Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video 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.
Agreed - I think the FCA’s intention was known about before The letter was released as the FOS refer to the FCA in their letter that came sooner - I suspect both parties agreed for the vote to close
Good point. Why no RNS for FOS letter? Something brewing???
Jonno,
"I think the FCA must have asked them to publish their letter but not FOS - I cannot think of any reason why both letters were not released at the same time."
Mmmm. Can't you?
The moment I saw that "FCA wants shareholder pain" RNS I questioned the motive. Did Amigo HAVE to include the reason in the RNA? I don't think so. I thought it was a set-up between amgo and the FCA to pull the reins back on the share price.
This FOS letter was 2 days before the FCA letter. No RNA. What would have happened to the share price if they had released this?
Thanks for this Jonno
I think the FCA must have asked them to publish their letter but not FOS - I cannot think of any reason why both letters were not released at the same time.
I wonder if the FCA and FOS have a comms issue - can you imagine the call - ‘your opposing it, I thought you weren’t opposing it, that we we voted for it’ - ok let’s both send a letter and come up with some logic around this....
Why go into a sanction with the SP booming. Hadly what they call a 'puppy dog' close. It suits for us to be vulnerable and that will be reflected in a volatile and fragile SP..go tona cour sanction with a 300% rise during the process and....well..yeah..smack of it being a done deal and infers unfairness if its too obvious a shoe in. Even though you all know my opinion on that!-:::))
Tiger2009, I agree but it might have helped to stabilise the market when they released the FCS's intentions. They could released, the vote result, the FCA letter and the FOS letter all in one RNS?
There would be no requirement Stevie. In this case the FOS are simply a creditor like the many other thousands of private individuals..
The letter is definitely a confidence booster.
Maybe because publicising the letter, may have looked as if they are trying to undermine the FCA? Might not have gone down with the judge too well either. The author of the letter making it public is their decision, nothing to do with Amigo and Amigo couldn't have stopped them.
Why didn't Amigo share this with us in an RNS?
It's almost a game charger and it's dated 10th of May, so they had it before the FCA announced they were opposing the SoA.
Then creditors will say that it is in the best interest to keep the company alive and go ahead with the Scheme.
Playing Devil's Advocate.....
Not sure that this letter actually helps Amigo's case next week as the FOS state that they approved the SOA purely with regard to being in the best interests of creditors and specifically say they make no comment on the 'fairness' of the SOA to consumers. They lay the onus for that very clearly on the FCA's plate which is what the FCA are banging on about.
May seem pedantic but it's all part of the politics of the Blame Game should the press decide it's a bad deal after all for consumers following the court's decision on Wednesday!!!
Just Sayin'
GLA
The useful nugget on offer is that any cry of unfairness relates to ALLco not Amigo. This is a separate company for the purposes of the scheme. Any action around regualation won t be applied to Amigo on thr basis of what the view is on ALLco. The new processes and checks will be judged 9n their own merit and i m sure will get a clean bill of health.
Jonno yeah that last bit sounds like they assessed amigo scheme on its own merits.. and future schemes will be based off their own merits.. :)
The FOS in the letter ask them to hand it to the judge - plus the last paragraph implies they support on the scheme on its merits - we’ll sort of
Fantastic.. AMGO will no doubt hand this as evidence to the judge as well :)
Love you FOS!
Great find! Happy weekend!
Great find Jonno
So just to clarify….
The FOS have voted as a creditor to approve the scheme.
Creditors have voted to approve the scheme.
Previous customers (95%) approved the scheme.
The FCA sanctioned the scheme in the first place.
Unless for some reason we have all missed a vital part suggesting the scheme was somehow run unfairly this is a a done deal.
DYOR, breath relax and enjoy the weekend.
I don't think it can be underestimated how important this document is...
Cheers for posting this Jonno!