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:
You will only have one login account. Registering with multiple accounts is not allowed. Any user found to have more than one account on this site will have all, and any future accounts suspended permanently.
Your email and password must only be used by you. If a post is made under your account, it will be considered that it was posted by yourself.
Your account nickname must not be the same, or contain, listed company names or board members' names.
While debating and discussion is fine, we will not tolerate; rudeness, swearing, insulting posts, personal attacks, or posts which are invasive of another's privacy.
You will not;
discuss illegal or criminal activities.
post any confidential or price sensitive information or that is not public knowledge.
post misleading or false statements regarding the share price and performance. Such posts are deemed as market abuse, and may be reported to the appropriate authorities.
post any private communication, or part thereof, from any other person, including from a member of the board of directors of a listed company. Such posts cannot be verified as true and could be deemed to be misleading.
post any personal details (e.g. email address or phone number).
post live price or level 2 updates.
publish content that is not your original work, or infringes the copyright or other rights of any third party.
post non-constructive, meaningless, one word (or short) non-sense posts.
post links to, or otherwise publish any content containing any form of advertising, promotion for goods and services, spam, or other unsolicited communication.
post any affiliate or referral links, or post anything asking for a referral.
post or otherwise publish any content unrelated to the board or the board's topic.
re-post premium share chat posts on regular share chat.
restrict or inhibit any other user from using the boards.
impersonate any person or entity, including any of our employees or representatives.
post or transmit any content that contains software viruses, files or code designed to interrupt, destroy or limit the functionality of this website or any computer software or equipment.
If you are going to post non-English, please also post an English translation of your post.
If you are going to post non-English, please also post an English translation of your post.
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 and Verified Members
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East and have access to Premium Chat. 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.
i am with you 100%!!!! don't get me wrong. Its a total grey area as you know, the FCA doesn't have a rule that will fit every single scenario so they will fall back on principles and ethics and guff not law! This is why I think we'll come up smelling of roses as "by law" i bet we're not doing anything overtly awful. Kozz..I get your sentiment but thats not how the FCA works they look forward and are proactive so they will get involved if they see customer detriment building and take a preemptive strike..again I don't think they have anything other than ethics and principles to justify their position as we are lawful and I hope thats what ultimately will count!!!!
So if speed limits changed to 60mph on the motorway next month - would everyone who drove at 70mph in the past get clobbered with speed fines? That’s what the FCA did to offerers of Guarantor loans. And AMGO’s old BOD just rolled over and let them!
FrankyS1971, I am in the city and I know how this works... all other loan provider as bad as us here and others even worse... that's always grey areas and rules are changing daily, there is no right or wrong just a matter of depends! the market need us now than ever... policies and rules can be or will be bend, false statement can be corrected but I see this is normal business operation and process enhancment and we r going to fix it one way or another... I am sure our CEO is already on top of this... on the other hand... have a look at our sp/mc, if you don't think the risk already got factored in... risk and reward... ur choice... I know where I will be standing...
Yes but! to be fairness to Amigo it all changed in 2018 the fca changed affordability to the borrower as apposed to guarantor, but why everyone knew what a guarantor loan was, for example your kid could be in financial difficulties needing a loan!! , he can’t get one you act as his guarantor to give him a chance. The main problem was a lot of the did loans messed up leaving the guarantor paying, so it was obvious what they were getting into, FCA don’t change rules for a company that’s been going since 2005 in 2018 and expect them not to carry on as they were.
And further more don’t accept the complaints made are visible, I’m my opinion it seems like a stitch up. What do you think??? And why are there so many wieners crying on here, these people are pulling a fast one, now others are suffering because of it without amigo lending.
Sorry Istock but Robespiere is largely right on this one. Its all in the FCA handbook under conduct rules (COCON). They aint going to change the rules anytime soon so it'll take some serious skilled negotiating and payouts to placate the supervisor. If it was just affordability as the issue we wouldn't be in such a mess, but I hope even your instincts are screaming "there must be more!! JB talks about using Transunion and the same vehicles for affordability checks that the Banks and credit cards use and that their processes must also be poor like Amigo's. BUT he is presenting the wrong issue and is a sly ****. The issue is vulnerability , treating customers fairly, ethics (when no exact rule applies FCA will apply their principles to determine outcomes) etc. we're in this moral minefield and I disagree with it massively but its where we are. Would be happy to join the Amigo Baseball bat division if it meant 50p per share:-)))
Correct !! The more vulnerable the customer the more extensive the checks have to be! I have banged on long and hard that affordability is the red herring. All the FOS decisions have landed on this issue!!! Its therefore clear to me that its going to be a hell of a challenge to get through this. But! I clearly believe we will - it needs time and nerves.
"Robespieree, NO it's not! nobody can just share the sensitive personal info and obviously you have no clue of how credit score works or affordability get validated... JB was only providing a user case of peeps in desperate need, rather than trying to approve their affordability check!!! try harder if you want to say something even close to make sense!"
I know exactly how credit scoring and affordablility checks work. An important issue here is that FOS is increasingly saying that for vulnerable customers proportionate checks should verify claimed expenses and income by looking at bank statements (provided by the customer), rather than just relying on what the customer says, even if compared to national averages (which is what Amigo did.
It's fecking clear why majority peeps can't make sheet profit on stock market... they all looking for perfection... even apple/amaz shares r too risky for them as they don't offer 100% guaranty... shameful but hey that's what they deserve... low life...
Robespieree, NO it's not! nobody can just share the sensitive personal info and obviously you have no clue of how credit score works or affordability get validated... JB was only providing a user case of peeps in desperate need, rather than trying to approve their affordability check!!! try harder if you want to say something even close to make sense!
"JB's tweet is total nonsense. Yes, he's showing a lady in desperate need. But he hasn't shown she can afford the loan - her email even suggests that she can't but her guarantor can. I would question whether the answer to this lady's problem is a £5k loan at 49.9% interest rate."
It's also the perfect example of why the FCA/FOS is so hot on the need to verify the affordability for potentially vulnerable customers. Many of Amigo's potential customers are desperate for money, and there will be high risk of Income and expenditure statements not being fully accurate if that's what's needed to get money to get them out of difficult situations. An approach which says "oh in that case they were committing fraud", and we didn't need to do any further checks (in particular look at bank statements)... isn't going to cut it.
Believe it or not a 49% loan although sounds bad can be the saviour for a lot of people, this I know from experience as myself have been in a dark place. Although credit cards are less at between 20 and 30%, for majority of people barely liquid it cost a hell of a lot more when they only pay off minimum payment. There is a market out the for AMGO !
Jimmyg56... don't think he actual can "show" on ur face how their system/third party software validate against customers affordability... pls look back on his previous tweets which he already mention, of course if you care to understand the whole thing rather than randomly pointing fingers ...
JB's tweet is total nonsense. Yes, he's showing a lady in desperate need. But he hasn't shown she can afford the loan - her email even suggests that she can't but her guarantor can. I would question whether the answer to this lady's problem is a £5k loan at 49.9% interest rate.
Apologies - My post was in reference to yesterdays tweet ! He could easily wash his hands with the company and blame others for its demise, and prob get away with little blame - It don't seem like that's his game tho - He seems determined to right the wrongs that others have done. I believe in him and his ethos and have put my money where my mouth is ! Not as much as a lot here but as a % of what I actually got its a lot . . . . lol