Member Info for ElephantInDaRoom

Thank you Cookie1970.
I am not on the board or affiliated in any way.

I for one took out a very high interest loan many years ago when I first started out building my credit history.
I had nothing, not even a job.

As much as it pains me to have paid and agreed to such high interest, the money bought me a car which enabled me to work!

Without that helping hand I would not have been able to slowly earn my way out of poverty.

Although many may not agree with this business model, Is it possible that this really does offer an essential service to some people in society, and as in my case a lifeline out of poverty and path to a 620 credit rating many years later.

Referencing The.Italian(s) statement of "APR 49.9%!"

I can say hand on heart I agreed to these terms and conditions and as painful as it was, I honoured the agreement and now have an outstanding credit rating many years later where I now have access to much better APR's.

It was a very harsh and valuable lesson in my circumstances that was not without major sacrifices.
But I learned a valuable lesson about building credit and trust with financial institutions.

Although APR 49.9%! sounds a lot it all rather depends how you look at things and how ethically these funds are re routed.
Put simply, ignoring for the moment all other business costs involved:

For every 2 people like myself, that honour their agreement.

There is the potential to help out 3 more people..

So what actions appear to be louder than their words?

In my attempt to see "The wood Through The Trees" and a brief reasoning for why I believe that despite the FCA, the Board & the founders differences, that their actions whether conscious or not are louder than their words and indicate to me a common ground and way forward for Amigo :

Question:

Who has Amigo been lending too throughout the pandemic?

It is my understanding that its been the “Key Workers”!

Is the the board, founder & FCA’s actions in allowing the continuation of loans to “Key Workers” loader than their words?

Is it possible that some or all parts of the chain are taking the “Public Service” nature at the core of this business, extremely serious despite the chaos & confusion that the pandemic has wrought?

Can it be that on occasion chaos and confusion can bring out the best in people and that despite their differences the board, the FCA & the founder have ironically and perhaps subconsciously underpinned the true nature and core values of Amigo during the COVID-19 crisis by ensuring that the “Key Workers” did not have this potentially vital opportunity and lifeline taken away from those that kept our country running?

For this reason alone, despite not making any statements thus far, just posing many questions rattling around my head.

I dare say that there is more to this business model than would initially meet the eye, more than business, profit taking, shareholders, politics & bureaucracy.
Perhaps it ought to be given a strong foundation of support by all parties involved in recognition of, and for some long overdue clarity regarding Amigos great potential & function as a “Public Service”.
Whether that be in the UK or Internationally.

In my attempt to be mindful of all the issues discussed here, it would appear that there are many players involved in the future of Amigo and some may have ego’s and clearly there is business, politics and bureaucracy involved often with conflicts of interest.
But with sober reflection of what is really going on in the world around us and the financial impact of COVID-19 in the UK (And Globally) is there not a common interest to reinforce the strength and scope of this business, to help the people that fall within this demographic where these services offer a vital life line to get back on their feet?

There is much talk on here regarding business and financial issues. Sadly very little is being said about how the implosion of this company will adversely affect people.

I apologise for mentioning “People”, but what will be the effect on “People” and their families if this vital service were allowed to implode due to politics or bureaucracy?

Without wishing to oversimplify things, isn’t every successful business ultimately about people, or in business speak “the customer”?

Is it not of paramount importance to the FCA and are they not mindful that you can not lawfully discriminate against the many who greatly benefit from these loans in times of need in favour of a minority who do not honour their agreement, stripping others of the opportunity they wilfully took?

Is it therefore likely that in the publics interest these issues will be resolved?

Yes regulatory scrutiny is needed. Yes solutions to any grey areas must be addressed, but it would be unlawful and negligent to discriminate against the vast majority of the general public who would use these loans as a lifeline to create positive change in their lives and their families and in the general economy of the country post Covid-19.

Moreover, not wishing to undermine the importance of the board or the FCA, the shareholders or anyone, but surely rather than letting this company implode, isn’t it time to get back to “Grass Roots” and for all involved to, above all else, help those that have been adversely financially affected by the pandemic?

i.e The general public and the customer who needs these services?

Perhaps it’s now time for the founder and the FCA and the Board to work together and build trust and solutions towards the big picture, above and beyond all their own respective short term goals and/or ego’s and move forward with a productive plan to restore health to Amigo and proceed with a vision to fulfil what is after all, an essential public service and to execute their duty of care, at the core of all their respective roles?

After all their actions are far louder than their words, whether this is intentional or not:

Is last nights tweet by JB more of a revelation than the public statement?

"The 1% a day was necessary to get the shares into the hands of Private Investors who would back me"

Did JB shine a light on the elephant in the room with this?

Who bought his shares and would the share holders back him?

That said, even if the board refuses, hoping that the shareholders would not over ride, could JB still initiate a hostile takeover at 105p (His own valuation)?

Is it possible this is not about money for JB?

Is it possible he will stop at nothing to regain control of his company due to his vision?

Is it possible that the board are fully aware that JB has the resources and could take back his company by force if necessary and has offered an olive branch with his public statement to do this amicably with the support of shareholders and the board?

Is it also possible that the board knows that if it came to it JB could buy back the shares 105p in a hostile takeover, and that this is a person driven by a vision that can not be stopped?

All scenario’s point to checkmate for JB.

Love him or loathe him folks, JB is a force to be reckoned with.

The founder is no fool.

I understand your logic that this would not make an astute business man selling at 5p then a takeover bid at 105p.

But...

The real elephant in the room is:

Who did he sell the shares to at 5p?

Re: Confirmed News release after close of LSE 21st August 2020

Founder James Benamor’s Original Tweet on Monday 17th August:

“In the near future I will be making a public proposal to the Amigo board for my return to the company. Depending on the board’s response I may call a shareholder vote.

I was waiting for Roger’s removal, but shareholder numbers, and sentiment are more important ultimately.”

Just a thought:

Is the founder about to offer 105p (His own current market valuation) in a hostile takeover bid for Amigo holdings?

We know the board has effectively ousted James Benamor the founder and have not respected his wishes with regards to his company.

So why would they play ball now?

If the board refuses a substantial hostile takeover bid of 105p over the weekend it would be clear that they do not have the shareholders interests at heart!
Would you as a share holder then accept 105p for your shares in a “Tender Offer” from the founder to take back his company?

(https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tenderoffer.asp)

Is this what James Benamor is referring to when he states “Depending on the board’s response I may call a shareholder vote”?

It would appear that the founder of Amigo is determined to get his company back by any means possible and at any cost!

And last but not least return this stock to his valuation and beyond.

This appears to have been a long game of Chess between the board and the founder, and an offer 105p in a hostile takeover bid that is refused by the board would result in a tender offer.

Check Mate !