[committee] Protecting the rainy day fund

[Adrian Chadd]

On Wed, Oct 13, 2010, Jeremy Cole wrote:
> Well I think with something such as this amount of money you really only
> want changes in the investment 'schedule' to be changeable with something
> like an SGM. At the end of the day you are going to get a decent enough
> real interest from a term deposit to make it worth while, these large
> deposits are how banks run do remember. If you really want to keep things
> flexible whilst still keeping the money safe you could require an absolute
> majority opinion from the committee of the time to change how it is invested
> (because any change along these lines should be so obviously good for the
> club that an entire committee would be for it) whilst still requiring an SGM
> to actually withdraw funds.
> 
> I get the feeling that this is going to be a tough nut to crack as either
> way you go there seems to be either not enough flexibility or too much
> ability for a 'rogue committee' to go nuts. Perhaps it is in the best
> interests for one of these to be the case rather then spend forever trying
> to find a Goldilocks policy on it.

What about investigating a method of having some external party control
when money flows from the savings account to UCC - and then the committee
has to justify to that party to get ${PAID} ?

$240 a month is $2640 after one year, plus more over time. Except economic
crashes, that'll keep growing. More so if more people invest into it.

$50,000 can be blown in one room refurbish - and then your investment
loses money.

Personally, I'd suggest sticking it in a 12 month term deposit right now
and ignoring its existance. I'd also suggest making sure it's locked away
in a longish-term term deposit during the eventual shift to new premises
so people don't go "ooer shiny!".

My 2c,


Adrian