Member Info for FrankyS1971

Jimmy- the judge also said that he understood why the mgt had put forward their position

Jimmy- the judge also said that he understood why the mgt had put forward their position and that it was a reasonable version of a true position from a mgt perspective. But it wasn t balanced enough to pass.

They only have the right to do that if the management team agree, further you are summising that the full equity in the business needs wiping to put in the pot. Ultimately its still the FCA who drive this. If they want to see the pot fuller they can push for a full clearout of shareholders but i rather suspect between the FCA and mgt they ll have an amount that gives shareholders a haircut. This is after all about balance and compromise. The risk of course for shareholders is heightened but i d feel optimistic that as the judge pointed " ALL stakeholders must consider the losses and benefits of a restructure".

No one would buy that book at fair value when the business is in distress apart from... maybe Bybrook....;-)!!

Seems to be a lot of energy going in to things that aren't going to happen for values we don't know. On this basis can I ask why the management team don't wear Smurfs Outfits whilst giving out dominos pizza vouchers for everyone who pays on time. I think the FCA would like this and do a deal with us cos who doesn't like The Smurfs and Pizza. Put the two together and its a no brainer SOA2 and relending. For sure.

A restructure means a restructure. Bondholders have the power and will want shareholders to take the main hit but then where s the equity to achieve that? All rather fascinating. Its just one big mexican stand off. I don t want 10p+ until sorted as we re clearly better off on the alleged.brink of insolvency until there is a fix. I would personally wrap soa2 and relending together and do a fund raise to cover both. Thats palatable and allows things to get resolved amicably.

But Jimmy whats your point?? We already know a restructure and haircut is coming. Any business operating on the other side of this is a multibagger over the years ahead. Unless you can see something else that will create 500-1000% over the next 3 years...??

Mouse GJ was a non exec director at Amigo before ousting Glen Campbell who wanted a direct confrontation with FCA. He woukd have lost. He has played every card dealt very precisely IMO. His job is to get the very best deal for stakeholders think properly about what has happened and is happening. Soa 1 favoured stakeholders too much. Great. Nice try. FCA have mused in court about wiping shareholders out and are at the other extreme. That is their way to make Amigo move from their stance. We know know the SP is weaponised and carries sentiment into negotiations. The weaker the better. Low MCAP = nothing to leverage and a better deal. You want an RNS saying we ll be fine guys soa2 will pass at some point..relax..! Ermmm what fool would do that and let the FCA get a strong hand. Insolvency threat and peril of potential collapse is the absolute message. Low SP...poor sentiment= belligerent sign of doggedness and balls to play brinksmanship. You might have worked out Mouse that i don t agree at all with you. GJ is strategically on the money.

I would accept you to go and bore other people. We know the permutations well and you add nothing. Laborious.

I don't think at all GJ was trying to pull a fast one. He was protecting our interests as well he could whilst not having the right person to face off too at the FCA initially. Sheldon Miles didn't get feet under table until well into the process so a vacuum of clear guidance.

Wow yuri so sage like. I m selling first thing...thanks so much.

As a fair warning. You only need to look at Woolworths to know Amigo is in a total Pick n Mix situation. Its also worth remembering that during the 1930s over 9000 US Banks collapsed and like Amigo isn't even a Bank or in the States so I think the parallels are staring you in the face. You were warned.:::-)

Actually BP it is in their remit. Thats why they are the regulator in sub prime. Its a clear remit. Idiot comment.

Hi Vinson..its not the SOA 2.0 thats in doubt for me..its the restructure and what that means for shareholders. Simply putting more future profit in the pot is not a restructure. "The losses and benefits for all stakeholders needs to be made clear" its clear that to appease the FCA shareholders will have to give up their current position but how and by what is unclear. This makes Amigo univestable and a pure speculative punt. As a holder like you we believe that there is enough value on the other side to hold but ....looking at some chunky buys..they look like more than traders to me...the clouds will part soon enough.

LOL...Funny..AT Trades all ego...yeah" I got a full-time job and don't need be on here talking sh8t all day"....before proceeding to then talk sh8t! doh

.... What would the next question posed to creditors look like? How can you come up with more than 2 alternatives. For example you can have A. a bit more money up front. B a fair amount more in the pot but for later. C. neither and insolvency..oh no...that's a gun to the head so what would you have instead...a menu of choices? so then if a menu you have the votes split more and no option gets the required volume. This leads to me think that there may not be a vote. Not least as the turnout will be lower owing to general malaise and growing lack of interest. Likelier the FCA and FOS and perhaps some industry reps will vote on the scheme as representatives making this process quicker. You wouldn t need another creditors meeting and you wouldn't need the first hearing just the sanction with FCA already behind the scheme. Seems more likely to me than not. If we're forced to go the full hog then so be it, but I cannot see the benefit to any party unless the judicial process demands it.
2nd thought around RBC. For them to extend they will want to believe that there is a resolution as they can't defer repayment for ever. This would suggest that if we see another extension it will be because something has been agreed in the background in broad enough terms to give confidence. 3rd thought. With an Mcap of below 40m its clear that a dilutions may not be such a cool idea at this point . That does suggest we'll be upping the pot from future profit. The judge said how did you arrive at 15%? This seems an arbitrary number but how did you arrive at this number. (shoulders were shrugged). This is already where the answer was being driven in that conversation. So bear with me...If you want say 25% then you need bondholders to agree as they ain't likely to get their money back in time and you also need an Amigo 2.0 model approved so you can understand the volumes and do cash projections and say to the bondholders...guys this is how we think the future business is going to look based on FCA guidance. Conclusion. There are reasons for optimism here and although its been a horrific and slow year with set-backs along the way. There is room for a positive surprise and outcome. Worst case is that the will to achieve a solution goes and they chuck the towel in. My view is that all of these conversations and arguments and all this energy going in to the problem...kind of means there's something worth fighting for!! A bit like marriage councelling. Why bother? Well...we both think we might want to save the marriage rather than just walk away.

I m glad no appeal as this would have been a last roll of the dice fo survival. If you knew insolvency risk was through the roof you d simply appeal.

Like this board iz representative. Sigh.

An appeal would tell me that insolvency is in fact very real and the last roll of the dice. Sorry judge and FCA but we sre going down and you were wrong = appeal. So i doubt this. Its our lawful right to have an SOA in place. The mechanism exists to save a firm from collapse so chances are the next one will work. My hope is that a restructure does not invovle ejection of shareholders. I doubt it but risk is now up another notch.

I think you re on another planet with that one. Restructure needing a fund raise with a new scheme and then a vote with a meaningful choice on other side. This will be another 3 months down drain. Minimum. We will get a letter of non objection at least and will probably be relending before that process is over..maybe..just maybe..