Member Info for Jonno41

There is no me mechanism on place for such a huge placing - no one would participate - someone has to buy all those shares - that’s how Amigo gets the ash and it’s not going to happen - period - that’s why a debt for Equity swap works - no Cash needed and the debt is removed.

Dilution might be possible but the buyer has to see excellent upside of they will not invest

IK - I was discussing a Debt for Equity swap which would impact them (Bonds for shares)

Mark - I cannot see a placing unless all uncertainty is removed - thats more than a sanctioned scheme, lending would need to resumed, the VREQ removed, new funding in place for more the £100M and probably more that I have not thought of.

I think Amigo will rightly argue it is not possible - but Debt to Equity is probably something bondholders could be persuaded to agree on and it will save Amigo interest payments.

I might be wrong because there is clearly upside as this share price (or even at anything under 20p), but a placing is not a short term investmeent, so if I was an II I'd need to be comfortable with the long term - and that is something Amigo might struggle with bearing in mind the number of risk factors.

GL

I think it would be a challenge to say the least to find someone willing to particpate in a plaving without a sanctioned scheme.

The Bondholders would say - we agree for a debt to Equity swap under the provision the scheme is approved - I suppose dilution could be the same, but Ithink it would be harder. Also the 3 months extension would fit in nicely with a timetable to approve a scheme.

No idea whether this is being discussed....

If I was a bondholder, I'd agree to this because wih only limited dilution, the £1 party would become the 50p party, which is a mighty good return for Bondholders + Amigo would save the interest so be better of than a placing.

I personally cannot think of any other way to dilute other than a debt for Equity swap - if I was Amigo I would ask the bondholders to agree to an increased price per share - say 15p as they know if this is agreed the share price will go up.

That way they can say to the FCA, Bondholders and shareholders have both suffered as well as customers....

With the bondholders debt now down to to £27M would there be an option to pay this off via diluting the share price by whatever is left (say £25M) and paying the an extra £25M into the pot?

That way Bondholders have to accept shares rather than cash, shareholders are diluted (but in a mangeable way) and customers receive more redress (min 20p in the £)?

Not sure if this has been discussed or is possible, but that could be seen as fairer by the FCA and would probably be accepted by bondholders and shareholders?

GLA

https://cbonds.com/bonds/286029/

L2 has been interesting last couple of days, very little depth on the buy side, and the MM's are taking the price up on not that much volume and then bringing it down again... There are not a huge volume of buys but it certainly look like a number of largish ones going through..... Perhaps someone building a position but not a huge one.,,, Maybe mini Vinson looking to buy a few millions shares - certainly different to II's where you felt the MM's were holding the price back to fill an order.

I would not be surprised to see close to 10p this week. It is looking more and more likely a new Scheme will be tabled, although what it looks like and how good or bad it is for shareholders is anyones guess - I am doubting FCA will not opose it - they might oppose itbut say it is at least better than the last scheme... that might be as good as gets from the FCA. I suspect a schcme they would find acceptable we would not.

GLA

Yes I agree - if thats made very clear, I think that would suffice

Nice find - following judges advice is clearly the right thing to do.

I also think they should remove all LTIP's. These are worthless without a scheme and can be reinstated when a scheme has been sanctioned. The whole point being, they are worthless without a scheme and have caused too much negative press coverage to risk them influencing a judge.

Sure the price targets might be higher, but still achiveable...

GLA

And thier hiring... not that is really means anyhing but thoughts I'd post a link.

Can someone apply for the role and when interviewed and asked if they have any questions......

https://www.ziprecruiter.co.uk/jobs/67873692-credit-risk-analyst-at-the-curve-group

09:36:45 8.50 150,000 12.75k A
09:36:18 8.60 1,133,715 97.50k O

GLA

You could then ask bondholders to add a further £20m to the scheme - I assume they would not do that - but if they did - the scheme would then be much fairer

The only other one way is to dilute the shares by issuing new shares and giving them to the scheme and appointing a trustee to decide when to sell them - however if that was a likely event Amigo would be doing better what they can to increase the sp to minimise dilution - if this happened depending what the dilution was - it might be well received- for instance if f they said they would issue £20m of shares to the scheme on the day it was sanctioned - If the share price was back to 30p that would be quite palatable

Franky, how can you wipe out shareholder Equity? No one will particapte in a placing meanng the only option would be Bonds for shares - but if there is a shortfal, that still may not make cash available for customers.... I am sure there is one, but I am just not sure what event would devalue shares and create cash for the company?

Also Bondholder might refuse the debt for equity swap as they will know it goes to customers, and the FCA want Bondholders to share some of the pain of this fiasco - yet again I am unsure how, because Bondholders I assume would jot want their bond devalued to support customers.

Just trying to envisage events that gove the company cash from shares or bonds that are conceivable and will lead to the company having more cash to put in the pot.....

I think FCA made it clear that they do not get involved in how schemes are designed, also if an email has gone out to borrowers, then this clearly has happened to engage more with borrowers before a new scheme is announced.

Email hhave gone out this week so you might not get news until week. What is clear, is administration is unlikely as if that was the only way, it would have been announced.

Clearly SOA 2.0 will be announced, hopefully with no shareholder dilution and a better deals for customers and I am sure Amigo will say, if this scheme is not sanctioned, the company will immediately go into adminsitration - i.e. no time for SOA 3 or anything but administration.

GLA

Don’t Regulate cmc’s - make the claims process so easy no one needs them - then at the least the claimants get 100% of their claim - the millionaires not discussed here are the CMC’s who have made a fortune from the likes of Amigo, although if nothing compared to the money made during PPI - so wrong!

Coud not agree more Franky. As I have been saying for months, Amigo's entire focus at the moment should be about being seen to offer the best redress to consumers, once a scheme is in place then they can work on moving the share price north.

So many people on this board do not seem to realise that the FCA are purely interested in maximising redress and thats why all this board needs to do is discuss the company, and not who we are, how many shares we own and how much money we stand to make or lose, it just nor releavant until the court sanctioned the scheme.

If anyone thinkins the FCA care about us shareholders, they are wrong, it all about the redress customers.

JWD - thanks for the support, Maverick thanks also (I may not agree but do respect what you are doing) - we all want the best outcome here, and I guess these boards are for all of us to voice our opinions - the group might help, I just don't think the BOD are doing anything I wouldn't be doing.

Ultimately all of our interests are aligned, we all want Amigo to get out this with the best results for shareholders, bondholders and borrowers...... Having to come up with another SOA assuming there is one, has made all parties worse off... that the frustration

GLA

Thanks for sharing - this is really useful