Member Info for Jonno41

Franky - I know what an LTIP is I am merely saying they should have been put in place after the court hearing as this would of been more appropriate.

Yes Martin Lewis is a consumer champion, and not a business champion, but I do think he has a point here and I do think the LTIP's should be voided and put back in place after the court case with an extra exclusion to ensure customers get 50% + of their compensation.

Cancel the LTIP's that all he needs to do. Put them back in place after the ruling... Its a really easy solution and the only difference is the new LTIP might be 60p rather than 40p - easily achievable so just about nothing to lose.

BTW - I am not a deramper - I am heavily invested - surprised no one else on this board is agreeing with me - its entirely the right thing to do for shareholders and customers and the board.....

What's important to understand here, is Martin Lewis is an incredibly powerful person and he has a huge consumer following - as far as I can see, he was supportive in principle of the scheme until he uncovered the LTIP's and now he is lobbying against it.

I believe the LTIP's could risk the scheme not being voted in, or the regulator unregulating us because of the perception of what the LTIP's stand for and simple solution is to void them - GJ listened to PI's by dismissing board members who were only just re-elected, he needs to listen again - this time to the media.

What a positive news article that wold be - board voids LTIP's to stop the board benefiting from the SOA being approved.

I am really annoyed I did not spot this earlier. Its a huge mistake the board has made, but it can be recitfied.

Gruntie - I agree - give customer in the scheme shares as well as compensation - that alligns them with us

I did not say guarantee 50% repaid to customers, I said make this a condition on the LTIP - again it alligns interests and is bound to be seen as a posigtive by the FCA.

I would also say, a new LTIP condition should be added : "All customers in the SOA need to receive at least 50% of the compensation owed to them" - there is no way it is foair for the Board to receive their LTIP's without hte SOA paying out at least 50% of what is owed to customers.

I absolutely believe for Amigo to succeed avoid administraion and regrow into the company it used to be - addressing previous customer claims must be part of this.

At the moment, an outcome could be: GJ recieves his LTIP, and customer receive 1% of thie redress.

That is not fair, and this need to be fair.

Thaks Novice, I am no aopposed to LTIP's at all, especially when SP targets need to be hit, so all values are alligned. But know the SP will rise on approval of the scheme make the LTIP's to easy to achieve, but its not just that, its more about perception - I am bought into Amigo because I believe they are doing the right thing for complianants by avoiding administration and setting up this scheme.

I think the board should buy shares which will benefit them if the rise happens, and then once the scheme is agreed, discuss LTIP's because then Long Term Incentives matter, right now according to the board, no scheme = no future, so LTIP's are meaningless should the scheme not be passed ... so ... do everything you can to ge tthe schemem passed, and then come the LTIP's.

Surely should be voided immediately. LTIP's should be added well after the court case. The guardian has a point, by approving the scheme the board will make far too mch money - and that is wrong surely in all of our eyes - the LTIP could jepoardise the whole scheme FFS

A very good question and one i cannot answer. There have certainly been lots of large trades most days for many millions of shares but no announcement.

I have not seen this before - and with no TR-1 I do not know what it means, as if someone was accumulating we should surely have been told by now, so if this is not the case, what other reasons can there be for the large trades - and i do not know the answer to that... _traveller?

I think it fair to say that Amigo has persuaded most - vote for the scheme or you will get nothing - I cannot see how the FCA will not support them, but I do suspect they will want to understand how many pennies in the pound complainants will receive and from there, they will probably suggest a much high percentage of profit in order to increase the number.

Amigo need to have a go at calculating the number and sharing with all concerned, they is a concern complainants will get a very small anount (say under 10%), if Amigo came up with a 50%+ number I think that would be persuasive enough, problem is before you know how many complaints there will be it's a hard calculation to make - but saying that they have to have a go... Forecast profits over the next 3 years multiply by 15% (A), forecast complaints (B), average compensation (C), and therefor A divided by B=D C divided by B=X% X% being the % of the compensation each compainants will receive.

Good to see Amigo seem to be in communication with moneysavingexpert - they are of the opinion the scheme needs to be better for complainants but does not say it should not be allowed and not encouraging their members to vote against it

MSE have extreme influence on their members so o see this as a good thing - they will always try and get the most money for their members but as long as they feel the best way to do that is through the scheme is encouraging

The suggestion- which is the most likely outcome - is the scheme should go ahead but with more money being set as side - as lkk ok g as it’s not a stupid amount this would be a good outcome for shareholders

GLA
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/reclaim-guarantor-loans/#delay

Is there a Twitter group with Amigo discussions - Just wondering where all the posters have gone?

Thanks

Slightly interesting JB is Tweeting about Amigo again - not sure he has since he lost the vote... not sure if he just wanted to highlight how incompetent Angus is or if he wanted to make the point that Amigo is actually in a better position (sort of). Also of note is FCA have not supported Provident SOA....

Its sounds like Provident might be in a worse position to Amigo.

There is a certain amount of absudity here, when CMC's are potentially bringing down largre financial lenders. This is surely the last thing the FCA will want to see, as if the big players go into administration, new players will join the market and lack the experience of the larger lenders, plus they are bound to drain the resources of the campany to a minimum in order to make money as quickly as possible, so if they are hit with a barrage of complaints that drives their buusinesses in liquidation they will already have made their money.

This system has to change, its bad for the economy, the FCA, FOS and lenders...... SOA is the short term solution, more rigourous policy management and agreement with the FCA on affordability checks is the longer term solution.

CMC's have made fortunes - and when are the FCA going to wake up to the fact that even allowing them to exist is at detriment to the lending market and consumers - punish lenders by making them pay claims of which about a third goes to CMC's is so the wrong thing to be doing. Wake up FCA, you made a huge mistake on allowing CMC's to make a fortunte from PPI claims, and now you are doing the same with loans.

Thanks Traveller let’s hope they do

Traveler what are your thoughts on the lack of TR-1 announcements? Do you think we are still due an announcement or do you think the large volumes could of been some different?

One of the problems here, is HUR have not actually confirmed any details on production since January as far as i know. So all assumptions & calcations are being based on 12K BOPD per day and the income that is bringing them.

i hope this is the case, but without being told we are all assuming there are no production issues/depletion of well performance.

Also I have a theory around the increase in Oil Prices perhaps having the reverse knock on affect I would hope them to have. So we appear to be heading into a position that with no further work we can pay the bondholders and have cash left over. Yet a failed sidetrack/water injection could reverse that and mean we do not have enough money to pay Bondholders.

So perhaps the bondholders are saying to Hurrican, dilute your shares rather than spend your cash, to ensure there is enough cash for us to be paid. The problem with this is with the current Mcap and the amount needed to for further works, dilution would need to be significant, and risky for the investors...

Of course there are many other reason such as Bondolders waiting on a potential upgrade of resources, or perhaps the company waiting on that so the SP increases on good news... The last positive RNS on production did not move the SP so perhaps they feel it would be wated to bring out another one as the reaction is likely to be the same...

Hope I am wrong, as yet again more conjecture due to lack of communications.....

Actually, when you look back on previous trades, it seems each month they buy shares on around the 10th. Not sure if that is related to limitations on how many and when they can buy, or whether its a way of evening our the purchurses by adding each month...

Interesting timing - I assume these PDMR trades can be made at the discretion of the trustees, and those trustees decided to buy them now, on the 10th March before the court case rather than wait.

So either the trustees are complete speculators who are gambling ont he SOA being approved and a return to lending. Or....

Thats the problem, we don't know know because Hurricane do not seem willing to out an RNS explaing the situation - so we make all sorts of assumption based on the little data we have, and draw presumably incorrect assumptions which probably make the hurricne position rosier.

For instance the 12K BOPD is clearly not going to stay 12K and might currently be on 11K, 10K or even 9K, and will keep dropping as all producing wells do. Plus there is maintanance, down down time, something could break and production could stop completely... Clearly having only one producing well is putting all your eggs in one basket and we'd all like to see this de-risked - which of course comes with risk.

I don't disagree the debt looks affordable, I assume there are overheads (including $16.5M annual payment on the bonds) and various other costs to run the well - so the high oil prices are presumably encoraging enough for the bondholders to want their money safe before any other loan/expediture is taken out to open up further well - so pehaps 7 month is more like 12. However this still gives many more years of oil production and revenue to be had from that single well which would get shareholders many multiples of the current SP - unless of course future drills did not lead to production