Member Info for largey00

Gosia, that has been one of the better posts today thank you.

I totally agree with your comments and like the CMC idea... ultimately until a company does what you say they will continue to do it and get away with it due to the complaints era we are in

first thing I would say is this part is rubbish:

"Amigo on the other hand borrows money at c 8pc and lends it back at c50pc-that leaves 42pc in between to cover those teething costs you mention-the same costs other banks incur."

same costs other banks incur... nope they don't because they don't lend to sub prime... and the reason being is its higher risk of default, which increases its costs etc

Truthfactory all I would say is somebody with a higher credit score have it for a reason, sometimes not necessarily their fault but that can't be the case 100% of the time... if you believe the world is a wash with money and expect sub prime lending at 10% its never going to happen... even credit unions lend at 40+%

Jimmy... that then goes back to the issue that the FCA wouldn't discuss Amigo 2.0 until after the SOA, you can't do a RI if there is no future business... who in their right mind would buy into it which then generates the cash?

Id have no issue if it came out that this is the SOA and we have agreement to start amigo 2.0 and as part of this we will do a RI which contributes to both SOA and 2.0... but that's not what the FCA was willing to do... basically willing to hold all the cards give no direction and sit back wait until the 11th hour and then object... that's poor regulation to me... they should engage, provide guidance for a fair outcome.

Jimmy, I know a lot say you are Sarah and all that and ill be honest I'm not bothered and in some ways it would be good that you are... the point raised of shareholder gain is an interesting one...

The FCA used the increase from 6p in Jan to 29.5p in May and said its the highest rise on the market... but lets all be clear 6p is based on the fact of insolvency was/is close (even now it is the bondholders hold the best cards) the FCA never once mentioned the reduction in price from when the complaints issue was first mentioned about £1.40ish to the 6p now that is a bigger loss... does that not show shareholders have already taken the burden?

My other concern is they talk about dilution/RI... now at 29p a RI would have been possible using the £140m market cap the FCA used in court... today the market cap isn't even £47m so to raise enough funds as part of a RI to cover or contribute to the pot for the complaints isn't realistic... even if they utilise the wipeout shareholders quote and give to creditors...
what long term future does the business have?
who would invest in the future?
what standard does that set for all financial firms?
A RI should be based on the future of the business yet they won't discuss Amigo 2.0 until the SOA is agreed?
The FCA does have a responsibility to shareholders as it does to consumers as well... a fair deal I agree with... I just think the way the FCA have dealt with this has actually caused more harm than any good they say they don't negotiate but they should give guidance as to what they are looking for and a fair proportionate approach should be taken.

Prolee Just out of interest... what is the solution... who will provide finance to the people with poor credit ratings?

Credit unions charge 42% compared to Amigo at 49.9% I assume you will want them shut down as well...

I don't dispute lending should be fair... however a person that has missed payments or defaulted and has a poor credit rating will never be able to borrow at the same rate as somebody that has never missed a payment and their credit score is great... This is called risk based lending - hence mainstream banks are not interested in it.

Hunniford...

Wasn't aimed at you personally and I'm happy to apologise if it came across as though I did... certainly wasn't my intention.

My point was aimed at the issue of sites particularly DC (by the way she actually controls what goes on her page)... where they can post anything they want and influence others...

The example that was given on dc which as you state is an anti Amigo site saying that when a customer rang Amigo they state they know they are breaking FCA rules by not dealing with redress payments... (how true is it that a customer actually rang amigo? did amigo really say that? this is the issue its people peddling information which could be right but could be wrong)

The point I made was that when reading the Judges decision and commentary he stated that the agreement to postpone payments for redress is still in place... so Amigo aren't breaking any rules. that was in the judges notes 132 from memory.

This is the problem with random people stating rubbish with no credible evidence...

I have just got off the phone to the judge and he said...
As already explained, if this particular Scheme is not passed and approved, the informal moratorium on payments to Redress Creditors will continue and this will give a breathing space for the directors to explore further restructuring proposals.

Ok I just read the Judges notes 132 which said it... don’t really have the judges mobile ;)

Im not so sure the FCA benefit... Customers voted for the money... they get nothing as a result of the FCA so not sure that's a win

Skier...

you are right we are naive... I'm going to complain to AJ Bell, Amigo and FCA as I should have had some legal advice before investing...

Just ask yourself who wins if it does go into administration and who would be naive then... would it be the FCA?

considering that Provident are pulling out of sub prime lending and if Amigo goes bust then who are these people going to go to when they need help? the market is reducing but the population needing it is increasing... perhaps that's me just being naive... trot on Skier

From the court case last week for me the comment by the FCA wipe out shareholders just goes against what the FCA is there for... in 2013 the FCA strengthened its policies to protect shareholders yet they whimsically turn up at the final minute and state wipe out shareholders... active engagement is the first line of this policy review... if that is what they expect of companies surely they should lead by example... what engagement have they had yet they throw that statement out... shocking!!

https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/fca-strengthens-listing-rules-enhance-protection-shareholders

Pants... you may be right but looking at the 5min chart yesterday there was 3 lots of 15m+ buy vol which in total was about 55m which is almost 12% of the business... I’m no expert but that doesn’t look like an II selling...

my point is you are isolating Amigo... your crusade should be against all Financial Services and you are using vulnerability as the point...

What are your thoughts on Impairment... some individuals will willingly take a loan and not pay back... that bumps up the cost of lending for everyone fitting your financial profile...

There are 2 sides to every story... The FCA conducted a review earlier this year that even states that Sub Prime Lending is required to support the financially excluded...

Hold on Truthfactory... does that mean that anybody that has an Overdraft at 40%+ are vulnerable...

Also I think you then need to consider that they are asking for a loan... did Lloyds, Barclays, HSBC etc offer them a loan? if not why not?

you say taking these ridiculous loans... what are you wanting for the 12m people in the UK that need/rely on this form of sub prime lending... could it not be possible some a customers have taken Sub Prime Loans, improved their credit scores and been able to revert back to mainstream lending... are they still ridiculous loans?

But the FCA would be letting themselves down if they force Amigo into Admin, that way Creditors get nothing... that is worth repeating they get nothing even though 95% voted for it.

Imagine the complaints that would be raised and put forward to MPs by creditors and shareholders regarding the FCA stubborn approach...

The FCA are there to regulate, that means create guardrails, engage with firms and work with them on behalf of the consumer

That has been in all of there RNS releasss so nothing new

Sly,

your first post on here was 11th May following the FCA RNS... you stated its the time to open your short position... I hope you have and we will see who is happy with the outcome tomorrow...

just thought it may be useful for people to understand why all of your posts are channeled to one aspect... crashing the price!

Good Luck tomorrow

For me this means that there is room for manoeuvre on the payout options... change in terms to LTIP and also increase in pot allocation either more money or bigger % all of which I am comfortable with... the big point for me is it passes nobody benefits from administration.

this for me doesn't mean another creditor vote it just means the terms are better for them.

ISA this was taken from your notes which I think backs up what you are saying:

Judge now discussing pennies in the pound in redress payments, starting with 10p in the £ but increasing with profit share. Says it is not his function to consider the merits of the scheme today. Notes the FCA do not support the scheme. Further notes that the letter concludes with the repetition that this should go to vote [to paraphrase]. FCA have not asked the court to step in at this stage.

That’s an easy one ginger it’s on the FOS website
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/search?Search=Amigo&Captcha=&Captcha_Timestamp=1621153047&action_sendSearchForm=Go

Just remember you will never get 100% turn out... Local election turn out was 35% you would be lucky to get even close to that when 2/3 of the audience are past customers so contact details will be out of date.