Member Info for gruntie

Sara is referring to balance adjustments - people who still owe money and have a valid claim during adminstration. The remaining interest would be removed and an affordable payment plan setup. If someone has paid more than they initially borrowed the entire balance would be wiped, but no further money would be actually refunded.

It seems (to me) a bit daft that AMGO would raise either the £ lump sum in the pot, or the % of profits (or duration) AFTER a vote has taken place and a "No" was the dominant response (I dont think this will happen as per other threads). Surely AMGO can't raise the SOA figures and cast another vote? If the vote is Yes, it can't be adjusted that much if the actual creditors who are due redress thought it was good enough?

I suppose the fairness aspect comes down to the whole argument of "Would you prefer no Apple, or a rotten Apple?" when Amigo potentially has a cart full of Apples it will give back to secured bond holders first in administration. (even if old customers were due no apples anyway ;) )

Whilst the ~100k are uncontactable, they're hopefully not all dead and may also see the fanfare that starts to build with Adverts in papers, MSE on TV, other friends and family who may also have a loan and mention the claims etc. I'd bet my last pound that Amigo will do everything they can and probably prioritise if someone reaches out to them saying they used to have a loan, but havent heard anything or got a chance to vote etc. Thus, hopefully bringing some of those 100k back to the table (and as ISA mentioned, if they are uncontactable, they must be old customers with settled loans).

We've got to remembeer theres nearly 1 million people voting. If even 1% of their cusomer base is so p**sed off because they view Amgio as having wrecked their credit file, sunk them further into debt etc, and votes "No" that 1% covers 10,000 people!

I for one, tend not to leave a positive review for a company if they have delivered the goods - It's what I expected and paid for, and can't really be bothered wasting my time. However, If a business has messed me about and cost me time, money or energy, it's one of the things I do to make them put it right - a big 1 star review.

Most people who are "ex-customers" probably won't shout and brag about voting "yes" in the same way the few on Trustpilot or Twitter are voting No. As I'd say theres some what of a stigma of people getting something for nothing and doing harm to someone/a business out of greed. However, I'd imagine most Ex customers will vote yes, and that's the only way they get something. My bigger concern is ex-customers from 2005-2010, getting an email/text and just ignoring it thinking its spam/scam or they just don't want to engage with Amigo in any form anymore.

I wouldn't really worry too much about DebtCamel and the impact they might have as a whole. Heres some stats as to why I'm not that bothered (as annoying as it is reading her telling people to just stop paying);

A) The average time spent on the site is just 1 minute 18 seconds. Is this enough time to read 1 whole blog post, let alone the one you're looking for i.e Amigo.
B) The average person looks at just 1.47 pages per visit. Theres at least 3 pages on Amigo, and another on Guarantor lenders.
C) The bounce rate of the website is 81.79%. This is huge and means most people aren't even clicking a link or scrolling down to read the main landing page.
D) Just 1.68% of her website traffic comes from people searching "Amigo Scheme" in google etc (albeit, this is up 68% compared to before, as to be expected).
E) These blog posts get single digit comments a day, this doesn't scream thousands are using this site for concrete advice or asking questions.

The good thing with this being a non-profit website, is there are no Facebook, Google, Instagram adverts being pushed in front of people who might then land at the site and read (or interpret) something that isn't correct or flat out told not to pay outstanding balances etc.

The ironic thing will be customers who vote no out of spite, the SOA being agreed as most here agree will happen, and then those very people who voted no will no doubt lodge their claim within the 6 month window!

The fact there should be more ex-customers than current customers should see it edge through. For example, an "ex-customer" would receive literally nothing in administration as there is no balance to adjust or loan to write off.

From ISA Investors updates yesterday, I also gather that £1 per vote is happening, meaning the more you've paid off, the more weight your votes carry. Therefore, someone who paid off a total £12k and wants a couple quid for nothing, has more weight than someone who is half way through paying back a total of £12k.

I said months ago, for a few pence in the pound I'd stick it to the company. Debt camel telling people with current loans that their loans will be adjusted regardless of SOA or administration means alot reading that would almost definitely stick two fingers up at AMGO and vote against.

and I've interpreted that as 38p from the £20m Redress pot, not even from the extra "profit"over next 4 years?

Crystal clear is probably a nicer term.. I was going to go for "Dumbing down"

I'm still holind regardless, but my main concern is a judge saying that past/present customers cannot be treated the same. I.e someone who has fully repaid a loan, will receive only a few hundred quid, whereas a current customer with thousands still outstanding could see substantial loan adjustments worth thousands of pounds (similar to liquidation whereby interest is stopped and affordable repayment plan is put in place). The very fact these people will receive varying amounts surely means they can't be treated the same and have 1 vote per loan or 1 vote per customer?

I think AMGO had to do something different (in adding a % of profits) because if not, everyone could just point at the likes of MoneyShop and show how bad that was for creditors and it would've failed before it even got going.

If redress is expected to be around £150m, which is what AMGO announced in their Q3 results, and are already guaranteeing £15m in the pot, this makes at least 10p in the £ not including any future profits. Obviously the redress value will increase with AMGO actively seeking out old customers who had no intent on claiming, but with the % of profits moving forward, I would be shocked if claimants didn't see 50p+ in the pound.

Jonno, Theres no way AMGO can say they can pay 50% for sure. Afterall, the scheme is dependant on how 2 major variables. Firstly, how many people actually apply to be in the Scheme? The more that apply, the less each person will receive. The second being part of the SOA is a % if the profit over the next 4 years. If profit is £20m a year or £300m will change massively what the customer's also receive via what ends up in the pot.

For customers who have a complaint/claimbefore 21st Dec, it's going to leave a sour taste in their mouth regardless. Those who have since settled their loans, or never had any intention of making a claim but now get the right to vote for *essentially* 'free money', they will want the company to be as profitable as possible over the first 4 years, to receive the absolute maximum they can.

The more profitable the company is over the first 4 years, the higher the Share price will be which will please investors, but will also mean claimants get even more, which whould go someway to sorting them out.

Personally, I think claimants receiving shares would be a good play - those who want to sell immediately can, and investors can collect cheap shares, and those who received £1000 of shares @ 10p, could see their redress rise to 10x that figure if and when the SP hits £1.

Someone has guaranteed the debt, by the very fact AMGO is a guarantor lender. However, that only works if the guarantor is credit worthy enough and can continue to make payments on behalf of the customer. If you read the AMGO pages on the DebtCamel page, there are countless instances whereby people are claiming both they and their guarantor can no longer pay due to financial issues (primarily covid related). In this case, theres not alot AMGO can do at the moment, as Sara says, AMGO aren't taking anyone to court to have assets seized to repay the debt.

If the customer has an outstanding balance and their claim is upheld alot of people are having their balance wiped or adjusted considerably. If AMGO goes bust, the principal debt still needs repaid, but at much more favourable terms.

Franky, I would assume the FOS only count as 1 creditor? Hence why AMGO actively reached out to hundreds of thousands of former customers, because as discussed, this is free money to them and should result in a very high "Yes" rate.

The value of the FOS's claim will be more of a factor in section B. If they're due £650 per case on their desk, even at 10,000 claims, thats only £6.5m out of a pot that was tens of millions, so whilst they make up a large % of the 75%, I doubt they exceed 50%.

That's my view of it anyway.

AJBell has no issues buying or selling AMGO today.

I think most long termers here would say this is a long term stock that has the potential to reach 50p+ with good news. However, there is still a risk with the SOA in the pipeline, but that has been mitigated somewhat by the recent big boys buying in, and the general feel from Gary and his team.

Unfortunately you bought after a c. 50% rise over 2 days, so there was always going to be a slight pullback.

I'm holding long term.

Amigo doesn't need FCA approval to go to court. They must go to court to get the SOA however. It's just a nice thing to have and to show a judge that the people who regulate the market your in also approve of what you're trying to do.

The RNS relates to shares bought on the 25th, so the large buy on Friday people spotted is still to come through.

Someone did say over the weekend or yesterday about 10% of the company needs to be declared via TR1s.

Shotwick, I think alot of customers would fall into a category where the risk the loan becomes unaffordable is quite high (hence the need for a guarantor). If the guarantor was deemed to be able to cover the loan but their circumstances change, AMGO might have little choice for recovering the funds.

I've seen time and time (mostly from ppl linking to debt camel) whereby guarantors are also asking for covid breaks, or advice on how to get redress for what they feel was an unaffordable loan.

If AMGO has lent to a customer and guarantor who both were at risk of being unable to repay the loan alongside other cost of living expenses or other debts, this is a failing on AMGOs behalf, and should be held to account (and is what is happening).

Just to be clear, I fall well inside the camp of 'you were mature enough to take the loan out and spend it, you should be mature enough to life with the consequence'

As per the FCA website regarding TR1's;

The notification to the issuer shall be effected as soon as possible, but not later than four trading days in the case of a non-UKissuer and two trading days in all other cases, after the date on which the relevant person:

(1) learns of the acquisition or disposal or of the possibility of exercising voting rights, or on which, having regard to the circumstances, should have learned of it, regardless of the date on which the acquisition, disposal or possibility of exercising voting rights takes effect; or
(2) is informed about the event mentioned in DTR 5.1.2 R (2).