Member Info for FrankyS1971

Bryn. We dont yet have a letter of approval from the FCA endorsing the SOA. As i understand they are still looking at the redress calculations and whether the creditors should all be viewed as one class including the FOS to be in same group as complainants. The logic Amigo had is that they should all be viewed the same as nobody will get anything if voted down. So, if the FCA don t agree for whatever reason and depsite the background negotiations on this, Amigo would likely pull the plug on this version of the SOA as it won t have the backing of their regulatory partner. Something else that we have all missed which might be rather exciting here but please stand me corrected. If the FOS agree to the scheme, the amount of what they are owed will be equivalent to many many complainants. Read the it about the value of the votes needing to be over 75% of the complaiants costs (clunkily worded i know) and would it nor infer that FOS support will essentially make this a done deal??!

Only rationale for the court not backing it is because they disagree that all creditors should be in the same class. The FCA either support that notion ahead of time or this won t even go yo court it ll just get pulled. I therefore expect a major RNS before the 30th which will be dtiven by the regulator. If they show support it ll be a major cadburys boost .

I filtered you a long time ago but happen to have spotted this before I logged in. 4TTF I don't have that report no. But in your world the report, will read, "gosh...I didn't realise we put 3M+ of client money into that piece of rubbish, it must be our investment bots on the case. Well who care.". Or maybe the other report "I think we should have a gamble on Amigo, I mean its not our money its just client money and like spare change, so lets have a laff, as we can't go to the Crayford Dogs for a few weeks yet" Thats how the city got rich mate - chuckin cash about and seeing what sticks. Was it Jamie Dimon he said " The more I guess the wealthier I get"?? yeah that was it...

Oh dear yuri. You make it sound AI driven lol. This was discussed in depth you twit.

Its an embarrassment of an article and is lightweight enough to ensure none of the other investment advice is worth wiping your crack with.

Thats not as I understand it Honewood. Can I say then, that senior note holders have been consulted and have agreed already hence no need to vote?

Jeez branson. This stock is not for you. Of course the bondholders vote on it!!!!!!

Funny LTH...i am smelling a porky!!!

I m just messin' with ya'll ...hoho.... come onnnnn..-))...

The reason JPM and Bybrook are buying in is to muscle the bondholders into voting down the scheme. Once the company goes insolvent, they will buy the book on the cheap and tupe over the staff into Amigo 2.0 to fund it with the old shareholders cleared out.

Stand up for your love rights? Not sure what thats got to do with anything Chumba.

Current borrowers will get their balances redressed and some cash to boot. They won t vote no with zero.£..as the alternative. Our creditors have already agreed to a haircut so really its just the FCA to publicly back it whether before the court date on on it.

What will debt camel do with no guarantor loan sector to comment on. I me very worried about Sara s income and so is she as her credibility and income is on the line..did i mention that what she writes might be biased????lol

Lol.

Duh.. come on craigy. Use yer loaf. As an approved person by the FCA a CEO and ither baord members have legal obligations to shareholders and the like. Sadly you can t do that just cos you fancy.

The time and expense to do a debt for equity swap has passed at least for now. Issuing share capital is expensive and takes time which the bondholders know we don t have. They know they are better off turning the business around. I perosnally think the equity JPM and Bybrook has will get.converted into debt for lending capital. This eon t dilute us either. Again taking the firm private right now is a nonsense. This takes time and we re fighting more.important wars right now. SoA and relending.will happen before corporate activity IMO.

I m not comparing IKN. I just said you can t compare and that i don t fancy investing in seamus idea. Go for it. Hope it works for you i really do. I already played out Barrick and Hecla in the metals space. I prefer producing mines as they take multi years to get up and running. Its just a different view. No need to get your nik naks in a twist.

Just cos i m not interested don t need to get uber defensive. I don t fancy it at all as there are many unknowns. You can t compare a loans company with a miner either. Good luck with it though.

I don t think this does set a 'dangerous precedent' at all as debtcamel douche suggests. No other players in this space have enough cash to make a meaningful pot of compensation and won t get the same backing. Seperately wouldnt personslly touch CRTm with a very long barge pole. When i read the 4 bullets in the prospective...like its a great opportunity cos we re in a bull run and we re dead against diluting equity..i m thinking hmmm is that the whole rationale..feels like neat lines that shareholders would want to hear so an awful lot to take at face value from an unproven outfit. Not for me.

Rather like the vote i have this at 75/25 to Amigo. Multi- bag at x4-x7 by summer or 2-3p per share with plan B in flight.