Adrian Hargrave, CEO of SEEEN, explains how the new funds will accelerate customer growth Watch the video here.
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.
My understanding: The increase over 10p is conditional... but it's also true to say that it is possible. Hopefully people can find my post yesterday, which was my attempt at explaining it as I heard it. I guess she is putting her spin to the low side, which I do think is a possible outcome. But, not defending her! It's certainly not true, per my understanding, that the figure will be 38p. That's only if the claims are lower than expected. The end result is likely to be somewhere between the two but because of the claims being drummed up, I'd actually think it'll be likely closer to the lower figure. The point claimants should remember is that anything is more than insolvency and zero. 10p is better than 0p. 30p is an awful lot better than 0p. It's a binary choice as to whether you receive something or you choose not to... anyway, disappointing finish to the day. Could see it drifting down all day so decided I better do some work and not get frustrated.
Volume looks to be about the same in the first 90mins trading as the whole of yesterday, if I am not wrong. That's a good sign! Some of the 10p crew will be selling, I am sure. Hopefully they'll be cleared out soon and buying pressure will ramp up. Another institutional buy would be lovely.
Yeah, shame the fireworks weren't at the bell but up is up and some steady growth will shed the day traders and help the LTHs! I am off to work so will ignore the price for the next 45mins, before getting sucked in again!
F**k me - I went to bed with a post count of 90... showing 175 now! All AMGO. Need to take the court's advice to Sara and pipe down!
A lot of chatter in various corners of the internet about selling today. Have people really carried the risk of yesterday for the last few days/weeks/months to sell today? I get people want a profit but why not sell when we hit 19p the other week then? Assume they mean they'll sell if it hits Xp. The feeling being it is going to spike and then fall back, allowing a cheaper entry. One day these folks will get a surprise. If institutions see this as being de-risked (more) and worth a punt, we'll get the volume support to prop it up, I hope. Very difficult to be "an investor" in this share at times!
Fantastic response! Clearly eager to get back to it! Everything crossed tomorrow is a big day. It certainly should be! This BOD really are motivated - love it!
More than welcome. I was in the call, I wasn't interested in using any information to 'trade', I can't move a market, I need you all to hear what I am hearing and make the decisions I make or maybe just validate them. Informed discussion is the best discussion - take the emotion out of it, etc. There should be good volume tomorrow but I suspect there will be a bit of stop loss and limit sell hunting... Profit taking as well, no doubt. But it should rise. Why wouldn't it after today's news? Genuinely interested in alternative opinions of course. The more positive press courage, the better. Let's get that lower bound re-rating.
It looks like the vote will be very much weighted in our favour, to be honest, between the FOS and the old borrowers participating... We just need it to hold the rise. So many day traders and short term holders and opportunists at the moment. I had hoped that JPM participation had steadied the ship but I'm not sure. What does seem clear is that the base should re-rate. How this could walk back down to 10p after all this positive news is beyond me. But no doubt day traders will get bored and the SP will drift on no news in April. So frustrating. 20p+ should be nailed on and I am sure we will see it tomorrow but I'd like news to keep coming to support the valuation e.g. plans for re-lending, news of how they will secure the yes votes, etc. Anyway... i enjoyed today! Tomorrow should be good... I just think it should be epic and I worry it won't be.
You're most welcome and not troubling me at all. I don't remember that being made completely clear to be honest. Pains were taken to make the point that they shouldn't have a greater say than the borrowers/guarantors but I don't think how the FOS would be paid out was explicitly discussed. My gut feel is that they will vote yes to get some money in and the backlog of complaints off their books but I don't think it was mentioned whether they would represent say 1%,10% or whatever. Sorry!
She "piped up" and was told she could be in contempt (if I recall correctly). Nothing has happened (so far). It wasn't that big a deal to be honest, she basically just got told to follow proper court procedures. Came across very amateur. The judge had her 4.5 page note and basically said most of it had now been covered/answered and there was one outstanding point about future claims, which he clarified. So, her involvement was a bit of a damp squib in the end. Empty vessels and all that.
Thanks bud - home and the red is open. Good to read/feel the spirit on here today. Thanks to all of you for your positivity. Yeah, the decision coming just after close was interesting as you could almost hear everyone holding their breath and then missing the buy... De-risked for me vs. when we hit the recent highs so would hope to see it move into the 20s now. Why shouldn't it? Was worth 19p (briefly) on the FCA news... this was another big hurdle. Maybe as big? Maybe bigger? Plenty of risk here through May but we're talking a move to 20p, not £2. I still reckon it goes into the 20s tomorrow but maybe closes ~19p as people will see the 20p resistance as the profit taking trigger. Frustrating. If it punches through, and it might, we could be laughing.
Great to see the RNS! Wasn't expecting it so soon so went back to doing something productive with my day! Great news, as expected! Will sleep well tonight... No yacht details or stories of my time at Baros in the Maldives ;) stop sucking me into chit chat ;) Couple of emails and calls and then off home for a bottle of red (been in the office all day). If I had to predict, I should think we'll open well up from where we are right now as folk will be kicking themselves for not jumping in before the bell. However, I do not think that jump will be crazy massive as there are more hurdles to come... I'm a gambling man (clearly, being invested here) I'll go with seeing over 19p and will break into the 20s during the day and maybe early on. I don't think a 20% jump is ridiculous seeing as we've had 20%+ days recently after the GJ call I 'reported on' and then the news from the FCA RNS last week. This is another hurdle, I'd hope for another 20%+ reaction. If it doesn't come, so be it. If it is more; great. If it drops... it ain't dropping to 10p but there shouldn't be too many profit takers first thing as we haven't closed higher than the price we've hit some other days the last few weeks.
No need for more messages of thanks - was happy to help. It didn't look like many/any others here were on the call. Do feel a bit like I have been left hanging with no decision at the end there! That was a fair amount of effort and no doubt there are some subtle inaccuracies but the summary seemed overwhelmingly positive TO ME. Clearly others thought the same as the market started moving up and it can't have just been this board. Judge was clear that he sees no reason to question any of it (in MY opinion) further to move it along to the next stage. Don't really understand court process myself so I don't know when this will appear on chancery listing but hopefully someone else on here will post it, albeit I am sure it will be in an RNS. I have no idea why the market wouldn't move up tomorrow, now. Another hurdle crossed. Looking back on it, not sure a sweat was even broken by AMGO's QC today. Very professional job. As for the person who called me out on bu11$hit - it just makes me laugh. To do that throughout the day; I must be some Walt. Anyway, you can catch up on proceedings and see for yourself. I'm sure someone would have reported me if I wasn't factually reporting (to the best of my abilities). Very confident in my holding here and tickled back into profit. Thanks to the rest of you for your support... I shall fade back into the background again now but I do read every day! Will probably reappear around the May date :D GLAH - it's been real!
I don't think we are getting a decision!!! Says it will be dealt with by Chancery Listing as soon as possible! What a come down! That's it! Judge has risen and we're done!