Member Info for Mousekewitz

Just got an email about an RNS

viking, to be quite honest, I'm feeling kind of conned by the FCA, who pretended be ok with the scheme and the people who lend money should feel insulted by the FCA, for the FCA depicted them as some kind of morons, lacking the intellect to understand that they were doing. Right now I'm not quite sure what hacks me off more and I no longer believe that the FCA is operating in favour of consumers. As a shareholder, I class myself a consumer. Consumers tend by purchase something and in the case of shareholders that is shares. As a shareholder, however, I invest into a company, not into its customers. If I had wanted to give any Amigo customers some of my money, there would have been easier way to do that, without buying shares first. This comes across to me, as if the FCA have suddenly developed some form of Robin Hood Syndrome and it doesn't suit them, as what they are suggesting in respect of us shareholders, has nothing to do with true Robin Hoodism, but everything to do with Marxism and don't think they should entertain this highly questionable and dangerous political ideology.

Do I understand somebody is now suggesting to wipe off all the shares and distribute the money of the investors among the claimants???

It actually WAS the small furniture manufacturer in Westerstede, Germany.
"...In the UK, Steinhoff owns the high street brands Pep&Co, Poundland and Sleepmaster. ..."
So this could be the case that was referred to?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steinhoff_International

I think he's referring to this Steinhoff. I can't see he's talking about the small furniture manufacturer:
https://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/gauteng/steinhoff-scandal-is-clear-mismanagement-corruption-at-its-best-12311546

Especially for mark550 :-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gZX3Qk9Zpk

The name is program: Sly and on the hunt ;-) don't fall for the trap.

I really like your style, Xeilance :-) "to infinity and beyond" . I am so impressed how the SP has been holding up since the FCA Announcement. The sun is still out, time to go for a walk on the beach to clear my head and for waves to convince me that I'm not totally mad. Perhaps I even take a dip :-)

Maybe because publicising the letter, may have looked as if they are trying to undermine the FCA? Might not have gone down with the judge too well either. The author of the letter making it public is their decision, nothing to do with Amigo and Amigo couldn't have stopped them.

If the FCA are after the shareholders stumping up it would open another can of worms. What type of shareholders are they talking about? The shareholders who bought in when the SP was in Pounds an who have lost a lot, probably having sold in a panic with huge loss? The shareholders during the time of the old board, when the mis-selling took place or the ones, to which I belong, who have bought in after Amigo ran into problems and after they stopped lending? This will cause yet another problem, as many of us have bought batches of shares with different SPs, some got sold for a profit, then top-ups as the SP sank. Oh.. and then there is the issue with the dividends. I never received any, but people who were invested when Amigo was operating did. Oh and aren't profits through selling shares subject to capital gains tax? Did I mention 'fairness'? I'm sure I did, but just in case I haven't: "FAIRNESS!!!" ;-)
If I was a judge, I would make the FCA eat the paper they have drafted their suggestion on in public, unless they provide me with a fair solution to all of the above, which is probably only a fraction of the problems this bizarre idea would cause. Starting with: "How are they going to contact all of the shareholders in the UK and abroad?"

Cahoonas? :-) Does that mean Hollyhocks? Even though I don't have either, I bought into that dip (far too high) but I know that many others did top up. I'm off to bed. Did do a lot of work in the garden and suffered oxygen shock.

I know, Magpies :-) and I don't trade often. I usually just buy shares and forget about them. But Amigo is different. Soon after I bought it, it felt like having a loved one in intensive care :-)

Yes, LTL that's the ones :D and don't forget the hired Lambo and the money gun ;-) "I became a millionaire at the age of 19, blabla :-) " or "School is rubbish, you don't need it to become a millionaire". The latter always strikes me a bit strange, most millionaires I have met had a degree is something.

Bora, wasn't the protection for consumer, in case they fall on circumstances that renders them unable to pay you loan or mortgage, so they don't completely default, Payment Protection Insurance? ;-)

I watched a video on youtube a couple of weeks ago. The guy who runs the channel is picking on these investment gurus, the ones that claim to teach you how to trade, if you buy into their courses. It's hilarious. There was this guy, who after completing a course went:
"Then I bought this stock that was really cheap and after I bought it it went down, so I sold. Then it went it up again, so I bought again. Then I went down, so I sold again..."

Yes, mario and when they have maneouvered themselves into a ditch, then the sensible ones are being hit with the 'solidarity whip' to get them out. What a culture.

But... InsiderKnowledge, the current team is trying their hardest to fix what the previous team screwed up. Why should they contribute anything? And the FCA didn't say "The Directors" the FCA said 'stake/shareholder' and that is everybody who invested, but what winds me up since they came out with this is that they didn't even give as much as a hint in regards what they think this should look like. As result this SP started tanking. I'm actually impressed that their brainfart didn't have a much more detrimental effect on the stock.

The FCA suddenly thought the shareholders should contribute out of fairness, blablabla... but they didn't say exactly how and that I find absolutely disgusting! I hate to be left stabbing in the dark and suddenly be confronted having to solve other peoples circumstances. I have invested money into this share, because Amigo is a business that ran into problems, but there is a chance it can get fixed and my investment is the money I 'lend' to Amigo to help them getting the business back on track. In return.. well... that's exactly what I'm hoping for, a return. That's totally legal and legitimate. Let me repeat this: I have invested into a business, not into a hat the FCA wants to pass around to put donations into.

Asbh, not sure about anyone else, but my 'fair share and contribution' is the money I have invested here. I don't tend to make donations to people who may have exaggerated their financial circumstances. The next thing the FCA comes up with, is that all shareholders should be classed as guarantors, or what? ;-)

I've been running this through my head over and over again. The FCA must have known, that Amigo has shareholders, so why did they not raise there feeling of us not contributing enough in their opinion (even though I have no idea what this could possibly look like and never heard such a suggestion in my life).
I can't remember what the SP was at the time of the first court hearing and if JPM, Bybrook and Evil Knievel were already involved. The SP went up quite a lot prior to the FCA dropping something similar to a bomb. So I wonder if the increase of the SP and the involvement of the above mentioned may have something to do with them suddenly wanting the shareholder to contribute out of fairness.

All the talk about a take-over made me have a couple of nightmares, btw. Thanks for that ;-)