Member Info for gruntie

IAG making a bid doesnt make sense when they are the 2 biggest carriers at LGW, and therefore would likely need to divest a large number of premium slots (something, along with fleet, that's giving ezj it's value). You have to also remember that there are now twice the number of shares in issue as pre-covid, so £6.90 would've equated to near £14 a share - not far off EZJ's all-time peak of £15.5ish. If we were a couple years further on and closer the the £1b profit target, there may be a case for going higher, but right now I can't see it going too much higher, even if another bid comes in.

Remember, the share price has no bearing on the order of those airlines. You should be using MCap, as unless all those airlines have the same number of shares in issue, you're comparing apples with oranges.

Wizz, Tui, Jet2 and Ezj all have Mcaps of between 2.7bn - 3.7bn, IAG is at 7.2bn and Ryanair at over 14bn. I think that's a fair order considering the debt IAG carries in your number compared to the others.

Happy for any of those airlines to be doing well as I hold shares in them all :)

lol, a <£30k purchase moves the SP by 20%..

The original link is just the FCA making people aware there is a fraduster cloning the Amigo brand using the name "Amigos Loan" as opposed to Amigo Loans and have provided both the fraudsters details (registered in London) and Amigos real details (registered in Bournemouth) so people don't get confused.

I wouldn't be reading into too much just because its on the FCA website and was last updated a few days ago..

JWD, sorry, didn't phrase that the best. The only tax applicable to such a business is Corp tax and that is only applicable on Profits, the RI won't be classified as a profit, all the money will be assigned differently on the balance sheet so the full RI proceeds will be available and used as per the RNS - add to the complaints pot and provide funds for operations going forward.

Capital Gains is not payable for companies (when I say companies, I mean Ltd or Plc as opposed to a sole traders or partnerships),as this is just their profit which will be taxed at the Corp tax rate. However, we (as individuals) are liable to CGT buying and selling shares unless it's in some form of ISA wrapper. If/When you buy new shares, this money should go to the Share Capital in the form of fully paid ordinary shares. That's my understanding anyway.

There's nothing to secure any debt against. Net assets as of Mar '21 was negative £119m

I would be willing to take part in a RI, but as you say all 3 are intertwined, so would need assurances that re-lending and claims are sorted before being asked to part with any funds. Will claimants be happy to vote yes without knowing what shareholders are being asked to put into the pot and equally, will shareholders be willing without ironclad assurances.

The problem though, is to raise any meaningful funds would require huge dilution, theres clearly not much appetite for shares at 7p, so a discount would need to be offered for most to take up the RI, so even at 4/5/6p you're rasing c. £30m. So even having 2 new shares for every share I hold, (so being massively diluted) would still only raise mid-8 figure sums. I think I would only stomach a 66% dilution before cutting and running.

I think the SP needs to be depressed for shareholders to get the most i.e a raise doesnt make sense at these levels, and the SP needs to rise for claimants to get a more meaningful return i.e a good profitable raise to go into the pot.

Will be interesting to see if this is a ploy or a legit avenue and if so, what numbers are floating about and how that stacks up.

Hopefully this isn't anything sneaky as my first thought was this may be to help get the SP closer to their incentive plans (i.e 40p/shares etc). Obviously SP is Mcap divided by number of shares in circulation,if theres less shares this should in theory drive up the share price.

Maybe it's just to give the board the flexibility most companies have, or maybe its to buy and hold in the Scheme company as part of the SOA as people have mentioned before. I suspect it's just the flexibility option.

There is a 3rd option. You dont have to sell your entire EZJN holding if you dont want to pump more capital in.

You can sell 2.5 "Rights" which will come to around £4.20 (depending on the exact price they sell at when you do it) and you can use those proceeds to take up the rights offer for 1 share. Therefore, you can in theory have 1 new EZJ share for every 3.5 EZJN shares you hold without having to put any new capital in.

If you think EZJ will rise in the future (and Im sure everyone here believes that, or else they wouldnt be invested) so taking up a rights issue would make sense more times than not.

Investroid, what Tav has said is maybe the best course of action if you dont think EZJ will drop any further. Earlier the rights were selling for around £1.68 (this then entitles you to buy a share at £4.10, making the total cost £5.78), not far off the current share price. This means you can sell 2.5 "rights" which would then fund the purcahse of 1 new share (168p x 2.5 = £4.20).

This means you dont need to find any new money from your SIPP or ISA (or any new money at all in fact) and it means you lose the "upside" on as few shares as possible. I did this for the IAG rights issue which I held in an ISA, but then took the full rights in my general dealing account.

Offering discounted loans would be the worst option available. We're looking at SOA's because loans were mis-sold to those who couldn't really afford them or topped up with little additional checks etc.

Whether the interest is 5% or 50%, alot of these people have loans worth hundreds or just a couple of grand, so the actual amount of interest wont be dramatically changed (it's not a £300k mortgage afterall) so it likely wouldn't change their overal ability to meet the payments. Secondly, interest is calculated on risk. You'll be able to borrow at a different interest rate to me, and a 3rd person might get another % again. If people did have significantly reduced APR's (and it would have to be, as who would vote for a 40% loan instead of 49.9% etc) then you'd find AMGO would just be sitting on huge defaults down the road and thus losses for us.

Give the people a cash lump sum, or payments over X years. We know what we're losing, they know what they're getting it's fair(ish) all round. Worse case scenario, give them newly minted shares - those who are savvy enough can make a killing by holding on to them and selling in the future when AMGO gets turned around, those who want instant cash can flood the market with theirs, and us investors can have a few more cheap shares.

Mer, I should that's the exact intention - keep the SP low - because after all, when it steamed ahead to 30p when they tried to get SOA1 in the bag, it was a stick the FCA and Judge used to beat Amgo with. By keeping the SP low(er) this time, it removes that as a point for SOA2.

If this email and questionaire isnt loaded for Question number 3 to have a high % answering 'Yes' so Amigo can march back into Court with 95% approving a worse scheme (SOA1), and then having 80%+ believing a new scheme is best thing for them, then I dont know what is!

Good job.

Amigo needs new products as suggested by Gary that will "blow the market away". The standard sub-prime lending, i think, is tapped out. Lets not pretend the big money wasn't made on top up loans and lending to people who maybe wouldn't be eligible going forward. If its the same products as before, theres likely not to be quite the same client base but theres still a business, albeit a much smaller and slender company.

New exiciting and profitable products is where Amigo's futures lays, and that's what I'm betting on.

Oh please don't show off how they've changed from Shareholder to Stakeholder.. reminds me of my Thomas Cook days when their RNS' went from Shareholder to Stakeholder haha!

I'd agree with that stance Mark. It's a big risk. I'm hoping someone takes a pragmatic view, RBC allow say £5m of "their" money to be added to the pot which allows a "fairer" deal (pot up by a 1/3) to satisfy judge/FCA knowing full well AMGO plods on, and that £5m is recoverable at a later date via more lending. Bonds are settled in 2024 with the help of some more waivers, but theres then a profitable and workable relationship moving forward which allow RBC and others to issue more/new bonds post 2024.

I would say the common sentence of "investments can go down as well as up, and past performance is no indication of future performance" would have that covered ;)

MIC, as you've been told everyday this week!

It's too much hassle?

Christ, It's only their job to make the business as succesful as possible and are paid a good sum to do so (also invested with personal money). It might be too much hassle if there were Plumbers by day, and had to sort this mess out by night inbetween dinner and putting any kids to bed.

Vinson, I think if Amigo was to come out and say they believe uphold rates would be around 40% of claims submitted (even if that's true due to older loan customers applying for redress when it wasn't mis-sold), I think the court/FCA would give us a hard time as that's substantially less than the 88% uphold rate that FOS provides. Amigo would need a bullet proof argument using those sort of figures.

If we then say "half aren't eligible to claim", I suppose that raises questions around the fairness or the voting again and is it skewed in our favour by default.