...and even worse is the no win no fee strategy which guarantees...

...and even worse is the no win no fee strategy which guarantees unquantifiable returns in the future while paying out continual overheads on the hope of recovery.


Just my opinion ....SGH should have two separate arms (separate listings)

Arm 1 - Slater and Gordon Cashflow Fund

Raises capital, provides cash flow funding to Arm 2 at a rate as needed.
Investors get percentage of returns by way of divvy etc
Charges over Arm 2's assets etc
**Could also provide funding to other businesses requiring short term cash flow funding (ROI) for shareholders ie Not self reliant on the SGH law firm only

Arm 2 - Slater and Gordon the law firm

Holds the assets (files)
Does the work

**Clients are on a pay as you go agreement rather than a no win no fee.

Example:
SGH estimate costs in the order of $20,000
Client has no money, but can afford $1000 month over 20 months.
Client is allowed to do this under loan agreement at x% p.a plus a success fee.

This frees up cash flow, SGH are now suddenly receiving a recurring payment.

Explanation to client:

No Win No Fee companies can take 25-30%+ of your (let's call them winnings)
We don't do that, instead we put you on a payment plan you can afford, and for that we reduce our own success fee to say 5% of 10%.

Client is charged a %rate let's say 15%p.a as its more or less an unsecured PL.

Explanation between arm 1 and arm 2

So Arm 1 pays Arm 2's costs monthly based on each file alone at a cost of say 10%p.a
Arm 2 , has agreement with client to pay $XAmount/month at 15%p.a interest.

Arm 2 receives a loan payment from Arm 1 as required and pays 10% interest but receives 15% on the other side, so in effect, should make circa 5% on each dollar borrowed from arm 2, plus any success fee.


Would this option appeal to clients or would you lose too many that have no funds to pay?

Anyway, just a thought or how it could work coming from a financial background.