Member Info for Senator1

Yes I know but that is the best possible two dates. If you look at p.17 and go from March to Dec it is £13.33m average per month and that fits with p.16 cashflow where £119.5M was repaid (thats the securitisation facility) in 9 months. This will be getting harder as time goes on and thats why I think circa £10m a more realistic estimate, so by June I still think £60-70m drawings.
On the cashflow chart presented to HC you have to bear in mind they presented all cash collections and remember that only the securitisation pool of assets repays the securitisation debt.

You can see from cashflow statement that just over one third of collections are on the securitisation pool (120/314). So at 30m monthly collections and declining about 10 pays the securitisation so it wont be paid down by June from the £112m at Dec/20. If there is an event of default on any secured loan before Jan 2024 the secured lenders can take control through administration by putting their accountants in control of the collection process. Given what the FCA counsel said about using the secured cash for more negotiation this risk should not be overlooked.

Only cashflows from the securitisation pool repays securitisation facility. Nobody knows the breakdown of the source of the cashflow. You definitely can't assume all cashflow comes from securitisation pool if that wre case Amigo couldnt even afford to pay the operating expenses plus the ssecuritisation pool is the smaller of the two secured pools.

1.) Who says it will be repaid by June, nobody knows that. We know it was £112m at Dec
2.) Needed for the bal adjustments which Amigo said would be done in full
3.) Its £165M, FCA GUESSED £180m now
4.) That's not correct

At the moment there is only £165-180M so they cant get it all back and that is why they will just sit there and wait for the required collections to build this pot and agree to nothing and refuse all requests for meetings. My focus would be getting a fixed charge on a good part of the cash in the interim rather than the floating but in any event I would formally notify the Board they need to be very careful spending that cash as if there is a shortfall in Jan 2024 I would regard them as responsible, personally.

very few secured bond holders will sell. They can see the £165M which as FCA speculated as probably gone to Stg 180m or so, thats 77% of whats owed to them and this will grow further as collections are made and remember Amigo showed HC it will get to £235M by Jan 2024. They are sitting in a good place and all the time collecting their 7.625%. You cant get the bonds, a million here and there but basically nothing. They can do the maths its not hard. There is no way a HC will overturn fixed and floating charges they are fundamental to commercial law in the UK and if anything was attempted it would be chaos. If I was a Secured lender I would have no dialogue with Amigo other than to tell them where to make payments to.

They will extend, for one good reason. They are getting all the cashflows on their pool already this is what Amigo had to give to get their extension. They get nothing new by not extending but have extra costs because at the moment Amigo do the collections at shareholders expense. If the lenders don't extend they take control at their expense which is an unsecured claim against Amigo.

There is no way a secured lender will contribute anything. Why should they, what's in it for them? Anything they contribute is likely a loss. They are not charities

The last we know was the securitisation drawings were circa £110M. Not all collections are on the securitisation pool and in fact this is the smaller of the two secured pools and I doubt very much whether it is near zero as you allege. The probability that all collections are from one pool is probably zero so the covenant matters. The pot for the secured sterling bond is already £165m at last accounts so what are you talking about saying they are starting? I have a very strong sense that you understand very little about Amigo

Yes, they don't like the sector and what they really want but wont say publicly, is they are determined to kill it once and for all. Thats why I think they have to make the unlimited commitment and that makes it hard for the FCA and shows up their real agenda if this not approved. I would add that Amigo should pay interest on any valid claims not settled after year 4 then even the time value of money argument goes away. The Court only has to be satisfied that it is reasonable and there is no coercion. Cant get more reasonable than agreeing to pay all valid claims and late payment interest if it takes them a while. The argument on supporting 15% is that the commitment is on the accounting pre tax profit not the available cash at the pre-tax level which will be much lower due to the secured lenders secured position. What I mean by that is Amigo may well report an accounting profit on the securitised pool of assets but the cash wont be available as it is diverted to those lenders. Amigo didn't even attempt to explain this, same applies re the Secured Bond

The Board should be feeling very embarrassed by the recent court ruling so their confidence will be low so they could make another stupid decision for sure. They cant realistically increase the upfront cash given their cash flow submission to the Court but they can increase the length of time for the 15% of future profit contribution. given the first fiasco I think they have to make commitment till all judged claims are met. To not even try this would show them up as ........(I don't really want to say what this says to me) rather than foolish, out of their depth and naive. However they may just want this embarrassment to end and so if you are communicating with Amigo the SIMPLE message I would give them, pay the 15% of future pre-tax profits until the valid claims are met but ask that if the case is being led by a CMC they should be obligated to pay some of the application cost without charging back to their clients so as to deter the time wasters.

I doubt very much they presented one year old projections to high court. I dont think they are quite that bad!

The deal is Amigo presented to the High Court a cashflow schedule showing that they are just able to repay the £234m Bond in Jan 2024 by putting £15m in the claimants pot upfront. If they put £30m or £60m in they cant do it and they would be sued by the Secured Bondholders if not stopped. This is the real problem faced by the Board, by their OWN projections they dont have the spare cash

yes to June 25th. Operationally there is no difference to them as the waiver was BOUGHT by Amigo agreeing they get all cashflows. Why would they not extend? If there is any overlap between the securitisation lenders and bond holding would be one good reason, reputational damage by association with the Amigo circus, loss of confidence in Amigo mgmt as if they legally put it in lockdown their people take control of executing the run down. Those are some possible reasons but the point is not whether they will or will not, it is the uncertainty created. Amigo cant build when those lending £100m are rolling approvals for 3 months at a time. Court didn't even discuss this and thats why I think this is the blind leading the blind.

In the context in which i said it, the securitistion lenders

ultimately blame is Amigo board not the hired help although you would expect a lawyer to be strong on the technical legal position on the financing. Nobody knows what the securitsation lenders will do with their waiver or we would have an RNS. This in itself casts doubt and the fact that they are exiting the financing by only agreeing to waiver if they get all cashflows on their security pool. You only have to follow the money to know what is really going on. the fact the court, Dicker or FCA didn't understand this and discuss it in detail is a shambles but opens them all up to suits of gross negligence and incompetence if this goes under plus the Amigo Board

The Bond is precisely £234m its on the bal sheet so no debate or guesses needed. It has an annual coupon of 7.625% if I remember right with annual pay. If that coupon goes to the holders who have the rights to the £165m cash this isnt an issue at all as only an idiot would stop their cash being paid to themselves. The issue is can these guys find a way to accelerate or stop the cash moving with a fixed charge. The securitisation facility is already effectively in run down by agreement rather than legally. The £234m bondholders will hate fact the other main secured lender is exiting and they will HATE what the FCA brief said about using their cash. That's why this decision has been such a disaster as its based on ignorance. The only upside is shareholders and the claimants will have a strong legal case against the FCA as their brief was very irresponsible in persuading the court there is no problem with cash or time. As far as I am concerned since that day FCA are underwriting all losses as it is a matter of public record what they said in the HC which was factually wrong

You don't know what you are talking about that's not the way securitisation works. If the waiver not extended the facility just goes in run down with all cash going to senior holders. There is no such thing as Amigo having to pay £100m it just doesn't work like that nor does any securitisation. This is exactly the current position as the waiver was obtained by getting all the cashflows during the waiver period. The significance of not extending the waiver is legal not operational in the sense of the linkages to the £235m sterling bond and whether these guys can accelerate or tighten their floating charge on £165m of cash. If that happens things get very serious and thats why the FCA counsel clearly did not understand exactly how Amigo is financed and why their may be urgency. It all depends on what those bondholders are allowed to do if the waiver not extended. There is absolutely no possibility of Amigo been asked for £100 odd million, securitisations just dont work like that

or to put it less politely plain wrong

your forgetting entirely about the 49.99% accrued but unpaid interest on net loans plus as an aside you don't calculate loan repayments on the net numbers. Your numbers are way out