focusIR May 2024 Investor Webinar: Blue Whale, Kavango, Taseko Mines & CQS Natural Resources. Catch up with the webinar here.
I'll have a go... 14.30p. Nice, gentle upwards trajectory the last hour or so with some reasonable buys coming in but the volume is nowhere so unless someone comes out of the woodwork, suspect it will tail off shortly. However, I'm liking this nice, steady, gentle movement north on low volume... no panic selling or profit takers for a change.
Bit of a boring week, so far, this week. We've seen much larger swings in single days the last couple of months than we've seen all week here. Tend to feel pretty pleased with that. A bit of stabilisation since the court news, ahead of the next step. My only worry is that volume is pretty low and without further news, the price could well drift as people get bored and see new opportunities as they do their new ISA year research, etc. Still... it's better for the heart!
Ok, not to clog up this board, I might post elsewhere on this. There's a place in the world for fast ramp-up gas turbine power gen to support wind/solar but MED don't look like a GT manufacturer so I'm not sure how you get listed for having this 'idea', the rest of 'us' have had (and moved on from, in terms of investment). Will read up more on it before I put it down (further). There are other non-polluting (during operation) technologies out there to support the grid that require neither lithium-ion (horrible to recycle) nor combustion. Clean, efficient turbines and the reducing cost of carbon capture mean there's a place for this but, almost regardless of what I find when I research, I'm highly unlikely to be investing... does not mean there isn't money to be made for investors of course.
What's their website, Mouse? There are a few Med Energies out there, by the looks of things. Most (if not all) operate in the same space as me...
You're most welcome :)
This is another one that led me to think that it may be some new tax year shenanigans where certain funds/products have to buy at the prevailing price. I usually have a look at volume on investing.com's streaming chart. Look up Amigo on there, select chart and "streaming" and then look at the bottom of the chart. You can change the period the graph shows at the top. Can also look on morningstar.com (others are available) or even on the LSE chart. Interestingly - they don't all show the same big trades and MS, for example, shows more, smaller ones. So it may be the way the different platforms are reporting them. The data on Investing.com did look a bit odd to me today (or I had the period set differently).
Very interesting day. I'm seeing a volume of ~8M at the moment vs. an average volume of ~19.5M. So, volume is down and most of it has been done in 8 large trades of very similar size (~1M shares), using my usual sources (predominantly eyeballing investing.com). Is that new tax year block buying for funds/pensions/products that contain AMGO or is an II accumulating? If 1M shares are ~£140k, it feels unlikely it will be PIs. If there were loads of <£20k buys then I'd say it was all PIs in the new tax year, with all that sweet tax free ISA money but it doesn't look like it to me. Anyone any thoughts? Traveller - feeling that TR1 hanging out there?
Nice, steady-ish climb from ~13.20p to ~13.80p, as I type, from about 10am-4pm, on low-ish volume. Not sure what I expected today but that steady push into the blue has been good to see. Did think there may be some more ISA buyers coming out of the woodwork though. Perhaps there were and the arguable lack of activity is everyone else now holding for the ride through May. No complaints from me (assuming something odd doesn't happen in the next few minutes).
LOL - do love a good conspiracy theory! I don't have anything whatsoever to do with the finance industry and certainly didn't have time to 'trade' myself whilst doing that. I hoped it leveled the playing field for everyone, bringing equal opportunity. No good deed goes unpunished!
Exactly this :) Had to coach the protege for a couple of hours so missed the closing fun and games. If the worst case REASONABLE scenario still results in the outcome you want, then you're in a very good place. My point is really that everyone should be aware that black swan events do have a real probability. Like him or loathe him, Timmy predicted the drift, which I agreed with... Long and the short of it... It'll go back up. Try not to get too worried about the daily or the intra-daily over the next few weeks. Some will make 10% quickly, others will lose... holders will be more than fine over the long term I BELIEVE. DYOR and all that. Right, drinking time. Merry Easter everyone. Some good, productive chat the last few days!
50% was really an extreme example to make a point. Being flexible might cap the high this share could reach, giving away profit, but... it will still be worth more than the 14p today. But, yes, per another poster - I need to refresh my memory of the court/vote timings and make sure I brush up on the order of important dates.
Exactly... my best guess is that, of the 100k, actually a lot 'reappear'. However, it's a nice way of bringing some balance and pausing for thought on some of the negative/conservative aspects. Folk need to make their own judgement on how the vote will go but I wanted to 'dig into it' a little bit with the board to perhaps help people consider how '(un)important' the fear mongering on the likes of Debt Camel MAY be, numerically/arithmetically/probabilistically, to the outcome. The loudest people are the ones with the most recent, thus likely smallest redress, grievance. A no vote from one of those people is likely statistically negligible in terms of outcome. DYOR and all that. I don't want to wander into the ramp camp. Very good chance it drifts down on no news and low volume before getting all hot and bothered again.
I don't think it matters, to be overly simplistic. However, you're right in that it is an unknown. Taking the 100k uncontactables (doesn't mean they don't know about the SOA) off the 700k is a conservative way of viewing "yes" voter turnout vs. 100% of "no" voter turnout. The reality is, they're probably all similarly motivated to either get their loan reduced and/or get "free cash". Statistically, you'll probably get similar turnouts in each camp. It's not a political question, it's a question of financial motivation and they're all being similarly motivated. Have less debt and/or have more cash.
I'm not trying to hide anything, I think I try and post a balanced view and I do agree ("The judge on Tuesday said, a number of times, that "we aren't dealing with that today, we'll deal with it at the next hearing" and it sounded like the detail of the fairness was going to be questioned again.")... I 100% think changes ARE coming. I also 100% think the changes would ONLY strengthen the chance of a "yes", so the specific point was moot in the context of what I have been trying to convey. Question back for you, Timmy - do you think giving 50% of the profits back to these claims would result in a higher or lower share price than we have today?
I won't click on that at work but... Is that saying that for our 100k 'missing' historical borrowers/guarantors, AMGO is allowed to vote for them? My worry with some of this stuff is that it is just too positive. The judge on Tuesday said, a number of times, that "we aren't dealing with that today, we'll deal with it at the next hearing" and it sounded like the detail of the fairness was going to be questioned again. I'd rather things were a little more obfuscated at the moment as, frankly, it gives the counter argument time to prepare and attack.
Hi F, I think when I started typing that message much earlier this morning, it was in response (in agreement) to something you had said a few days ago and reiterated today. Lots of moving parts but when you consider what type of person has the most say, it's a "yes" person. When you consider that; Trust Pilot and Debt Camel are just noise, albeit an acknowledged as very scary noise. But, need to be balanced and say that stranger things have happened and perhaps political pressure could (not would) force the FOS the other way. Balance of probabilities for me (literally calculated) as it stands today... "Yes" is the winner by a surprising margin and 85% is my P50. For a bit of a deramp though, don't want to be too positive... new tax year isn't for a few days so hopefully 10p before top up (KIDDING ;)!
Right! And this is another of the unknowns... I don't think we know yet their weight. BUT, I think it will be large. Their effective redress of £10M is large. I also expect them to strongly vote yes to 'clear the problem' off their books and get rid of their largest source of backlog clogging their systems (see the boss resigning last month). Yes makes their lives so much easier, which is why I suspect the FCA didn't oppose (effectively).
(PART 2) For balance though, there are some negatives. We heard in the court that AMGO could not contact ~10% of people to inform them of this SOA. That is likely because they are the historically earliest customers (who could likely have no grievance) and they have moved house, changed phone, had their details deleted, etc. The annoying thing is that you want that 10% (100k of all customers) in the pot as that's likely to be 100k of 'our' 700k likely voting "yes". I don't know if I am explaining this well but this isn't a binary yes/no on a 70/30 split... there are lots of unknowns in the equation. But we do know that it is reasonably likely that of the 700k, ~600k will be able to and want to vote yes. Of the 300k current borrowers, I do believe most will say “no”. It’s a cautious approach at least. That makes the split 66% yes / 33% no out of 900k. But if that 66% yes represent 90% of the weight of the vote, then the vote will pass 90/10. However, we have lost some ‘weight’ from the 100k being removed from our 700k, in my mind. This would be so much easier in an Excel sheet (I’m better with numbers than words). The long and the short of it is that I do feel that, despite Debt Camel and Trust Pilot posting the views of borrowers who are quite clearly pretty recent/active loans, the 6/700k who would vote “yes” are not bothering with the online blame forum nonsense… which should mean well over 75% of the weight SHOULD, to MY mind, go to “yes”. DYOR etc, etc. And all of this was really to encourage people to think beyond 700k v 300k and think about redress claim size, claim validity, timeline, weighting, online activity, grievance, etc, etc. Also need to factor in what would benefit a guarantor vs a borrower. There are many moving parts, some of which can’t be calculated but I do believe this is 3x more likely to pass than not… and offer anyone walking into a casino those odds!
(PART 1) I've been trying to reply all morning to some of the voting concerns but work has got in the way, thus, some garbled thoughts follow to maybe bring some balance - happy to be corrected or to discuss: The vote isn't simple, in reality. The people with outstanding loans can vote "no" and still get (example) £500 off their £5k balance, in insolvency, as I understand it. Thus, my assumption is that most of the 300k WILL vote "no" because they get the benefit AND get to boot AMGO in the balls. So, you're now thinking that I-I is saying it's 70% for, 30% against so won't/probably won't pass. But this isn't a 2 factor equation. The 700k or 70% that have paid off their loans will be getting 'free money' and it is highly unlikely that the majority would turn it down. But some, albeit very few, will. The benefit of the scheme is that those owed the most redress are statistically likely to be the historical customers, customers from a time when they were happy with AMGO and if they weren't; are probably not so bitter now it's in the past. Also, people owed the most redress will have the most 'weight' in the voting. So, (using example figures) it is possible that the 700k/70% actually have say 90% of the vote. You also need to remember that a lot of these issues were "historical", so older customers are perhaps more likely to have a valid claim, keeping their vote in the pot. In summary; the vote is psychologically-statistically weighted on the side of "yes" (there are other positive factors not mentioned). Now, how could a judge/court let that happen then as it clearly benefits AMGO/shareholders/bond holders/other? AMGO did not need to include loans back to 2005/6 (I think that was the year) because of the limitations the court places on time to bring the grievance. By AMGO offering to include these people (praised by the judge, if I recall correctly) they are showing compassion to those who maybe have the largest redress who would otherwise get nothing. They are admitting their wrongdoing and putting it right. A judge/court was never going to against that. A judge wouldn't say "I want you to leave out the people you hurt the most". So, those people, who were probably happy with AMGO, have the largest redress claim and the most vote weight are 'in' and likely to vote "yes".
Quick one: I think she is correct about the balances being reduced in case of insolvency, equivalent to redress but there would be no cash payments. That's my recollection from the court so I could be wrong but want to present it for balance. However, there are 300k outstanding loans and 700k completed loans so insolvency ONLY potentially benefits the minority. Voting yes is numerically the best way for the most to receive money. It's a human frailty to be selfish... I still very much believe the arithmetic is in our favour. However, I did have a look through Debt Camel and Trust Pilot last night. Scary stuff. What stood out to me is just how different, stylistically, posts on both were. Having been in court and heard some customers speak, hearing their language, tone, complaints, etc - something feels (I'm not suggesting wrong doing) 'off' about the site with the better written messages... whether that means anything - who knows. They will both influence folk and I'm now certain some will vote no out of spite. But I also believe that group is numerically small and by far the minority.