees etc.
Gross negligence should not be bailed out  (or worse still 'rewarded'  - as top brass down here have received large bonus/pay offs etc ! ! ! !)

[Lecale2]

How on Earth could the Financial Regulator be expected to deal with a Statanic attack on this organisation?

[Roger]

Sounds like you have money invested in this organisation, because you are going a bit to try to justify this institution being 'rescued' !

If you read my posts you will see I don't want it bailed out.  I just have some sympathy for the PMS situation as it was adversely effected by government actions.  I am not a member of PMS and have been a victim of the most blatant religious sectarianism by this corrupt cultist oppressor 

well neither of us agree with bailing the banks(and financial institutions) out then !

however the pms are at best guilty of negligence by not having sufficient failsafe measures and also not investing their investors money wisely.
Neither did the banks, but thats the point, they are all like a shower of lemmings and couldnt see the woods from the trees etc.
Gross negligence should not be bailed out  (or worse still 'rewarded'  - as top brass down here have received large bonus/pay offs etc ! ! ! !)

I think HMG needed to get involved in the financial sector.  Not bail them out but there needed some intervention as the economic devastation would have been horrendous.

[lynchbhoy]

Sounds like you have money invested in this organisation, because you are going a bit to try to justify this institution being 'rescued' !

If you read my posts you will see I don't want it bailed out.  I just have some sympathy for the PMS situation as it was adversely effected by government actions.  I am not a member of PMS and have been a victim of the most blatant religious sectarianism by this corrupt cultist oppressor 

well neither of us agree with bailing the banks(and financial institutions) out then !

however the pms are at best guilty of negligence by not having sufficient failsafe measures and also not investing their investors money wisely.
Neither did the banks, but thats the point, they are all like a shower of lemmings and couldnt see the woods from the trees etc.
Gross negligence should not be bailed out  (or worse still 'rewarded'  - as top brass down here have received large bonus/pay offs etc ! ! ! !)

I think HMG needed to get involved in the financial sector.  Not bail them out but there needed some intervention as the economic devastation would have been horrendous.

I dont necessarily agree, apart from the public fear causing a 'run' on savings/deposit accounts , nothing untoward has actually happened the banks.

I'd hope hmg's gov would have a better go and grasp of proper deeper legislation and policy/procedure than the Dail had.
Our legislation didnt go beyond the top line of documentation !

[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.

maybe the six counties are different but down here mutual organisations have the same rating /status as banks - eg the EBS building society !

Yes, presumably because they're regulated by the Financial Regulator. The PMS wasn't regulated by the FSA.

fair enough
would have expected all institutions that deal with money were bound by law to be affiliated and adhere to financial regulations !
AFAIK its only the loan sharks that are not !
It begs the question, what sort of an 'institution' was that pms anyhow ! ! !

A private one, for private investment.

[lynchbhoy]

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.

maybe the six counties are different but down here mutual organisations have the same rating /status as banks - eg the EBS building society !

Yes, presumably because they're regulated by the Financial Regulator. The PMS wasn't regulated by the FSA.

fair enough
would have expected all institutions that deal with money were bound by law to be affiliated and adhere to financial regulations !
AFAIK its only the loan sharks that are not !
It begs the question, what sort of an 'institution' was that pms anyhow ! ! !

A private one, for private investment.

one that didnt protect themselves or their investors money.....sure they may as well have been that 'christmas club' that went broke an stung all those poor sods a year and a half ago ! (or was it older than that ?)


at least the banks (and other mutual societies) attempted to do something by adhering to some kind of regulatory affiliation and acreditation/protection.


I'll ask that question again but in more detail to allow you grasp the concept...

what kind of an institution was that pms anyhow that it didnt look into protecting their own and their customers money in the event of something going wrong. Obv Due dilligence not bothered with here !

[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.

maybe the six counties are different but down here mutual organisations have the same rating /status as banks - eg the EBS building society !

Yes, presumably because they're regulated by the Financial Regulator. The PMS wasn't regulated by the FSA.

fair enough
would have expected all institutions that deal with money were bound by law to be affiliated and adhere to financial regulations !
AFAIK its only the loan sharks that are not !
It begs the question, what sort of an 'institution' was that pms anyhow ! ! !

A private one, for private investment.

one that didnt protect themselves or their investors money.....sure they may as well have been that 'christmas club' that went broke an stung all those poor sods a year and a half ago ! (or was it older than that ?)


at least the banks (and other mutual societies) attempted to do something by adhering to some kind of regulatory affiliation and acreditation/protection.


I'll ask that question again but in more detail to allow you grasp the concept...

what kind of an institution was that pms anyhow that it didnt look into protecting their own and their customers money in the event of something going wrong. Obv Due dilligence not bothered with here !

Here, hold up a minute - I'm not sure what your change in tone is about - I wasn't actually disagreeing with you!

All I was saying was that it was a private institution - and yes, apparently one that was badly managed. If it had been publically selling itself as a bank, it would have been subject to FSA oversight, and would therefore be eligible for bailout, you'd have to imagine.

I don't think the government should bail it out. I do think that the Presbyterian Church has an obligation to those who poured their life savings into it, thinking it was a savings account - you have to feel sympathy for such people. It may have been stupidity, but more likely naivety on their part - or maybe the PMS didn't actually explain the nature of the institution and therefore, the risk.

[Roger]

Was government intervention in line with FSA regulation or did the government change the level of playing field for the PMS by its actions? 

[Lar Naparka]

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.

maybe the six counties are different but down here mutual organisations have the same rating /status as banks - eg the EBS building society !

Yes, presumably because they're regulated by the Financial Regulator. The PMS wasn't regulated by the FSA.

fair enough
would have expected all institutions that deal with money were bound by law to be affiliated and adhere to financial regulations !
AFAIK its only the loan sharks that are not !
It begs the question, what sort of an 'institution' was that pms anyhow ! ! !

A private one, for private investment.

one that didnt protect themselves or their investors money.....sure they may as well have been that 'christmas club' that went broke an stung all those poor sods a year and a half ago ! (or was it older than that ?)


at least the banks (and other mutual societies) attempted to do something by adhering to some kind of regulatory affiliation and acreditation/protection.


I'll ask that question again but in more detail to allow you grasp the concept...

what kind of an institution was that pms anyhow that it didnt look into protecting their own and their customers money in the event of something going wrong. Obv Due dilligence not bothered with here !

Here, hold up a minute - I'm not sure what your change in tone is about - I wasn't actually disagreeing with you!

All I was saying was that it was a private institution - and yes, apparently one that was badly managed. If it had been publically selling itself as a bank, it would have been subject to FSA oversight, and would therefore be eligible for bailout, you'd have to imagine.

I don't think the government should bail it out. I do think that the Presbyterian Church has an obligation to those who poured their life savings into it, thinking it was a savings account - you have to feel sympathy for such people. It may have been stupidity, but more likely naivety on their part - or maybe the PMS didn't actually explain the nature of the institution and therefore, the risk.

I'm with you on this one, Maguire.
The church has to face up to a huge responsibility because of their association with the PMS.
Blaming the quare fella isn't an option.

[Hereiam]

looks like the they will be getin there money back. Oh the joys of being a prod

[lynchbhoy]

just thought of it - the pms should have asked the Irish gov for a handout/bailout !
sure all the other financial institutions in Ireland got this once they asked !!

worse now that the 'guarantee' has moved into actual funding now !