Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
MPO818
Agree history repeats itself, it was Lloyds who first set the precedent and opened up the floodgates to the PPI mis - selling scandel compensation payments.
"Not good for those selling out last week at lower levels to then see an increasing price - Ouch"
you really know how to take a bait ,and expose yourself for what you are ,do you really think that those of us who have been holding these @ an ave of 35p since covid ,really sold them when we will get nearly 3 x 1.84 to each pound if we hold till ex div ,you really are ill and perhaps the stock market isnt the place for your mental condition if you think taking the rise is good fun and posting
Lti
"Cars were sold LEGITIMATELY under what was allowed at the time.
There is now a chance that a false 'scandal' will be created with new rules being applied retrospectively to override what was previously allowed. THERE IS NO SCANDAL."
I agree with that. It seems the number of claims that have been received since the 2019 final findings from the FCA has panicked them into what they are doing now. I will be disappointed if Lloyds do not challenge any decision by the FCA where they impose a requirement for large scale blanket compensation on the lenders.
Share price now up to last years average buyback price.
It would be beneficial for long term holders for the 2024 buyback to be conducted at the lowest possible price.
Not good for those selling out last week at lower levels to then see an increasing price - Ouch
FCA - MARCH 2019
''In the light of consultation feedback and the additional operational pressures which the sector is facing at present the FCA has agreed to give firms limited additional time to implement the new rules, with the ban coming into force on 28 January 2021.''
And there have been some here, thinking that pay rises/bonuses are certain, simply by just having a share buyback
''Our work on motor finance – final findings''
MARCH 2019
FCA then LATER changed the rules (and not necessarily an improvement for a car purchaser)
sk1
Don't bury your head in in sand.
Cars were sold LEGITIMATELY under what was allowed at the time.
There is now a chance that a false 'scandal' will be created with new rules being applied retrospectively to override what was previously allowed. THERE IS NO SCANDAL.
I agree with most of the comments on here, one would expect any buyer with half a brain to shop around for the best deal.
LLOY has imo made a big mistake in creating the £450k provision, with Close Bros doing similar passing their dividend.
This will depress the sector now until the September outcome, potentially dragging on for months thereafter.
'RichieRich78 - You're a bit confused.
The issue wasn't staff not wanting to work, it was staff not wanting to be forced into a minimum amount of time in an office.'
Boohoo, the boss of the company that pays their wages has decided that staff sitting on their fat a r s e at home stuffing pringles and whining about the toreeeeees on twitter is not good value for money.
And if they don't like it, fck off somewhere else
Nope.
The phrase "discretion to increase the cost of finance" is just a cloak-word for hidden fees and overcharging. That is why the FCA is looking into it. Don't bury your head in in sand.
Mararab......"Then surley the Salesperson of the car showroom is at fault as he is misleading the customer not the lender . Who is acutally responsable for this the car company or the lender . To me its a person selling the finance therefore the car sales company . Thoughts"
The broker/dealership are responsible for disclosing the nature of any commission in the fees, and if asked by the customer, must say how much. However, the FCA say that the lender must ensure that the broker/dealership are complying with this requirement.
• In particular, brokers must disclose the existence of any commission or other financial arrangement with a lender which could affect the broker’s impartiality in promoting a particular product or impact on the customer’s decision-making. Such disclosure should be clear and readily comprehensible. In addition, the broker must disclose the amount (or likely amount) upon request.
• Lenders also have obligations in this area. In particular, CONC 1.2.2R requires lenders to take reasonable steps to ensure that persons acting on their behalf comply with CONC. This includes compliance with rules relating to disclosure of commission. However, while in principle the way lenders told us they frame their controls appeared broadly reasonable, we have doubts as to whether and to what extent these are always implemented in practice. Our work suggests that some lenders may be unduly reliant on contractual requirements and the provision of standard documentation and procedures, and may not monitor brokers sufficiently closely or act where issues are found. We were particularly concerned that some lenders appear to take the view that it is sufficient that a broker is FCA-authorised, as it can be assumed that they will be compliant with FCA rules (as the FCA will monitor compliance).
https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/multi-firm-reviews/our-work-on-motor-finance-final-findings.pdf
Sk1
I think you are missing the point. There was discretion to lower the cost of a car , counteracted by an increased interest/commission rate payable, to enable the customer/dealer to make the purchase/sale. There is no scandal to see.
Banks and car dealers in the 2000s, 2010s and early 2020s were often charging interest rates in the 5-15% range... at a time when a normal unsecured personal loan was running around the 2-10% level... That is why the FCA is investigating.
Clearly sums it up - As I have said, there is no scandal. It is up now to the FCA whether or not to create a false scandal. Totally outrageous if they decide to do so.
Hounddog10
"I also hope, if there has to be redress, the FCA learns from PPI and stops an open-ended free for all. So time limit to claim eg two years and eg requiring claims companies to put up deposits for each claim only refundable if the claim is successful."
FCA: Impact of the pause on the 3- and 6-year time limits
2.32 DISP 2.8.2R(2) provides that the Financial Ombudsman also cannot consider a complaint if the complainant refers it to it more than:
• 6 years after the event complained of, or (if later)
• 3 years from the date on which the complainant became aware (or ought
reasonably to have become aware) that they had cause for complaint, unless
• the complainant referred the complaint to the firm or to the Financial Ombudsman within that period and has a written acknowledgement or some other record of the complaint having been received
2.33 We are not making any changes to DISP 2.8.2R(2). If a complainant is concerned about these time limits expiring, they should complain to the firm and ensure they get written acknowledgement of their complaint having been received. This will stop the time limits for the purposes of DISP 2.8.2R(2). Our rules do not prevent a complaint from being made to the firm during the period the pause is in place.
Now the Housebuilders take hit from CMA concerns, you cant win invested in the UK
@ RichieRich78 - You're a bit confused.
The issue wasn't staff not wanting to work, it was staff not wanting to be forced into a minimum amount of time in an office.
Hardup : so itys the sales person not actually showing the customer hidden fees on the finance package
Hooky61b : so you are saying its the car dealers fault not the lender ?
Someone asked about share issues for Lloyds’s various share schemes. Past issuance can be found in note 40 (page 301) of the Accounts.
2023 668m shares
2022. 794m
2021 183m
As another person said, the block listings RNS also help. The block listings are, however, just listing the shares and not issuing and allotting them (which will come later). At 31 December 2023, across the five share schemes, Lloyds had block listed 819m shares which were available for issue and allotment (RNS - ‘Replacement Block listing Interim Review on 20 Feb at 2.05 pm. They seem to struggle to get these Block Listing RNSs accurate as that was their third attempt).
Of course they could block list and issue and allot more shares in the year but likely the opening 31 December 2023 position is indicative of what they will issue this year.
Skier1
"The car-finance scandal is about (allegedly) inflated and hidden loan fees."
If fee's were inflated, what was the standard rate which should have been applied? No one dealership/finance provider charge the same rates, it is up to the consumer to shop around for the best rate.
The cars are probably cheeper,the the sales person gets his profit on the finance
now they will sell at higher price and probly all finance will be higher for everyone
The car-finance scandal is about (allegedly) inflated and hidden loan fees. Well done to Martin Lewis for bringing it to popular attention.
The EU goaded Ukraine to join the EU, in direct breach of international law! The EU is as guilty as the US and UK of starting the war in Ukraine.
Under Trump, no new wars started. Under Biden, wars are popping up worldwide like mushrooms. Biden has lost control of the world. Trump has the power and reputation to stop those wars and bring stability back to the world.
UK is no.2 in NATO and still a major world power. One of only 4-5 countries on the planet still with global warfare and cyber capabilities.
If i was going to buy a car and buying on finance is not the car dealer responsability to get the best finance for its customer. So if the car salesperson has options to get financeand he makes more out of commision selling a finance package that suits the salesman not the customer . Then surley the Salesperson of the car showroom is at fault as he is misleading the customer not the lender . Who is acutally responsable for this the car company or the lender . To me its a person selling the finance therefore the car sales company . Thoughts