Our latest Investing Matters Podcast episode with QuotedData's Edward Marten has just been released. Listen here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
HH - I know this is very raw right now and you are rightly angered by how things have been handled by the BOD and FCA.
You need to accept the new reality and either sell or hold anything else is just trying to hold back the sea.
Wake up HH - to attempt to blame the FCA is to fail to take responsibility for your own investment decisions.
You gambled that it wouldn’t come to this but nobody can claim this comes as a surprise after the last couple of years.
Calamari, I hope you’re right. In which case, Amigo should have no trouble backing up their claim.
This sector has seen a lot of attempted schemes that wouldn’t pay customers in full. I have never heard any of them say this would require a 95% shareholder dilution.
And if the RNS is right, why did Amigo (and it’s well paid lawyers and advisers) ever propose scheme 1 without such a dilution? And why didn’t the FCA or the judge point out that Amigo had not conformed to what Amigo now describes as a “market standard”?
No, I’m afraid this smacks of Amigo making it up as they go along. I wish Mike all the best.
Sometimes sometimes harder can be seen as negative, be honest do you think the judge or fca will take issue with this offer.
Of course not, I’m buying more on the issue how to shareholders apply???
Just hold see this as the answer to the judge and fca accepting the soa 2.
And HH, if you’re acknowledging the 95% thing comes from somewhere else (and is not standard practice), you have to acknowledge that Amigo’s RNS is disingenuous.
HH, there was nothing disingenuous about my post. I am at a loss to understand how Amigo can say a 95% dilution is standard practice.
I assume you mean the FCA consultation on schemes (FCA doesn’t issue RNSs). Thanks for flagging that. Firstly, I wasn’t aware of it when I posted last night (it has only been published this morning). Second of all - based on a brief skim, I can’t find any reference to a 19:1 dilution being standard. Even if the consultation does propose this, it isn’t YET standard, as Amigo’s RNS said yesterday. If the 95% dilution came from FCA guidance or ICC demands, the RNS should say that, not invent some kind of industry standard.
If the last scheme taught Gary and team nothing else, it’s that accuracy matters. Amigo’s “new team” should avoid developing a reputation for double speak.
HH - finally we agree on something. RNS says that the 95% dilution reflects:
“a UK market standard level of economic interest for equity holders where creditors are not being paid in full”.
I can find no basis to support what Amigo has said.
The judge has already called out the Amigo leadership team for misrepresenting its position to creditors. I hope this isn’t another example of Amigo taking a position they can’t back up. And I hope it isn’t why Mike has gone.
Every ii and large holder from before the point of when amigo stopped lending has left. They took their £2.75 buys and sold all the way down to 5-20p, the shareholder base that benefitted at the time when lending was made have seen their up to 99% losses.
Collectively these shares have lost £1.3b of value.
And every shareholder apart from those buying today has lost way more than 58p in the £ invested.
If This scheme is not approved in April amigo will be ~£150m short of clearing the existing claims provision with the remaining book collected (minus impairments) and after paying remaining bonds, even more so if impairments and set offs are taken up with en mass..
The company wasn’t joking when they said the first deal was the best offer at the time, shame they couldn’t buy the bonds off the open market at the time when they were 50/60p in the £, that added with if it were left able to continue lending all claimants could have been paid in full eventually but we have now lost 2 years of income and the fca have destroyed a profitable company and many jobs.
And then there is the threat of the fca fine.
Some times you just have to say enough is enough, trying double or quits hasn’t worked so far.
Provi could detach defected arm (CCD) without pumping any resources in, so umbrella company was ring-fenced from claims of subsidiary (apart of some hypothetical public perception impact, which is hidden beyond shield of brands anyways).
With Amigo Holding and Amigo Loans it's different, there are warrants and other fail-safes providing security to creditors, generally amgo loans is backed up by all subsidiaries and umbrella holding (debt-related / secured notes) plus whatever was ring-fenced via mandatory provisions as reserve for claims.
Very different situations.
Well put it this way, on the plus side is the courts will favour this idea and Amigo won’t now go bust.
But it’s harsh on the share holder, at least will we get a opportunity to buy more on the share issue.
Reject and they will have to cone up with a new plan. If they want this to look like a ****show , it's working
The biggest laugh about this 1:19……..
People on here saying ‘ well yes because the redress isn’t full repayment the FCA require a 95% dilution.”
we knew before today the options of the scheme. Either 29/42p or insolvency.(0p potentially)
Why did none of these posters today highlight and share there mathematical calculations that it would Be 95% dilution (1:19 apprently)
Please can someone share a link as I’ve spent 3hours keyword searching the FCA Handbook (414pages) and I can’t see this ‘fact’ someone showed.
So I’m still left uncertain why it’s 1:19 ? If you don’t respond with the FCA facts from there website don’t bother replying your opinion!
I’m here for facts and to improve my understanding of it all.
Strong - presumably they wanted to draw a line under the redress claims and not have them weigh down the company going forward. I also, don't think the FCA wanted a long drawn out and complex process for the claimants. The FCA view seemed to be that the claimants were financially illiterate...if they read this board they might come to the same conclusion about some of the investors too...I'm certainly feeling very out if my depth today!
I think becuase the nuggets want there money yesterday. The giro was spent before it came through…on tick we call it!
I’ve often thought this why Amigo don’t say will pay back 100% over 5 years ??
Stanley - that's true but it isn't in the SOA, so it can't happen.
100% of the redress equates to 345m. Not impossible given time.
Seems to be a lot of confusion about why 19:1. It's there in black and white. It's the minimum dilution the FCA will accept if creditors aren't getting 100%.
Amigo either pay 100% of the redress to all claimants or we take a 95% haircut.
I've never heard of this before today but apparently it's a thing...
Big question is why the hell the board tried SOA 1? Incompetence or simply a delaying tactic to all the bug boys to sell up?