We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey 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.
Best Guess - why do you think Mark has called this wrong? What makes you doubt it?
Mark73- Granted, re your below... trust me, I am an avid and astute sideline player with a good sum invested in this one... I educate pre investing, watch and listen all the way during that share and I dip in and out of being a 'poster' here now and again when I feel a need to comment for personal intent (not to steer/influence/suggest a SP projection etc) - Just think on this one you are off point, and usually I think your posts are pretty well thought through, regardless of your investment strategy 'offline' to what you may say 'online' etc... Not doubting you on either for the record : )
If I’m wrong I’m wrong! But that’s how I read this. We will find out soon enough those who are sceptical can feel all pleased with themselves if they are right. But I reckon this today was put in place to pave the way to begin lending again.
Sorry Mark@1973 - Hugely respect most of your posts, but this one (in your opinion granted) is I feel, off centre and off point, you talk good lots, but this falls short (sorry dude, can't always sit and watch and not interject):
Mark says:
Strictly speaking it doesn’t but once you enter a vreq you are expected to abide by it until conclusion. Because (and I’m guessing now ) they want to resume lending before the conclusion of complaints resolution that would be “ not meeting the requirements “ part of the original vreq was a suspension in operations something they voluntarily entered into but would be expected to abide by ( with the essential worker exemption) now because they want to go against that there has been a bit of horse trading go on. I would say I’d bet I’m right but as I’m holding shares here I suppose I already am!
If Amigo needs FCA approval to start lending again - whether or not that has been voluntarily agreed to - we’ve been lied to. Amigo has consistently said it doesn’t need FCA permission to restart lending.
I think Mark means resume lending to non key worker staff. Having worked with regulators in my industry and seen the company enter non-legally binding agreements, they are voluntary but the regulator holds you to them anyway. What this does achieve is buying you more time to sort your sh!!t out and you usually can’t be properly smashed by them until it passes into law, but you’d make ‘the list’ if you tried a fast one
Mark, I just checked the RNS releases from 27 May, 22 June and 3 July on the complaints VREQ. None of these mention a pause in lending as part of the VREQ.
But unless you know different, the complaints VREQ didn’t involve a pause on lending?
Maybe I’m missing something...
Strictly speaking it doesn’t but once you enter a vreq you are expected to abide by it until conclusion. Because (and I’m guessing now ) they want to resume lending before the conclusion of complaints resolution that would be “ not meeting the requirements “ part of the original vreq was a suspension in operations something they voluntarily entered into but would be expected to abide by ( with the essential worker exemption) now because they want to go against that there has been a bit of horse trading go on. I would say I’d bet I’m right but as I’m holding shares here I suppose I already am!
“According the FCA’s guidelines on supervision of financial companies, a VReq may be used “in instances where we have evidence that firms are not meeting our standards””
Which once again begs the question, which standards does the FCA have evidence that Amigo is not meeting that led to this new VREQ?
Thanks James :)
Thanks James.
Amigo Loans has been told it cannot make any dividend or bonus payments without the UK regulator’s permission in the latest blow to the subprime borrowing business following months of management upheaval.
On Monday, Amigo announced it had entered into an “asset voluntary requirement” with the Financial Conduct Authority — a supervisory measure that means it will need prior approval by the regulator to transfer assets “in certain circumstances”. These transfers include discretionary cash payments to its directors and dividends to shareholders.
Shares in Amigo Holdings fell 20 per cent after the announcement before recovering to 7 per cent down by mid-morning on Monday.
Behind the Money Podcast
Related Listening to this Article
Mafia high finance
00:0000:00
Subscribe
Amigo said the new requirement “does not impact the day-to-day running” of the business, or its ability to continue to pay down debt. It also stressed it had “adequate liquidity to continue to fund operations and support its customers”.
However, the company acknowledged that the increased regulatory scrutiny followed a high-profile battle for control of the business between its previous board and founder James Benamor. Mr Benamor had attempted to return to run the group, claiming its management had mishandled a rise in complaints and failed to stand up to the regulator in the past.
Last month, he tried to rejoin the board before installing himself as group chief executive, but 57 per cent of votes cast at a shareholder meeting rejected his proposal.
On Monday, Amigo noted it now “has a new board in place and is in regular and productive dialogue with the FCA to restore confidence following the events of recent months”.
It added: “The board continues to be focused on addressing Amigo’s legacy issues, restoring confidence in its corporate governance and building a sustainable business for the long term.”
One person briefed on the regulator’s action suggested it may have been taken as a precaution in case Mr Benamor took control of the group and made changes to its financial structure, but it would not affect the new management’s plans.
Mr Benamor had suggested returning cash from Amigo’s UK regulated lending business to allow its parent group to build new businesses outside the remit of the FCA.
However, the company’s new management had already indicated it would not pay dividends or make other asset transfers, and the person briefed on the FCA’s move said it “doesn’t change any of their plans”.
John Cronin, analyst at Goodbody, said: “While this morning’s announcement is clearly unhelpful for sentiment?.?.?. the Asset VReq will have a negligible impact on the day-to-day running of the business.”
According the FCA’s guidelines on supervision of financial companies, a VReq may be used “in instances where we have evidence that firms are not meeting our standards”. Its aim is to “prevent ongoing harm to consumers or markets”.
That's not the FT article. FT one talks about Benamor making another comeback. It let me read it once but now the paywall is in place. Can anyone else paste?
https://www.sharebuyers.co.uk/shares/amigo-loans-fca-asset-voluntary-requirement-good-thing/
Can you copy and paste the article as I refuse to pay. Cheers
With the fca
This is excellent news. I am new in this morning but this is a good sign of the board working hand in hand to get this company working to its capabilities. Will definatly be topping up. I’m in this for the long term.
Sorry, I'm not scrolling thru all of today's messages... have people seen today's FT article...
https://www.ft.com/content/3a8badac-2223-499e-8b80-4c9f14823988