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.
Thanks for the reply fireant and I apologise to the board as I was mistaken. The FCA do have those powers for investment firms even if the parent company is not regulated however not firms such as PFG. That said they could still oppose the scheme, make life difficult for the group and open the door to legal action where there is precedent for parent companies being liable for the actions of a subsidiary. I am invested here so not striking fear for fears sake - we don't know the full impact on the group yet and to suggest (as some have) that this is a slam dunk is not correct either.
You may not be a lawyer FireAnt but thank god some one on this chat page can talk some sense at last.. you are absolutely correct on your observations.
2heded don't know. Shett.
We are gradually approaching pre-crash / bad news SP. Definitely good.
2heded, thank you for warning us in your first sentence about the rest of your comment.
There is a lot of misinformation on here. The FCA have the power to order that the group adequately fund redress for the subsidiary or can take action against the group, also Vanquis and Moneybarn will still be regulated by the FCA even after this. It's not like Amigo as Amigo would just go bust where as PFG group has much deeper pockets.
It appears the IRISH business is closing in the end of June with no plan for customers after that date seems a bit of a mess the whole thing
If the creditors agree the scheme then there won't be more money put in.
If the creditors want to gamble and refuse the scheme in the hope of getting more money, then they may walk away with nothing.
Take Amigo as an example. Nearly 100% of creditors agreed their initial scheme rather than gambling on getting an extra 5-10%, which isn't worth the risk.
Separate companies though? One isn't liable for the other.
It probably will go ahead but will they be asked to put in more money?? As vanquis and money barn are profitable
Agreed. I'd be stunned if Amigo's scheme doesn't go ahead, and subsequently PF's.
I think markets in general are down today so shouldn't read too much into it.
There is a misconception that FCA have more power than they have in this situation. They will probably try and hand down a fine to PFG after the fact (although I question if you can fine a wider group in respect of a legal entity which has been wound up as that's one of the main reasons businesses set up separate entities to insulate different segments of a business from a problem in another).
The FCA can complain to the Court but the key stakeholders in this are the Creditors, and if the Creditors are voting to accept a settlement then the Courts will be led by that - not the FCA shouting from the sidelines. It just needs to take its course.
My guess is it could be the FCA challenging Amigos SOA in court. If they do the same to PFG it could potentially cause more redress to be covered by the group even though CCD has been put to sleep
Any insight as to why the share is dropping after the announcement of CCD closing? I would have assumed this would have been good news for the share..