Seplat Energy's CEO Roger Brown hosts London Capital Markets Day and focuses the strategy. Watch the full 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 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.
Usernames, It's the wrong target IMO.
Amigo misrepresented the threat of admin not the FCA.
Amigo failed to inform the market of the FCA's wish to see equity transferred.
Amigo told us of close working ties with the FCA in getting the scheme right, and then ignored their concerns and pressed ahead anyway.
If we've been mislead; it was by Amigo.
AMGO. Still the best drama of 20/21
I am actually happy to see ASAG action, at least this is a message that we , shareholders, exist and not necessary we gained on the investments here as FCA suggested before.
Pupper - it's not that simple is it. This is a question of the regulator misleading the market, or failing to disclose relevant information if you prefer.
On 21 December Amigo's RNS announced the SOA.
On 21 January Amigo's RNS announced that the FCA won't provide a letter of no-objection based on the current terms of the scheme and reserves the right to take action pending completion of its assessment. NOTE - at this point the FCA decided not to tell the market what its initial concerns were about the SOA and why it cannot issue the letter. It could have done this via its website.
23 March - FCA does publish its concerns about the scheme. NOTE - the FCA makes no reference to Amigo's claims around insolvency being questionable.
11 May - Amigo RNS that FCA intends to appear at second hearing. NOTE - no communication from the FCA to the market about why it is appearing or that there are questions about Amigo's claim that it was facing administration.
19 May - the FCA's counsel shows up in court arguing that Amigo are not facing administration and this isn't the best deal they can offer. The judge feels he has been presented with the sword of Damocles by Amigo. Shareholders find out, for the first time as far as I can tell, that Amigo presented misleading information in the SOA. NOTE - the FCA could have bought the markets attention to the validity of Amigo's claims around administration well ahead of the second hearing date IMHO.
If I thought for one minute that the BOD were trying it on with the administration claim to see whether they can get a deal passed by the Judge, I would have avoided this company like the plague. The FCA had some insight here about Amigo's financial position but didn't inform the market about its concerns around the administration claim.
It makes no difference now but the regulator could/should have been more transparent with the market IMHO.
Can we just go back to mouse neighbours who borrowed money from amigo and now have debt collectors after them, the loan was too small for the bank? Or they weren’t credit worthy to pay it back more like otherwise they wouldn’t have debt collectors after them. Did you stand outside your county homes talking about these problems? Did you tell them you basically own amigo, maybe give them some investment advice or offer them a loan. Are you just making this story up about your neighbours or are you actually been serious?
All you people blaming the FCA need a reality check.
The FCA notified Amigo of it's objections to the scheme in detail on 23rd March 2021.
Amigo released their RNA the following day. Go and re-read it.
Then read what the FCA actually sent them on the 23rd, published the day after the court case:
Paragraphs 5.5 and 5.6 are the bits you're looking for.
If you really need someone to blame here, you should be looking a little closer to home.
IN MY VIEW ,The clear message was that the FCA acted unprofessionally as they chose not to object in Court Hearing 1 and of course they had the right to change their mind however there was no material change to the SOA , the FCA acted vindictively to wipe out shareholders .
The papers just take whatever looks most sensational and will cause the most outrage. It was very naive to think they would be of any benefit to our cause.
It is not the letter content it is what the DM have taken from the letter. A little naive
I don’t know why anyone is getting excited by the shareholder group letter. If it was worded brilliantly, and contained everything that all the comments suggest, does anyone think it would make any difference to how the FCA will act? Very doubtful, so best just let the BoD get on with representing us and ignore the noise.
Perhaps stating the obvious - I think FCA was not expecting customers to accept SOA and with that, they could save themselves a hassle. E.g. let customers deal with the company etc. However, when customers were okay to accept what company could offer, they decided to intervene. But this whole fiasco created surge and plunge in prices.
Where everyone is taking hit in some shape of form, I do think that 'guarantors' of loans should not be classified as 'customers' and should take some 'degree' of responsibility where 'customers' fail to pay back. That's the whole purpose or business model of AMIGO.
Totally gutted overall.
Cardinal - what was clear, that the FCA was staying silent on the issue?
Saying that you won't object, but reserving the right to change your mind, is still saying that you won't object. If you're not sure, you say nothing or make it crystal clear that you are not expressing an opinion either way at this time. However, they did express an opinion.
The ASAG Letter does of course refer to the FCA behaviour.That is the gist off it.I guess when the Letter has been seen by the relevant intended people in power,then the Group will make it available for everyone.There is nothing in the Contents which I would see Shareholders disagreeing.
Username, that message was crystal clear
Yes HH, that's it in a nutshell.
It's all well and good when people say investors knew what they were getting into but if the FCA do the exact opposite of what they said they would then investors are being given misleading information by, of all people, the financial services regular.
What the hell were they playing at when they said they wouldn't object to the SOA? They should have just stayed silent and then investors could have taken that into account when making an investment decision (i.e. the regulator could still go either way on this).
Agree with that usernames - made the same point myself. They indicated that they wouldn't interfere with the vote or court process and then changed their mind without any of the underlying circumstances changing in the meantime. They created a false market which caused the shares to rise and then used that very rise they were principally responsible for against the company in court.
Sorry FCA :)
I'm not a member of ASAG and I've not seen the letter.
The only message worth giving the FSA was that if they say they are not going to object to a SOA then they should do exactly as they have said. Leading investors down the garden path and then changing their minds is the only thing the FSA have done wrong.
Hopefully that message has been conveyed on behalf of the group?
Couple of donuts.
How does the ASAG have the right to claim, in writing, that it represents the 8,000 PI shareholders?
How many people have signed up to the ASAG now? Isn't that the number the group represents?
I'd appreciate it if the group could refrain from claiming to represent those that it does not.
Absolutely zero need for this letter, its not helped us one IOTA. The board are doing a good job, I assume ASAG did not contact them and ask for their comments before sending the letter. The % shareholders is all wrong.
Its such a shame the likes of the BOD's LTIP's, Vinson and Maverick just don't seem to understand the FCA and how they work. Large PI's bragging about their holdings, forming groups like ASAG and the likes is so clearly not the right thing to be doing.
We need to wait quietly and hope the BOD can agree with the courts a fair scheme that can be sanctioned an allow Amigo to keep going. If that happens we should be ok, but I find it amazing how telling the FCA you stand to make £10M if they sanction a scheme and lots more millionaires on top of this, or the FCA that they should of officially opposed the scheme earlier will help us in any way.
The press, MP's, people champaions will all support Amigo's customers - and so they should. We need to focus on alligned interests, the best possible deals for customers, shareholders, and other key stakeholders. Amigo DID miss sell loans to vulnerable customers, we should not forget this - its great the like James Benamor have left the company and the new board are not at fault as this did not happen on their watch, but the company is.
The BOD need to convince the FCA they are able to responsibly lend to vulnerable individuals, avoid offering loans to those who cannot afford to take them, and do their very best to maximise redress for customers.
Its as simple as that, and if they can and do, us shareholders should see our investment do well. I wont invest in a company that missells and if I get wind of this happening in the future I'll sell up and move on.
All our focus should be on hoping for a fair scheme and have an investment in a company that does it very best to redress customers it missold to and look after it shareholders interested by being the most ethical lenders of the future, with a new far more responsible board in situ (I hope!)
I'm a member of the group , on balance, decided to participate as often collective action can have some minor influence on those who have not acted within professional boundaries I'm not going to recite all the reasons why the FCA acted in my view unprofessionally. Every one will their own decision, i buy shares based on my decision and i sell vice versa, and if its goes pear shaped, its my doing and no else's .
Agreed cando, asag look like greedy fatcats, own your investments and your decisions “ oh our share price is down” embarrassing. Can’t blame no one else.
Bostik. I don t entirely disagree but actually its a misnoma that the FCA is purely about the consumer. They have an obligation toward the broader economy, fair competition and protecting markets. Theirs is a balancing act of opposing needs and if the deal for consumers was poor they need to push hard on the other end of the see-saw. Don t beleive that this therefore means capital wipeout for shareholders. This would not be a success and the letter though irrelevant will still register with them. The FCA requires fairness.
Come on amigo let’s have some good news
The Game Of Loans Continues…….
I have to agree ASAG come on guys you can’t go and say things because we’re down on a share. This is aim it looks like you have turned into the people that’s complaining about there loans
We all know the risk and take full responsibility for what we do
The FCA are there to protect the consumer. They don’t do sympathy, especially for shareholders who should do their own research and understand the risks of the investment. Might feel better for writing something down but it will achieve the square root of nothing - either to change their viewpoint or ruffle their feathers