The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
Just the board playing brinkmanship again.
What worries me is that they're not very good at it, as proven before.
I'd much rather they focus on doing a viable deal than trying to scare the FCA into one.
Still, means I managed to add at 7.95p so I'm happy :D
Yes, but there are limited similarities. Sure, people will try to make them look the same to satisfy that we've been hard done by, but they're not the same.
Provident is a group. They have taken the decision to close a business and that business is the one with claims.
The other companies are immaterial to the SOA. They could make 5bn a year, it's of no consequence.
The FCA (for the Provident one) were left in no position but to say "it's a terrible deal, but we have no choice - the alternative is insolvency". The judge agreed.
For ours, we said "It's this amount or insolvency. We will use future profits to top it up.". The Judge wasn't satisfied with this (I believe that even if the FCA hadn't turned up we wouldn't have got approval) and, rightly, asked "what about more future profits?". This is all because it's the same business asking for the SOA as will be lending in the future. A huge and key difference between us and Provident.
Honestly, it's chalk and cheese. The only real similarity is that they're SOAs.
Maybe take HEMO out of that list, unless you're suggesting people sell at peak ;)
That's where the FCA will say it's not time bound - so hiding it won't be of benefit.
Honestly, it's so easy to fix this. The BOD just want to do it on the cheap, and have somehow managed to convince some private investors that the FCA are the bad guys...
The BOD have failed investors so far, I'm somewhat on the fence as to whether they'll continue to do so or not.
How is there 'no money for that'? It's from PROFIT.
80% of future profits until debt cleared.
Consider me the judge asking a strong question.
Explain to me how 80% of future profits can't be used?
Once again, the FCA isn't the bad guy here.
The current offer is £15m plus a percentage of future profits. That has a cap which falls far below the 'owed' redress (I'm not getting involved if whether they're really owed it, I firmly believe they're not - and if they do get a payback, they should have to return what they 'bought' with the money too!).
There is absolutely nothing, so far, from the BOD to explain why the 'future profits' can't be used to pay 100% of what is outstanding. They need to answer that point, or no judge in their right mind will agree it (especially given the previous judgement explaining pretty much that - why isn't the amount more etc).
Lloydyboy - a bg deal was made in the courtroom by the fca that the investors had reaped the benefits of an increasing shareprice and they should have a haircut. This has not happened with provident and so this is not a fair and reasonable request which is now subject to case law. The barrister acting will be able to now draw on this verdict and any judge will use it as precedent. Especially when the PROV share price has increased 40% since their SOA was announced. So in fact Provi success does help Amigo and helps protect the actual shareholders.
(sorry don't know how to quote on this site...).
It's only case law if the decision making process took reference of that fact, and considered it in the same context as ours. Does Provident still lend? Do they still have profitable divisions that would contribute to a rise in share price? Does the winding up of that division de-risk the share for investors and as such increase value?
Name me 5 SOA's that had failed prior to the AMGO one?
AMGO's argument was insolvency or SOA. Until people get their heads around that being the reason it fell down, we're never going to get anywhere...
Why was it £15m? Why not £17.2m? Etc etc etc. Why couldn't it be 100% of future profits instead of a small percentage? All good and fair questions asked by the judge. Our argument was "we can't afford it" and the judge merely pointed out "yes you can, you just don't want to..."
The BOD failed us with a complete lack of planning for the first SOA and, unless they change direction materially, will fail again with the second. It's really that simple. People blaming the FCA are so far wide of the mark it's unreal. The Judge did his job. The FCA did their job. Only one party didn't do theirs properly, and it wasn't either of them...
None of this deters me from holding my investment, I just don't think it's as smooth sailing as everybody hopes.
Absolutely agree Candlehead. Provident is a different situation - the business in question is being closed down, so the threat of "X/Y/Z or insovency" is a real one, rather than a randomly picked amount and a bluff.
The BOD still very much need to do their jobs and stop playing games with the FCA.
It's still positive, it's just not comparing apples to apples. It's barely comparing fruit to fruit.
It's not 5 days time...
It's 5 consecutive days at a point in the future, within the next 5 years by the look of it...
JP Sale?
They've got more shares than they used to have....
There can't be any doubt as to SOA 2. It will happen.
The BOD has a fiduciary duty to do this properly, not just jump straight to Liquidation (unless of course they also fancy some legal action).
They 'could' give 90% of profits and the business would still be profitable. They won't, but that was the FCA's point.
I'm not sure if an extra £10m in the pot would be enough... The FCA will want to know why it's 15% of future profits. Why isn't it 60% of future profits? 80%? Etc.
Their main point about shareholders benefitting whilst claimants don't is a valid one. The 'future' split isn't equitable. If the claimants are to go ahead with a deal, they're the main reason future profits become possible again. Only seems fair they get some of it...
Then, on the flip side, my view has always been that if they were mis-sold because the loan was 'unaffordable', then returning 100% of interest AND them keeping the capital seems somewhat odd. A 0% loan as a reward for lying, curious...
Sorry, I should add - I'm happy with the action the BOD have taken. I think re-listing to show how volatile things can be is quite a shrewd move.
I just don't see any strength in the argument of "my shares are down, blame the FCA...".
I don't chat often on here, but I have been a holder in this one for some time...
Sure - the FCA stepping in last minute didn't help. But I'm struggling to understand the point of a class action?
The FCA will defend with "shares were de-listed, it was Amigo who applied for re-listing, thus it was the board that forced a price drop. We were happy to leave it de-listed pending an outcome".
If the outcome was negative, then we have (minimal) recourse against the FCA.
Right now your grievance, if any, should be directed at the people playing brinkmanship games with your money... :)