Member Info for FrankyS1971

5% lol!!! What I can't fathom is given the expense of a share issue and the time/cost involved how this would be an outcome anyway..unless we've got another few months to dick about.

No need ro apologise!-)
I don t really agree that the market has factored in the likelihood of SOA2 at all. I think its telling us that current holders believe the rewards outweigh the risk of insolvency regardless of dilution. It also tells us that new folk aren t going to pay anymore without understanding what the proposal is in the first place. We may oscilllate for s while a penny up or down from here but the best thing about that is the FCA can t weaponise the SP like last time.

usernames..a bit hairsplitty..I didn't particularly embellish the point but the sentiment is the same and ultimately doesn't matter now as that ship has sailed. I think we can all agree that when GJ describes the situation as "complex" he ain't lying!!!! I like this situation to one big Mexican stand-off. FCA are definitely starring in "A few dollars more" or "hang em high" at the moment. Clint Jennison better not blink.

The "who benefits" is a somewhat scary question. We are very vulnerable to being taken private or some sort of corporate activity. Here's the cash you need to sort your creditor issue but we're buying you on the cheap for pennies and shareholders get screwed over in the process. Either that or variations of the same theme that disadvantage existing shareholders. I do also think that mgt have too much on their plate to start also dealing with corporate activity on to top of an SOA2. Basically, they are considering all options. We are only considering insolvency or SOA2. There are one suspects other things being discussed that we can't easily conceive.

Agree Lloydy if insolvency was looming you'd roll the dice and appeal as a last shot to nothing. And Vinson is entirely correct that stating the obvious but critical point that an SOA is a legal right. They exist for the purpose of saving firms from insolvency. That in turn means very simply that creditors will not see full value by definition and the FCA accept that principle. What we know is that on the other side of this volumes won't explode, it'll be slow and steady. All the money we make will be going to pay off creditors and bonds so this is an LT investment with major up front risk. I still think even with a cut of equity going we can see 30p again this year eventually. Agree/Disagree?

Its hard to work out Jonno. Where does the cash come from exactly...bondholders won't pay up and as you say get rid of equity and no future cash raise will happen as no one would touch it with a bargepole. Someone in business made an interesting point, which was that the FCA only took over consumer lending 5 years ago , so to be fair to them they never approved the business model. Interestingly, he also commented that guarantors don't always know what they're signing up to, which makes the whole future model in need of rewiring and sorting. Fascinating stuff but not one I'd like to really have to pay for! It still feels like a 60-40 % in favour of something getting sorted to me..I'm marginally of the mind this will get fixed but God only knows how!!

I'd be confident they haven't worked it out at all yet! I can just see the FCA saying well its not our job to decide on what a new scheme should look like and we don't negotiate, its not our job. What we want is X in the pot up front. If that number is then another say 40M from the 20M we're at then thats your MCAP and shareholder equity wiped. I can also see Amigo wanting to talk Amigo2 in the same breath and FCA saying nope we won't discuss until after you get a scheme approved. Personally i think we can expect more of the same behaviour sadly so obstructiveness, passively not helping the situation and what happens to us shareholders as its our job to allow the transfer of our wealth into the pockets of CMC.s. That's the FCA model and always has been! Definition of madness is to expect something different.

There will definitely need to be a new vote. I don't understand why, when the judge uses the word "restructure" that people think more money from future business into the pot is a likely outcome, or when the judge talks about creditors having more information and a better choice that could mean anything other than a vote?? Its very highly likely that creditors will be offered less jam today or a more jam tomorrow which will be in the mix as their choice of outcomes, which are clearly explained. Insolvency might be option 3 but why bother when 95% don't want that outcome. This will take through until September to go back through the courts and get sorted IMO, the danger of covenants being breached is real but not obvious in the eyes of the judge or FCA. If the FCA condition is to near wipe shareholder equity then the management don't have the ability to fight that. Amigo may survive. We may not. The aim may be to take away any real short term benefit and to make Amigo a long haul flight.

So hiw can you value the current business and whats its true mcap and SP based on todays book and circumstance. So complex it could be anything between 1p amd 30p.

Given the fees involved i should hope the bondholders ask for a friggin refund.

Fair enough HH. The FCA Consumer Division seemed entirely rudderless until Sheldon Miles came along and he is clearly the decision maker. What I found distasteful was for the FCA to weaponise the SP to make out how rich erveryones getting allegedley and how their QC suggested it was fine to wipe out shareholders in a restructure. I think they should now be the ones making concilliatory comments and not Amigo as we are also victims of this debacle and they should be a bit more WOKE!!:-))

This does more harm than good HH and here's why...you are a trader not an investor and you're exactly what the FCA wants to get rid of. This isn't an investment and they really don't give a flying f8ck that you gambled and came unstuck. The line to take quite simply is to make them see the difference between a trader and punter and an ACTUAL investor. People in this share for a year or more have clearly taken an enormous haircut already, but anyone who bought off JB in the last year or so are mere speculators. That is actually the vast majority, so why should the FCA reward a bunch of Jonny come Latelys to profit out of the misery of creditors??? Wakey wakey. this will just reinforce the negative they already have and do more harm than good.

I do wish i d left my name off such a group. You cannot change the trajectory with FCA or Amigo. I had hoped rather to focus on PR . "Shareholder fury at FCA for manipulating agenda" etc put pressure on that way.

Hence an equity raise.

Not a chance IMO sharesrising. This will go quiet until end of the month IMO. Maybe an RNS re the facility. Would be good to hear this week though of course. Shorter in play and i suspect with no news we may bleed down to 7p. Again hope to be wrong.

LTHcine I don't think this is the right call. Thinking that we give creditors legal guidance and up the length of time we repay them over is very clearly not going to cut it. We are going to Restructure which quite clearly means more money up front. your suggestion doesn't need a restructure. Sheldon Miles said" We are realistic creditors will not see a full payment of their compensation but we are not so realistic that shareholders should enjoy all of the benefit" (ALL NOT ANY). Its very clear what the FCA stance is. More to go into the pot. I do however think that equity raises are expensive and take too long as I understand it, so I'm not sure how the money arrives with such little equity in business. Must be a debt for equity swap of sorts. Judge also said that there would be more cost but that the main bulk of scheme structure was in place so it wouldn't be too high a cost, as much of the work is done. He also stated that ALL stakeholders need to understand the losses and benefits of a restructure. The only question we should ask is how much pain will we be forced to take as we are the weakest link amongst the stakeholders and the FCA hold the cards.

Thats an example not what i think will happen

Existing shareholders wiped and business gets taken private. New owners would benefit.

This is the problem with such groups. I put my name forward and then have to read this nonsense. The FCA reserved the right to change their stance and did so. Using words like "criminal" is just ridiculous. They should not have weaponised the share price and manipulated the markets to score political points and shareholders shouldnt be used as a football that much is true. We have suffered huge loss but they need to seperate traders from investors which is about to happen with the haircut and LT perspective that will follow. I think the email needs to hold the FCA culpable for allowing the model and then sitting idly back whilst being aware of fraudulent practices for many years. They need to come out and publicly put their hands up and say " we have failed in this area previously and have been part of the problem' instead the culture is to punish shareholders and investors and they still continue with the mindset. Its totally outrageous ut its ot criminal.

Why would they do that? They are better off letting the business recover so they can get value come 2024. As long as they are paid on time in the interim, triggering said clauses seems less likely.