Sold at 2.43p. Didnt buy any at 1p as the D4E announcement v clearly stated that the conversion sp would be 0.1p. So theoretically, the SP was 10 X over-valued had HUR BOD and CBs got their way. It would have been throwing good money after bad, given how adamant the management were about wiping out equity.
I sold a couple of weeks before the restructuring was announced...lost 108ks in my pension alone. More in the ISA and regular account. If a company keeps telling everyone repeatedly the shares are worthless and hinting there will be a huge D4E, i took the hint...eventually. But it's criminal they deliberately talked down the SP, lied about the water being perched after they must have realised, talked about billions of barrels yet there were 1% oil shows below a certain depth...which means the whole thing was a charade from the get-go. Made worse by utter incompetence and indifference from the BoD towards ordinary people who OWN THE CO. they work for.
....did the co. know that the water wasn't perched? I asked Phil Corbett directly about whether the water was perched as was posited at the CMD and he replied "mmmmmm". The company has misled and lied to investors consistently since the day Trice left. It's an absolute disgrace which has cost me my entire pension, practically.
Was this to inform us that the results will be delayed as they are influenced by whether or not an SoA is in place...? Or was it to put pressure on the FCA by highlighting that the insolvency risk is real, on the contrary to what the FCA and judge asserted? Or is that the auditors won't sign off the accounts without a SoA in place? Either way, what short term is bad for shareholders will put pressure on the FCA to save the business IMOV.
I think Gary J and the BID made a strategic mistake in treating all creditors the same. They should have said hands up, top up loans to those already struggling were morally wrong.. but they should have vehemently objected to claims from those chancing it, whose personal circumstances changed significantly AFTER they made the loan application. There is questionable legality here IMOV. You cannot retrospectively speculate that a loan was unaffordable after the fact. Affordability has to be assessed at a particular point in time...i.e. When the loan application is made...
The size of redress claims is unknown and uncapped, yet the FCA suggested there is significant spare funding available. The FCA were quoted in a Guardian article of 24 March 2021 as saying they did not have the regulatory powers to block the scheme of arrangement, yet de facto blocked the scheme by intervening in the process at the 11th hour. The FCA in effect created a false market in amgo shares by stating explicitly that they would not object to the SoA if the creditors voted in favour, then reversing their position. The FCA's Woolard Review has emphasised the need for mid cost sub-prime lenders in the market, but in opposing the SoA, has caused unnecessary delays that are detrimental to the economic interests of unsecured creditors (both customers and shareholders), and made a capital raise to kickstart Amgo 2.0 more difficult The FCA's QC statement suggesting an alternative use of cash , which belongs to bondholders, has increased the likelihood of the bondholders stepping in, leaving the FCA liable to legal action for damages.
Isn't the simplest way to get a letter of non objection from the FCA to threaten them with a class action for misrepresenting the true financial situation of AMGO? They misrepresented in court the value of equity, which was inflated by the FCA's own actions, and they suggested there were pots of cash sitting around that was accruing when this belongs to the secured creditors. They suggested an equity wipeout as a possible solution, with no consultation with shareholders, having failed to differentiate between shareholders that pocketed hundreds of millions, such as the founder and those involved in the IPO, and today's shareholder base, which is dominated by PIs. They also said they don't get involved in negotiations, yet suggested shareholders should take a huge cut. No mention at all of the role of CMCs in escalating the redress size by encouraging a culture of complaints, etc. ....or of people lying on their loan applications.
Jimmy. Top up loans should be fully compensated. Normal loans where people's circumstances changes AFTER they took out the loan and / or where they lied should not be. The FCA artificially inflated the market cap by saying they would not oppose the SoA. They then used the inflation in the SP (they caused) as a justification as to why shareholders could afford to pay more, cratering the SP with a loss of 100m in mkt cap. They equated the bondholders with other unsecured creditors and didn't understand the concept of senior. They suggested cash in the bank could be used for the unsecured creditors when it belongs to the secured folk. So they have scored various own goals that threatens AMGO's viability and AMGO 2.0....which in turn risks those missold loans getting precious little.
Hello. I lied about my ability to afford my amgo shares topped up when 23p. I would like compensation from the FCA , a full refund, plus 8% per year interest please. Ps the case handling fee of 650 quid can go to Amgo to recompense them for all the false claims encouraged by CMCs that the FCA and FOS have done nothing about. I would also like to see the secured bondholder cash reallocated to unsecured creditors and unsecured shareholders, as suggested by the FCA, who don't appear to understand creditor rankings.
...AGree FCA dont like guarantor loans as an instrument at all. However, they are completely naive if they think friends, family and fools will step in and fill the gap. The Woolard Review points to clear market failures, hence the need for sub-prime loans firms. Also, blaming small shareholders when the shareholders that profited were IIs and JB and most of us are new holders is outrageous
PS - Q4 results surely delayed a bit. What is embarrassing for AMGO is that Q3 results were good, with major debt being paid down and + FCF. What judge and FCA forgot is this doesn't belong to shareholders, but secured creditors.....nonetheless, reduce the debt, get out of the merde?
I've sold some and bought back others...the risk/ reward feels like 50-50 at the mo, rather than 80-20 as it was before. AMGO will have to say they are considering other options including insolvency otherwise their court stance will look silly...but i'd think there are options before then to improve the scheme.
Call me cynical but as Gary and BOD own large no's of shares, even Gazza's wife, they will find creative ways to increase the pot that don't involve wiping out shareholders. Most here would stomach a RI or dilutive placing depending on scale of dilution...if that meant SoA and AMGO 2.0 gets underway.
Dont bet the house but debt is being paid down rapidly from running down existing (profitable) loan book...