Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
The account manager role is their collections agent role.
The developer role is reasonable positive - which I’ve said already.
Why do you think the finance roles suggest positivity?
The last people left if it goes tits up will be finance and collections….
Stevie - how are these positions a response to anything the FCA have said?
I think it's more likely that some senior finance people have left and they obviously need finance resource atm. They have accounts to re-do and release in an incredibly short amount of time, a new SOA to get through (with some financials that show the SOA is needed this time, preferably).
The advertising of these roles is neutral, not positive or negative.
If we say them calling for marketing, or BDM, roles then I'd agree it was positive.
You're stretching it a bit IMO
"They was lending to key workers all the way through covid"
At the start they were.
Unless COVID is no longer with us, they weren't lending to key workers "all the way through COVID"
I was joking with my last comment obviously, it's just frustrating.
The old business model was lucrative, but I can’t see they can return to that.
They clearly weren’t lending to unaffordable customers en masse like is being portrayed, but that’s how it’s being portrayed.
It looks like they can’t lend to people who may one day become unaffordable - that’s a weird rule to try and fathom an approach to.
Let’s just assume for one minute that to protect themselves they need to request bank statements from every applicant, like many mortgage brokers require. How many amigo customers won’t have anything on that statement that couldn’t be used as evidence of unaffordability (based on the ridiculously low bar) later down the line.
I think their biggest mistake was not accepting fault tbh. I didn’t necessarily think that at the time, but the worse this gets, the more Judicial Review feels like it was the option to take.
Fingers crossed for us all that they get soa2 approved and start relending in some way, but the fca need to be realistic here.
I’m not going to stick money in for a raise to pay claimants that I don’t believe were treated unfairly, without any reassurance of the regulator playing fairly in the future, anymore than any other holder is.
The fca approved their processes when they authorised them. I’ve heard they also went through a section 166 some time around IPO time. They effectively let over a billion pounds of private investor and pension fund money get invested in this business before changing the rules and applying them retrospectively.
It’s an absolute mess and anyone claiming the FCA have acted fairly or competently is a lunatic.
Out of interest SR - do you not think there is likely to be any share dilution? Either to fund an increased pot for claims or to raise capital to get us relending?
Or was it just the 2p claim you're objecting to (If so I also think 2p is a little drastic as if we end up with dilutions that will only be alongside positive news e.g. a successful scheme and announcement of probable relending) but seems like at least one dilution is going to have to happen.
100% agree. ISA was an absolute hero.
The fact others on this board were able to get onto the court case, but ignored his pleas to help with coverage was disappointing. The ridiculous questions PIs were asking at the end (using up our counsel’s summary time) pushed him over the edge and we’ve barely seen him since.
A true shame.