Member Info for Pupper

They went to millions of small 'investors'.

See what happened yesterday? That wasn't the big boys selling, and it wasn't them desperately spamming the board to ensure they reached a buy-back price.

Todays antics? Those that failed to re-buy at the bottom.

Bit odd innit? I can only guess.

Maybe having seen the overwhelming votes in favour on Tuesday, all those people who wanted a say realised they'd be spitting into the wind and decided not to attend?

As I said tho; no idea really.

The big thing for me is the values.
£241 million in redress, representing less than 8% of possible claimants.

They have a job to do. They will try to argue for more in the redress pot and a fairer outcome for creditors.

I think the arguments you've made will be used in defence of stake/shareholders, and Amigo will add some more value to the redress pot.

The RNA says they WILL be in court (represented by counsel) to argue their position.

Heh, just made a similar post, same title.

As long as Amigo can show they did everything practical to notify as many people as possible I don't see it being a problem.

FCA WILL be in represented court btw.

Amgo have been banging on about 700,00 past customers, and 300,000 current customers who may be owed redress.

That's a potential 1,000,000 claims. This is the figure I've been using for my worst case calculations.

Only 79,816 people will have voted by the end of the creditors meeting on the 12th.

I'm surprised by this low number given the effort Amigo have alledgedly put in to contact all past customers.

What does it mean? Well it doesn't preclude the non-voters from submitting a claim after (if) the scheme is approved up until the cut-off date, but I'm wondering if we can use it to guage the levels of people likely to claim after ignoring their right to vote with a few website clicks.

IF only those who voted actually make a claim, our offered redress package looks 10x better than I've been calculating.

What do you think?

If you thought you had a claim, would you have passed up the opportunity to vote on the scheme?

They always had concerns about fairness. They were always going to argue for a better deal for customers. We knew this months ago.
Negotiations are expected.

Have another read.

The FCA WILL argue against the scheme in court on the 19th. They will not attend the creditors meeting on the 12th.

"You’re correct in one thing, you're no expert."

Ooh, niceties in retreat!

Yes dear chap, I actually said that in my last post, so at least you read that bit.

"Their cash in Dec 2020 was £489m . They drew down £70m in bonds in Feb and now their cash level is £575m.

I have no idea how you find that so difficult to understand."

Jesus, you are now trying to obfuscate the issue I presented. Even in your quote the maths don't even vaguely tie up, and you want to know why it's difficult to understand. I won't go through it again because you failed to comprehend or address it the first time.

THIS is why I said you are evasive. You don't want to discuss these topics you just want to spout your opinion of them over and over and ignore any input that does't fit.

A fact sort of underlined by your last 2 posts to this thread.

Hey c26,

"Cash balance of £575m I took from the Q1 statement, that’s up from circa £490m because they drew down £70m of new bonds.
I was warning about cash burn, because they burned through £500m of it in under 12 months. "

As stated I'm no expert, but we interpret this differently. From Q1 results:

· Improved cash position of £575m (December 2020: £489m) included £77m gross proceeds from new notes issued in March; Net debt of £723m (December 2020: £727m)

So they didn't take on £77m debt at 10.5% when they had £550m in cash. They took on that debt after 3 months cash burn (minimum £125m according to you) from £489m. £364m?. I mean, it's not ideal, but it's a less eyebrow-raising ratio than you are suggesting.

Add the £77m = £441m. Someone has snuck an extra £134m into the cash pot somewhere?

Maybe these snippets from Q1 results help explain that...

· Wholesales[1] more than doubled as delivered to meet demand, DBX represented 55% of units

· Revenue increased 153% to £224m principally due to wholesale growth and stronger pricing dynamics as dealer GT/Sport stock reduced as planned

· Project Horizon transformation well underway

Revenue is up, costs are being reduced, Net debt is down slightly. I'm happy things are heading in the right direction for now.

"3 shares for £1 means nothing. A share at 1p can hold much more value than one at £100., it’s not a metric you should ever use to calculate value imho."

Really? The value of a share means nothing? So I can't use it as a metric to judge the perceived value of a company? Seems off. Anyway, it was just a "Ner ner; inB4 Stroll!" type brag really.

Honestly, my first thought when I saw the price was...if there was an offer at the supermarket checkout for physical paper "Aston Martin shares 3 for £1" I would definitely buy some just to say I owned a part of one of the worlds most iconic car companies before it's demise. It just seemed silly at the time.

That's what began my investigations and eventual investment, rather than being the only metric in play. Can't stop laughing at the idea though so cheers for that!

"I have praised the company when I feel it is due, you can check, But I detest misinformation and correct it whenever I see it, and take all the abuse going, without saying a negative bad word about anyone on here."

I know, you're a rock. A bastion of resilience and Christian posting. However, as shown above, we interpret these results slightly differently. Which one of us is mis-informing the board? Not suggesting it's you btw, just saying. I'm happy to see your stuff, but I'd rather not see this list of financial negatives making an appearance in reponse to every positive or hopeful thread we see until your next perceived big negative issue.

"The last year? ..stroll bonds etc "
HAAAAAAAHAhahahahahaha! I love it! True to the role if nothing else!
I feel like it's all gone rather well for AML this year. I've made a lot of money. I didn't exp

Fairly simple c26, you make me think because I need to satisfy myself that you're just fearmongering again, and then when questioned about it you're evasive etc. I realise 'questioned about your position' was a poor choice of phrase; I only meant the position you take in posts, rather than your shareholding position.

Here for example you provided a list of percieved financial negatives we should be talking about like there's a big issue I've missed, but it comes down to:

"Taking on expensive debt when you have over £550m cash in so insane that the only reasoning I could come up with is far-fetched to say the least."

"Now you're asking for a link to my facetious comment?"
Genuinely had no idea sorry.

"You realise companies can set up bond debt and then not draw on it?"

Yep as I alluded to earlier, but why would they? As soon as it was announced I considered it drawn.

With regard then to WHY they would do this you don't seem happy with my response, but that's honestly as I see it at a basic level. I'm not a financial or business analyst and use fairly simple metrics for my investments. I've run small companies but would undoubtedly founder if you put me in charge of AML or any other listed company. For this reason I have to do my research, make a judgement that the management team know what they're doing and have a little faith.

But just as an aside really, 3 months cash burn from £489m in Dec(not sure where your £550m comes from). What would that be? Weren't you warning us about this a while ago?

"I question everything, and am open to discuss everything. Discussing the negatives stops one getting emotionally involved. Something most on here fail miserably at."

Aah! Now I know this is against the rules, but whether I like it or not I AM emotionally invested here.

I didn't buy AML for any other reason than the brand, and that's what brands are isn't it; an emotional attachment? Didn't buy cos I had faith in Stroll (may even have been before he took over), or Moers, or anyone else. I bought because Aston Martin is a historic british brand that will endure (and the shares were 3 for £1).

I may not be alone with that motivation, and let's face it; we're ALL emotionally attached to our money which we've invested here. It's difficult to read your stuff most of the time, and I understand (although don't approve of) the emotional reactions that you receive. A lot of your concerns are not within my field of knowledge, and require me to learn new things in order to satisfy myself that your concerns are far less of a concern for me. Perhaps a slight re-tone of your posting style to take this into account would encourage readers to engage and discusss and perhaps provide some small re-assurances to the things you're concerned about.

If you're open to discuss everything; I'd love to hear your general opinions of how the last year has gone. You've been consistently negative for most of that time, but the share price h

Yeah, I gave you that very general reason as I've learned not to invest too much time explaining things to people who aren't really looking for an answer.
Frankly, the only reason you're not filtered is because you often cause me to investigate and sometimes re-evaluate my position. You say the stuff that people don't want to hear, but you are evasive, elusive and repetetive when questioned on your position, so it's not worth trying to engage in any detail.

Where's the director saying he wants some bond action? You suggested this as the reason AML took on more debt, so I'd like a look-see if poss please.

You're gonna need someone to look after all those dogs. My live-in rates are very reasonable.

Well I've kind of said why I think they took on more debt. I thought you had uncovered some treachery for a minute there.

This director quote; got a link?

Ooh I dunno! I feel like you're leading me somewhere exciting here though.

What do you think?

c24,
"Pupper, what does it matter when it was announced? It's the fact they need to draw them, that's important."

Did you think they were issued for fun, never to be used? They were in play since issue in my mind.

"Why do YOU think they took on MORE DEBT?"

Required funding to meet the long-term objectives of the business. What's your take on it? Are we in bed with crooks?

Hi Vinson, just adding the drama really. I wouldn't have posted had you not given us all a date for a TR-1, but now you have, so we'll all know either way shortly.

The comment about Vegas was a reference the last proposed party by a previous list promoter.

Damn 5000 sq.m of garden.

But...

Any dogs?

c26,
"AML drew down circa £77 MILLION in new notes in February, no-one seems to be talking about that. Why?"

Because these are the Senior Secured Notes announced via RNS toward the end of February. I made my trading decisions back then.

Did you not see that RNS?

"You can smell the fear throughout this BB"

*sniff sniff*
Smells like something else to me.

Peter, my apologies. You are correct, it was unnecessary.

thaw,
Fair comment. Didn't see it so much as an attack as it was just adding a bit of fuel for Vinsons Friday bonfire. Mea Culpa.

Ninjadude, cheers, not sure I've got the appetite for that much risk, but maybe I'll be wishing I did when this has all played out. Good luck.

Stevielad66,
Pooper!(x3) Ha! You're a clever one, I can tell.
Haven't done the maths, but have been here for a year and traded many times. Very happy with my returns.

Thaw, I haven't questioned the validity of any list members holdings claims. Why would I? It makes no difference to me how much anyone claims to hold. I'd be interested to hear what percentage AMGO represents in peoples portfolios, but that's about it, unless you hold enough to influence company votes.

I note your use of the phrase "some of the people on Vinson list are 100% legit LTHs", and I have no doubt that this is true. I believe ALL of them probably are, cos why the hell wouldn't I? Which ones aren't genuine?

As stated, AMGO represents ~2.5% of my portfolio. I have done very nicely here over the last year, and hope to do extremely well over the next. There is no de-ramp from me.

However, if you guys (general) believe that me guessing (just for the drama) that Vinson is not genuine will somehow detract from the share price, and feel the need to attack me as a de-ramper, well, that sort of implicates you. I'm fairly sure that if Vinson is genuine, he'll be loving this. He'll be grinning like a loon waiting to drop his RNS tomorrow and prove the naysayers wrong. It doesn't matter. I will gracefully acknowledge my overly-cynical incorrect guess.