Member Info for Jonno41

Getting some confidence back in this share. Good figures (obviouls redress should be ignored because no Scheme no Amigo so the redress figure is really what goes in the scheme not the allowed liability figure).

We really need some sort of scheme announced (which is better for customers and not worse for sharehoders!) followed by FCA not to actively opposing it and signing off Amigo 2.0 - I know they might block it or even say if the scheme passes we'll de-authorise you, but assuming they don't we should be heading over 10p in the next week or so.

I just hope the FCA does not assume every shareholder has bought in at 8p because that is clearly not the case, so if and when the price go over 20p again, they should consider shareholders who are still deep in the red as well as the handful of new investors who've bought at these prices and made good.

Please FCA - a balanced view would be appreciated, we're all hoping the new scheme is fair and benefits customers, as well as not penalising shareholders.

There have been a few signs (such as LTIP announcement) that makes you think the next RNS will be a new scheme which will see a good sp increase. And hopefully the one's of you who have lost money makes some back and the customers are paid some redress - as well as the FOS......

Finally lets hope Amigo starts lending again, looks after its vulnerable customers and is a shining light through the Covid doom... They can really help people, but they have to listen to the vulnerable and support them with payment and interest holidays if and when appropriate - possibly even writing debts off to avoid forcing peeple into bakruptcy....

They need to be much better than they were before.

GLA

That's not right - 2 jobs are 3 - 6 months and 2 are permanent, and the account manager job one assumes would be in sales.

Either way I do not see this as material - clearly Amigo does not know which way this will go, but has to hire assuming a future, rather than not.

It appears the CFO is overworked and needs a management team - hopefully to count the profits not the costs!

GLA - We need a bit of luck I feel

Suggests to me FCA letter wanted too much redress too quickly which would have affected Amigo’s ability to pay the bondholders who can get their money back if company do into administration so message to the FCA - be reasonable or force us into admin which would only be good for bondholders - and if we do not submit our account get that will happen in 12 days - and if we do submit our accounts with a forward looking statement that says we cannot pay the redress FCA wants us to and meet our bondholders repayments - bondholders will force us into administration

Come in FCA - work with Gary -

Most likely reason for Vinson’s absence is he is speaking to the company directly who have asked him not to post

Every time I speak to any company the first thing they ask it is conversations are kept off BB’s such as this one

Plus his bragging list posts were clearly red rag to a bull for the FCA

I suspect Amigo wanted some sort of agreement from the FCA on the scheme and on relending before releasing the financials, which is why they delayed it the first time, FCA have now got back to them but not given them what they need -I assume the point was made that the sooner relending starts the more cash the company will have for the scheme, but clearly the FCA want the Scheme agreed first before relending can start - and when they mention things like ensuring the company is financed well enough to relend, it sort of contradicts the FCA desire for more money to be put in the scheme.

There has to be a way for Amigo to get more money and othe than a Debt for Equity swap generating revenue and fees from relending appears to be the best way.

Breaching bondholder rules will only cost Amigo more and make them less likely to secure additional finance so it appears to be a message to the FCA saying they have 25 days to agree something with Amigo.

Problem is these sorts of tactics have proven time and time again not to work with the FCA.

Overall todays news should not move the SP in either direction particularly - but the MM's might try and drop it and catch some stop losses.

To me the risk has not increased or decreased because of this.

GLA

I do not understnad the full logic of Amigos accounts being delayed - its presumably because of the new scheme annoucement - but are Amigo trying to announce a new scheme before presnting the financials - or at the same time, and why?

There are a few possible answers to this, soe good, some not so, but the right one is not necessarily obvious.

This is good news, a scheme is close to being annonced and it looks to be alligned to the Prudential scheme - in this particular example

My prediction is FCA will say they do not support it, will not offer a letter of no objection but will not appear at the sanction hearing. I think this is the best outcome. Any scheme the FCA will support, shareholders will not, so a prudential type letter from the FCA I think will be good news.

One thing I keep thinking about, is Amigo are having no new complaints during this period - so no pressure on current cash, and this will surely buy them more time before a scheme goes live

The one thing the FCA need to do is approve Amigo 2.0 - they could do this and not support the scheme maybe...

All to play for and undoubtably high risk

They would try to negotiate a price of say 5p a share - it would then be down to the boards to persuade them up to SP or beyond. I would say price will go up if this is agreed by bondholders anf FCA as long as Bondholders are happy to swap it Market rate - they will probably double their money in a month. But I would want to see tehem agree to holding the shares for 12 months +. Not sure if this is possible or doable, but I cannot think of an easier way for the compay to increase the pot without running ot of cash.

Yes - I don't think new equity should be held in trust - if its too dilutitve the shareprice will crash and the equity in the trust will probably be illiquid (so unable to sell) and the cash amount even if it can be sold be a fraction of what it was worth because of the shareprice drop.

I think the monies the company owes to bondholders (£27M) should be converted into Equity (shares) so the company would not owe Bondholders £27M and that money could be put into the scheme instead (the company can afford this). Shares would be diluted at a price agreed with the bondhoders (hopefully more than 10p but probably less), this is the only way I can see customers getting more redress guaranteed. And the FCA have asked Bondholders and Shareholders to also be diluted and if this happens they will be, so its much fairer.

The point is it means the customers get more redress, the shares should still recover - but not as much - and the bondholders will at some point sell their shares and get their money back.

Tell me another way that is fairer and gets all of us out of this mess...

GL

Jimmy this is why a debt for Equity swap would work - Amigo would then have another £27M to put into the scheme as they would have no debt to pay, shareholders would be diluted and Bondholders would become shareholders increasing their risk.

This should work so well because customers will get more money that Amigo would be able to pay as they do not have to repay the debt, bondholders should see a good rise as the shareprice goes up and shareholders are diluted so see their share in the company go down - making it fairer

But in a manageable way that does not destroy shareholders, bondholders or the company.

Customers should see redress then of closer to 20p in the £ plus 3 years profits which would hopefully bring it up closer to 50p, which is close to the shareholders dilution.

Any other method of diluting shares is unlikely to work as its won't generate cash for Amigo. Putting shares in the scheme does not stop the shareprice collapsing the scheme shares being worth very little and especially if the company struggles with liquidity so they would not be able to sell the shares anyway. Cash is needed and a debt to equity swap is the best way of generating it. No investor is going to agree to a large placing with so much uncertainty hanging over the company but I think bondholers should because they already have skin in the game

The risk then will be bondholders wanting a discounted price for their shares, but if Amigo can successfully negotiate with Bondholders to stop that happening we should all be in relative good shape (including the customers).

GLA

Thanks Mark, ok but what does that actually mean?

If JP Morgan were buying for Bybrook the RNS would still name Bybrook as the holder, so is J P Morgan holding shares because Bybrook have paid them to do so? Is that allowed? And why would Bybrook buy some directly and some through JPM? Surely when that makes up 25%+ that is not allowed as at the level I think you need to disclose your intentions?

Sorry, but knowing JPM is the broker for Bybrook does not categirically say anything other than they are Bybrooks broker? Or am I missing something?

Thanks Longterm yes the Tr-1 notifications from Bybrook and JPM often co-incided with similar number implying a connection - just was not sure if there has been something from JPM to confirm they were holding as a broker - not hugely important unless I am missing something - althought cleearly one of the main reasons we moved to towards 30p was the buyng activity from a handful of large investors who do not appear to have sold, so any new re-rate would need new large investors.. And I had pondered wehterh Bybrook and JPM might add to their positions assuming a not to be scheme is sanction later on tis year.

GL

LongTerm - do you know that JPM are the broker not the investor - or doo you assume this is the case - I don't know if there is anyway to tell? I know JPM are a broker but they also invest....

HH good to hear, I have not asked for a meeting, but sent a few emails before giving up as I was getting standard responses. I appreciate there is not much that can be said now, but investor relations are supposed to allow investors to understand more about the company before deciding whether to invest more, less etc. but I have not found that with Amigo as yet.

Investors are often afraid to ask questions from a company, because they might feel they are asking for market sensitive information, but actually most questions you would want to ask can and should be answered. All investors small and large should be treated fairly and when a question goes to Investor relations that should do their best to answer it rather than say they are unable to.

I feel IR attitue is the less we tell our investors the less likely they ae to ask - so the easier our job becomes - but this is clearly the wrong attitude.

I have not emailed them recently because at this point there are very few questions to ask....

I have never had anything useful out of Kate Some listed companies have good investor relations but not Amigo.

I have purposely asked questions I know they can answer and have received responses similar to the below.

Its shows complete bias towards II's who could probably sit down with GJ for an hour and find out much more about the company.

I was invested in another company (wont mention who) a few years ag, emailed a question, received a response saying its easer to talk on the phone, organsied a 1 hour call where I was given no price sensative information, but a much better understanding of the company which was so helpful - it dispelled so many thoerires that appear on these boards - so trust me when I say Kate is a blocker and appears pointless to contact - yet she could be very useful in helping us investors.

Kate - when you read this take note, you can be far more helpful without breaching any rules or regs

Does anyone think the FCA are waiting for Amgo to publish their Year end accounts later this month before acgreeing to support (or not) a scheme. It seems the accounts have been delayed and will presumably reveal finances that Amigo does not need to provide the FCA until they are published - and perhaps the FCA thinks they need to see the published accounts before they decide what a fair deal should look like.

Just trying to think of what the delay is, and the late submission of the accounts was at the back of my mind.

GLA

Such a muted reaction to todays news. Thats a huge increase by JP Morgan for what appears to be a complete gamble - whether its for them or for a 3rd party, someone is confident shareholders are not about to be stiched up...

Clearly some of the directors know how the new deal is progressing and what likely impact it will have on the SP. They will be in a closed period. If some directors are not so involved perhaps they are not in a closed period, but bearing in mind how motivated we hope they all are in getting a scheme that does not destroy shareholder value over the line - I suggest all are in a closed period.

Closed period 100%

Not really sure why I am responding to this? No details or even clarification that there willl be another scheme have been announced. So either your friend is sharing market sensitive information with you, or this is made up ... I suspect the latter.

Had you just revealed SOA 2.0 I suspect your post would of been removed by now.