Member Info for Jonno41

" It's very, very hard to know 'how the hearing is going"

Unless the FCA announce at the begining, they are not opposed to the scheme, merely want to improve the terms...

That would make a few hit the buy button.

Ah ok, good point, but JB does not won any shares does he??

I dont think so because its short term, and companies are usually valued on long term profits.

Obvioulsy the impact on the value will be more in year 1 than in year 2 etc. so the closer to competing its obligation it get, the more value the market will put on the value of the company.

Isn't this just an old list?

Heres a nice caluclation - companies like Amigo are worth about 25 x profit.

If Amigo make £100M a year and worse scenraio say pay 80% into the scheme.

Company is valued @ £100M * 25 = 2.5BN - (4*£80M)= £2.18BN

You see to the company value the % of the profits to be repaid make virtually no difference.

DYOR

Thing to remeber is there is a huge amount of uncertainty priced in, even if the deal does not sound great its for 4 years not forever. So uncertainy goes down and share price goes up.

3 Observations
- companies are valued on profit, I dont think having to pay some it to a scheme for 4 years make that much difference, the value will be realised in 5 years - companies are valued for long term growth not short term.
- profits can be offset with investment in staff, marketing, consultancy, IT/technology etc. most companies like this may work on a 3 year profit model
- newco's can be created out of scope of this group - so for instance Amigo could go into another country with another business, or they use the group to invest heavily in building up a customer base in Europe - reducing their short term profit and building up long term profit.

This is why - almost whatever the terms of the Scheme the price should rise based on leng term forecasts.

In my business I have some products I will lose a £2M on before making £5M in 3/5 years time. This is how online finance works, maketing, SEO, email list creations, IT platofrms, new markets all take time and money to crack - Amgo 2.0 could be about investing profits in new markets creating long term wealth and impacting short term profits

DYOR

FCA will want something - removal of LTIP's would be wonderful but I suspect they will want either a bigger pot or a high percentage of profits maybe for more years.

As long as the increase is acceptable I think we'll be ok, however Amigo might take a stand and say that FCA should have opposed the scheme before the vote, rather than after it, and now the customers have voted on the scheme as it it, they feel it should be passed as it is and not changed.

When you read the date on the FOS letter, the FCA opposition was almos certainly known before the end of the vote - so did GJ agree wth the FCA to delay their opposition until the vote had been completed in return for a better deal?

That would make sense to me.

I also think the deal is done, it was interesting to see the fifference between the FCA communications to Providents and Amigo:

Provident: Dears Sirs/Madams
Amigo: Dear Gray, following on from our phonecall.

It shows there a reltionship, an explanation and probably a plan......

Which will hopefully be good for shareholders/customers etc.

Abolutely Slyhuntress you master trader, selling 57M shares 5 minutes after the court case fails will be a piece of p1ss, I am sure MM's have those shares in their back pockets along with some loose change...

Sigh.....

My main positive is absolutely no one benefits from this scheme not being sanctioned.

In fact I'll go further, I think the FCA should encourage all fanancnial companies to set up schemes even if there are no claims against them.

My logic is simple, it forces all regulated companies to set aside a fixed pot of money for claims - say a % of turnover (all regulated companies need to keep a fixed amount of money in their business anyway).

I would ban CMC's amd make complaining directly very simple - regulated firms keep reconrds of transactions going back 7 years so you should be able to call up and give your details and the company hould have records and details of your transactions.

That way Financial companies are protected from high amounts of claims and therefore means they will not fail because of the number of complaints.

I would also increase FCA powers to ensure that if any companies mis-sell/over-charge or in any way do not adhere to high standards the FCA can fine them and enforce other punishments such as ones directly at owners/directors who abuse their power to their own benefit.

Having a system where CMC's increase their profits by trying to destroy companies through complaints - creating an unstable environement, unpaid creditors, employee pay off, reduced taxable income, shareholders losing money etc. is simply not a sensible model.

Did the FCA really not figires out how many CMC shareholders became muli millionaire through the PPI scandle - think about this, the govt. bought a big % of banks during the financial crisis, those same banks paid Billions in PPI of which about a third went to CMC's, so to simplfy this, the Govt paid CMC 100's of millions of pounds.

Good plan eh!

I see a few outcomes - not all positive for the share price but I do not see the Court not sanctioning the scheme - it simply helps no one - creditors, shareholders, bond holders, future borrowers, the FOS , the FCA

It’s surely unlawful to ignore 95 % of. Voters -

CMC’s are the real cause of all of this, interesting article

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/amigo-boss-warns-shameless-claims-firms-are-blocking-struggling-borrowers-from-getting-the-redress-they-are-due/ar-BB1gNpmj

Agreed! I should of posted this a month ago - not that anyone would listen :)

Mark - agreed - but that’s also not really relevant to the SOA being passed - the point I am making is it’s the shareholders making money from the SOA by buying in when it was announced - I appreciate I am isolating a group of shareholders but reading this board over the last few months you do see a lot of posters who have bought in around the 10p - this is the FCA they’ll be bullied by MP’s and the likes of shareholders and the LTIP’s benefiting hugely from the SOA being passed - who’s to say one of the tabloids does not publish an article on the Amigo rich list if we get to £1 by the end of the year

Other shares that do not have SOA to pass - shareholders will be patted on the back for backing a multi bagger but due to the sensitivity of this situation I simply suggest these posts do not help overall goals

I might be 100% wrong, it’s a thought I’ve been mulling over for a while

Sorry I posted that in a rush - the point I was trying to make is the FCA and amigo compliance will be reading this BB occasionally or perhaps even often

The FCA know if the scheme passes shareholders will probably see their shares increase significantly in value. At the same the claimants will see their claims decrease significantly in value - the FCA wants fairness

So the more posts from us saying how many shares we are holding implies unfairness to the FCA - which is perhaps partially why they want shareholders pay in some way , so yes on this one occasion I wish none of us would discuss how many shares we hold

In any other scenario with any other shares it makes no difference whether you say how many shares you hold or not.

This is a exceptional situation and if you asked GJ I am 95% sure he would say he wished Vinson did not create and blog about the amount of millionaires Amigo could make

Of course we if the scheme is not passed we all lose money, but again from an. FCA perspective our r risk as shareholders is also not meterial

GLA

Jackeroo - is this kind of bragging one of the reasons Amigo haters are pushing the FCA to block this scheme

Why should PI’s on Vinson’s list and the rest all become millionaires /multi millionaires whilst Amigo customers settle for 10% ish of their claim

Can I suggest you and all other large holders keep your holdings to yourself until Thursday

An unusual request for an unusual situation

Wish you all luck this week

Agreed - I think the FCA’s intention was known about before The letter was released as the FOS refer to the FCA in their letter that came sooner - I suspect both parties agreed for the vote to close

Good post - I agree with your FCA posturing comment

Re takeover - if we see the court case pass and by room buying more and more shares - the price is going to be well north of 30p - you would imagine they will be in a hurry to get to 30% and which could also cause a spike.

I think the FCA must have asked them to publish their letter but not FOS - I cannot think of any reason why both letters were not released at the same time.

I wonder if the FCA and FOS have a comms issue - can you imagine the call - ‘your opposing it, I thought you weren’t opposing it, that we we voted for it’ - ok let’s both send a letter and come up with some logic around this....

The FOS in the letter ask them to hand it to the judge - plus the last paragraph implies they support on the scheme on its merits - we’ll sort of