The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma 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.
Thanks for this ISA - we also need to consider the weight the FOS vote will have. I think that will have a massive bearing on the final result as GJ has mentioned it a few times
(PART 2) For balance though, there are some negatives. We heard in the court that AMGO could not contact ~10% of people to inform them of this SOA. That is likely because they are the historically earliest customers (who could likely have no grievance) and they have moved house, changed phone, had their details deleted, etc. The annoying thing is that you want that 10% (100k of all customers) in the pot as that's likely to be 100k of 'our' 700k likely voting "yes". I don't know if I am explaining this well but this isn't a binary yes/no on a 70/30 split... there are lots of unknowns in the equation. But we do know that it is reasonably likely that of the 700k, ~600k will be able to and want to vote yes. Of the 300k current borrowers, I do believe most will say “no”. It’s a cautious approach at least. That makes the split 66% yes / 33% no out of 900k. But if that 66% yes represent 90% of the weight of the vote, then the vote will pass 90/10. However, we have lost some ‘weight’ from the 100k being removed from our 700k, in my mind. This would be so much easier in an Excel sheet (I’m better with numbers than words). The long and the short of it is that I do feel that, despite Debt Camel and Trust Pilot posting the views of borrowers who are quite clearly pretty recent/active loans, the 6/700k who would vote “yes” are not bothering with the online blame forum nonsense… which should mean well over 75% of the weight SHOULD, to MY mind, go to “yes”. DYOR etc, etc. And all of this was really to encourage people to think beyond 700k v 300k and think about redress claim size, claim validity, timeline, weighting, online activity, grievance, etc, etc. Also need to factor in what would benefit a guarantor vs a borrower. There are many moving parts, some of which can’t be calculated but I do believe this is 3x more likely to pass than not… and offer anyone walking into a casino those odds!
(PART 1) I've been trying to reply all morning to some of the voting concerns but work has got in the way, thus, some garbled thoughts follow to maybe bring some balance - happy to be corrected or to discuss: The vote isn't simple, in reality. The people with outstanding loans can vote "no" and still get (example) £500 off their £5k balance, in insolvency, as I understand it. Thus, my assumption is that most of the 300k WILL vote "no" because they get the benefit AND get to boot AMGO in the balls. So, you're now thinking that I-I is saying it's 70% for, 30% against so won't/probably won't pass. But this isn't a 2 factor equation. The 700k or 70% that have paid off their loans will be getting 'free money' and it is highly unlikely that the majority would turn it down. But some, albeit very few, will. The benefit of the scheme is that those owed the most redress are statistically likely to be the historical customers, customers from a time when they were happy with AMGO and if they weren't; are probably not so bitter now it's in the past. Also, people owed the most redress will have the most 'weight' in the voting. So, (using example figures) it is possible that the 700k/70% actually have say 90% of the vote. You also need to remember that a lot of these issues were "historical", so older customers are perhaps more likely to have a valid claim, keeping their vote in the pot. In summary; the vote is psychologically-statistically weighted on the side of "yes" (there are other positive factors not mentioned). Now, how could a judge/court let that happen then as it clearly benefits AMGO/shareholders/bond holders/other? AMGO did not need to include loans back to 2005/6 (I think that was the year) because of the limitations the court places on time to bring the grievance. By AMGO offering to include these people (praised by the judge, if I recall correctly) they are showing compassion to those who maybe have the largest redress who would otherwise get nothing. They are admitting their wrongdoing and putting it right. A judge/court was never going to against that. A judge wouldn't say "I want you to leave out the people you hurt the most". So, those people, who were probably happy with AMGO, have the largest redress claim and the most vote weight are 'in' and likely to vote "yes".