Member Info for largey00

from the same place the derampers come from when its bad news... Its good to see some positivity about this share... well done to all those that held and those that also bought from the lows of 1.7p... I have held throughout its not been easy by any stretch of the imagination... still hurdles to get past but certainly seems that it is going in the right direction... Creditors get a good deal the FCA seem on board and the SP is rewarding shareholders from the significant losses that a lot of people have faced.

I do agree with this... however the big picture is £70m needs to be raised... regardless of the SP and whatever the RI price is the potential is for somebody to just pay £70m for the RI as no PIs will take it up... at which point the SP could be 0.5p or 4p or 10p it doesnt matter to the new investor paying £70m their value doesnt change... just my thoughts

Existing shareholders lose and new investor wins

HH I agree the RI prices are difficult to estimate... also the principle of them raising £15m is useless who would invest in it to just pay claimants back the principle of a RI is to look at the future of the business so the value needed is a minimum of £70m as per the RNS statement...
All i would say is nobody wins out of this if it goes tits up... Claimants get less, shareholders lose, Public lose a funding gap source... in times like this it should be about doing the right thing for all.

SOA 2 is giving 42p in the £ to claimants
RI is giving life to the business
Shareholders are having a significant reduction in holdings 95% this is what alot of people have wanted yet even when they get what they wanted seem to be happy to shout amigo down to the end...

For this to work something needs to change though
£70m to be raised
19/1 (95% Dilution) by the way 19/1 is a minimum example below
Current Share Price 2p

RNS Example:
Original Shares 475,000,000
New Shares 9,025,000,000
Funds Raised 70,000,000
Diluted Price £0.008 To achieve this with a 95% reduction at 19/1 the RI Price needs to be:
RI Price £0.147 (I am not saying we will get close to this at all... but shows what price the board need it to be to hit 19/1)

Todays SP: if they stick with 19/1
Originial Shares 475,000,000
New Shares 9,025,000,000
Funds Raised 9,500,000 (Doesnt get anywhere close to what they want) would be in excess of 100/1
Diluted Price £0.001
RI Price £0.020
The dilution would be worthless who would invest?

Prolee... great to see you back with your enthusiasm for this share :)

the argument that was put at court is there is no future business unless resending is thrown into the pot of a RI all you would be doing is buying a chuck of compensation debt without the security of the FCA agreeing to Amigo 2.0 hence I'm not convinced a RI will happen as I don't think they are confident they would sell the required shares (RR was fully backed)

So the next option is dilution which I think may be more likely however regarding what % is taken god knows... I personally feel 25% is bearable anything above that is taking a big hit to PI Shareholders... basically you would lose 25% of your shares and it be placed into the SOA pot that's roughly 120m shares for the SOA.

Ok that's where we agree nobody knows the numbers hence my disagreement with the % and values that you have stated previously...

At no point have I said what Gary should say... my only point is that now the complaints waiver and the securitisation facility waiver both expire 24th Sept the burning platform is obvious... no SOA by this date administration will need to be lodged and then who wins?? nobody!

The best of it is... you talk about the value of what is offered... but most will never get 100% of what is offered anyway as they will pay in the region of 30% to CMCs for completing a form so you are actually fighting just as much for CMCs as you are the creditors... could it be if you're not Sara you are a CMC... not convinced youre a shareholder that's for sure :)

perfect... so you will have noticed this section in 77:
It is not though a decisive or conclusive answer to the application for sanction: if the Company is able to demonstrate that the Scheme Creditors, having been properly consulted and informed of their options, have consented to this outcome, the court may be prepared to consider that the Scheme is a proper one for sanction.

The position of amigo is an interesting now that the burning platform that wasn't there before is certainly starting to loom in September with the waivers expiring... insolvency is the next outcome...

Now I personally don't have an issue with dilution but your % and values are excessively skewed which I do find interesting as to why you post it on here...

Ultimately nobody benefits if the company goes into administration.

I wish you all the best in your mission

Jimmy,

I'm interested in the point you make here...
The judgement showed clear concern that this hierarchy had been upended by the first scheme so these numbers simply reflect what the judge / FCA have said

I can't see where the judge states that the restructure needs to be in line with insolvency standards...

I note the extract below but this states fairly allocates between various stakeholders not in line with insolvency hierarchy that you are working by...
The FCA expects the directors to continue to explore and promote a restructuring which fairly allocates the benefits and losses among the various stakeholders. I agree with that, and would urge the directors to continue their efforts to promote a suitable restructuring.

I have to say the whole argument of 10p in the £ isn’t right… the offer was £15m and 15% of profits for 4 years.

The principle of an SOA is for the fact they can’t pay full compensation back… a dilution is fine and expected but some of your values and principles are excessively skewed to one view Jimmy… very similar to a certain website. Even if they wiped out shareholders all together today it would only create the same value for you… would you be happy with that then and a company that nobody would be interested in investing in with an FCA treating shareholders like that…

Ultimately many companies that offer sub prime lending are exiting the market I would expect the FCA to be very careful what they do with Amigo because one thing for sure is the main stream finance companies won’t touch sub prime and if that is the case where do they go then!

I agree with you maverick but just to be clear they never gave a letter of non objection... they always stated that they don't approve of the SOA but would not object at court... until 1 week before the court date they changed their approach...

for me this just proves that they aren't proactive

I like this part...

His committee has suggested that the FCA needed set a clear date for completing changes that would move the culture on so the FCA is a more proactive and agile regulator.

If the FCA was proactive we wouldn't have wasted 6 months on the original SOA... they should be proactive and engaging with Amigo and certainly didn't feel this was the case in SOA 1.

Prolee... at least you are consistent spreading doom 157 posts in Amigo in the last 30 days I must admit it feels like more but at least you spread the love of doom in MBO, RMS, IQAI and BRH... can't see a positive post you have put up in 30 days you should try it you might like it :)

Pantz I don't see many people buying into a RI unless amigo2.0 is part of it... without Amigo 2.0 there is no future to the business to buy into other than paying claimants... this is what dicker said at court and was absolutely right in my eyes.

Franky, In regards to your point about the madness of the FCA and that they will say £40m up front so wipeout the shareholders which is what they said at court... My only side of comfort on this is that that really sets a poor precedent for any Financial Services firm that they could run the risk of having shareholders wiped out... makes investing in FS firms less palatable for all investors IIs and PIs... I expect some form of dilution and am comfortable with a fair dilution... 50% is too much for me and id be out as soon as possible 25% is fair... an SOA is their to cap redress and to be fair the FCA must consider the precedent they will set.

Jimmy, Im not sure Jonno said dilute by 50%... what he said was £20m of shares on the day it was sanctioned... your 50% is working on todays price to achieve the £20m not the day it's sanctioned.

I’d say taking some time and reading senators points should help you Jimmy...

Shareholder contributions can come in various forms not just dilution... which seems to be your focus...

Jimmy that is one strange post...

Reading this part of your message is very odd...

“But yes, I think I’d need convincing why shareholders shouldn’t bear the same losses as creditors in order to ensure Amigo survives, given they’re below creditors in insolvency?

Shareholders seemed to think creditors taking a 90% haircut was ok. Why shouldn’t their stake in the company be written down by the same amount as they expect creditors to lose? That way, everyone is in the same boat and has an interest in minimising haircuts all round.”

After I have read that I totally understand why people assume you are DC

Okehurst that's exactly what I would say the judge would have all the facts to make the decision... that's why he has established that there isn't a burning platform... there will be in time if an SOA is not sourced and approved that is why the judge said he understands why the BOD proceeded with an SOA and the FCA don't dispute it either, all they are saying is it needs to be fair!

what the hell are you smoking... yes I did post that and stand by what I said I'm pretty sure my comment to you doesn't contradict it...

My comment was more about I would take what the judge says about our financial position and I assume he has been able to look at the structure of Amigo to understand how the money can be used hence his ruling... I said I would take what the judge has put over someone saying bond holders can do what they want this that and the other without any confirmation of why...

So for clarity I do think shareholders have taken a burden, I think the FCA painted a picture that presented the view they wanted... I am realistic and think we will take a hit going forward... but to move forward helps all parties, Bondholders, Creditors and Shareholders... SOA is the solution and the FCA and judge agree its the solution they just want it to be fair.

Prolee... you seem intent on picking up on individuals which gets boring... I'm all for having a balance in discussions and I approach amigo with a balance there is certainly risk.... although I would much rather use text taken from the judge to support the rationale behind his decision than someone just saying yeah but bond holders can do this, that or the other with no confirmation of why...
I am assuming but the Judge must have been able to look at the structure of Amigo and its financing to make his decision hence the outcome that we have got...