Member Info for JWD79

Whilst I understand the emotional drive behind the ASAG - I do have to agree with Jonno41.
The bod need to be left alone for the greater good.
Most of the bod are investors themselves - they will know what we are going through.

The risk being?
We know what the FCA are after.
We know the FCA can be appeased with a few tweaks.
Any risk to the bond holders IMO is incredibly low.

This is why when I see people mention administration I struggle. Even before both hearings I have been unable to grasp why this would ever fall into administration - unless there was a substantial beneficiary - which there doesn’t appear to be.
If the only few people to benefit from administration are those detailed in comments below (none of whom can currently force administration) then the plug can only be pulled by the Bod.
And if the Bod did this, what would they stand to gain??? Why would they line the aforementioned pockets?
And why would bond holders only want a small return on something that could ultimately reward them generously . I don’t see how administration would outweigh the benefits of the company surviving.
There are clearly a lot of ‘what if’s’ surrounding the complexities…. But I am damn certain they will ALL be working together for the greater good / to get up and running again

I don’t believe anyone can pull the plug until 2024.
So unless the bod file for administration early, this will be around for a while yet. If they did file for administration - who would be benefiting? - i just don’t see the bod giving up… I certainly don’t see them giving it up for somebody else to benefit…. Unless of course there was something in it for them…. Unlikely.

But the new owners couldn’t force the current owners into administration to benefit

There have been some great/informed posts recently - breath of fresh air - thank you.

I still find myself querying the administration aspect -

Who would actually gain from this act - financially and considerably??

Whilst the FCA have presented an obstacle, (providing there are no beneficiaries from insolvency) I do not see why those involved would not restructure.

They are in business to make money after all.

The FCA we know, can be appeased - there cards are on the table and assuming what Senator1/Vinson have suggested is a possibility, all claims could be satisfied (elongating the 15%/4yr term indefinitely) - thus eradicating FCA.

So who would benefit from insolvency?

Only 2 years ago this was a business valued in excess of a billion - a business which is now ready to relaunch and again - likely to be valued in excess of the same, in time.

So unless their is a beneficiary from their insolvency, I just do not see how those involved won’t restructure.

Does anyone benefit from insolvency?

I meant HPD

Prolee - you clearly suffer with HBD...! give yourself a rest, take a pill, sleep it off. I’m now filtering - and hope (as with Mark, Biglippy), others like Vinson, Senator1 etc will follow suit

Amen

Hope so Bazinator ;-)

Perhaps 15% infinite to cover claims is on the cards

Would the FCA not have an issue with the time this would take?

@Yasawa - Why?

Mark@1973 - Are you jumping back on the rollercoaster.... : )

@Yuri - Cognitive biases are considered during strategy planning

They will have filled the position/still sifting through applicants (2nd interviews etc). We were engulfed with applicants recently and removed our listing after a number of days

Vinson - Good morning
Are you concerned about the funding waiver expiring? I am quite certain it will be extended.
However I have noted others are concerned and a comment/concern highlighting that if an overlap should occur between the securitisation lenders and the bond holding, this would prevent the extension. Do you have any reservations/thoughts on this?

Vinson, you and Senator1 appear to be singing from a similar hymn sheet.
Let’s hope the Bod are considering similar/same ideas

400%...!! You must be on the red bull and vodka this evening FrankieS1971... : )

I know it is Bank hol.... But.... wife is out! son +1 on PS... beverage / laptop for me!
Justice notes - (24)
*The Group started to consider the possibility of a scheme in November 2020. Since
then it has had extensive communications and discussions with the FCA and has
shared all material drafts of documents relating to the Scheme with the FCA. The
Company’s evidence is that this has led to amendments in the Scheme favourable to
Scheme Creditors (including by improving the parameters of the Future Business
Contribution, as defined below).*
----------------------------
If all material drafts were by fact shared to the FCA.... One has to ask - What altered their opinion? Surely this should have been picked up by Dicker/Judge?