Come and join us on 6 July and hear 4 AIM CEO’s speak. Brad George, Orosur CEO updates us on Colombia’s Tier-1 gold mine potential, Cliff Gross, CEO at Tekcapital explains how investors benefit from a special dividend. Please register here.
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!
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.
4thtothefloor, difference with PPI is there was a bottom bucket of money for people to basically submit a claim for a laugh in the hope of getting something (in the same way you did, and many others I know did the same). The SOA is there for the sole purpose to stop that. The SOA will be capped at £Xm + y% of profit. So the more claims that come in just means everyone gets a little bit less, the cost to AMGO doesn't change.
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.
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.
There is no yield. The company is loss making, banned from paying dividends and faces insolvency as its debts are higher than it's cash holdings - if you believe there's no other option after a failed SOA.
Could be an attractive yield in a few years time if your in for sub 15p (and the company survives).
Wibi, I also picked up on the wording in the judgement. The judge repeatadly says "This scheme" (with "this" being underlined). Again, not "The" scheme or even "a" scheme, rather "this" scheme. I think this leaves the door open either for SOA 1.1 (slight revisions to current one) or SOA 2.0.
Retawellby, I think that's false. The judgement states;
"There will doubtless be additional costs but these should not be exaggerated: work has already been done which is likely to feature in any revised proposals (such as the processes for lodging and adjudication of redress claims).None of that would be wasted, and any revised proposals would build on the existing Scheme."
The fact the judge says "revised proposals" and "Build on the existing scheme" indicates that Amigo can alter SOA 1.0 and call it SOA 1.1. Afterall, if claimants voted 95% in favour of the "unfair" deal, why would a better deal need a re-vote when its more beneficial the creditors?
Neb, The judge's report came at 19:20, it's not even been 24hrs yet.. Even if (and very big if) they were planning to file for adminsitration, give them f*cking time to get their ducks in a row and the paperwork completed.. jesus
The fact the Judge says there no reason to go into Admin means that's now highly unlikely. If you'd read these boards for the past few weeks & months, I think every Tom, D*ck and Harry knew the Admin part was a bluff. You can't ask for people to take a 90% hit, and still have other options in the room when there was only X or Y on the table.
I've said this in previous threads. We're only here because everyone expects their "claim" paid there and then. Just read the likes of debtcamel - customers are jumping on FOS/Amigo as soon as the 7 days (or whatever time frame) has lapsed. If the FCA/FOS allowed Amigo to pay £20m (for exmaple) a year, and was done on a first come first served basis, whilst its a ball and chain on Amigo for a while, it just means everyone gets 100% of their due, but some have to wait a good chunk of time. Amigo can then carry on with the day to day business stuffand we wouldn't be here.
RE: Who will benefit from AMIGO going bust?25 May 2021 13:29
In the Judge's report, he uses PwC figures;
"The estimated realisable value of ALL’s assets, including its loan book, are expected to be between £312-£325 million, depending on the collection strategy adopted by an administrator. PwC have estimated the costs of insolvency to be £37 million. "
I can get onboard with this opinion. Afterall, 15% is around £6m at today MCap. Way less than I suggested they throw in.. Also allows us to have a rapidly rising SP without it biting us in the arse as the creditors also get the ride the wave.
Yup, I agree Daave. I'm still in a small profit (% wise) even after todays drop into the 9's so this will now be folded into my watchlist that don't really get looked at, and maybe see if theres a nice suprise in a few months time (sure there'll be a suprise one way or another haha).