Member Info for 67Sam

Adewins

"I personally think the SC will overrule and the share price will be £1 + by Xmas and we will finally get another special dividend , but am I dreaming ?"

Yes, I think you are. My guess is there is absolutely zero chance of a special dividend and share price will be 85p tops, in the extremely unlikely event of a pro lender outcome.

Adewins

I made several posts here about the car fiasco, see yesterday at 4 Jul 2025 18:52 and also similar on CBG board. I had a few replies on CBG, but nothing back from this board. It didn't surprise me. There aren't that many different regular posters here, but the ones we have dont half go on about immigration and politics, which is fair enough. Im not criticising them, but it's not always that relevant to Lloyds so not of any help to a Lloyds investor.

So I turned to AI in my search for opinions on the SC outcome and I thought the response was very good. I am expecting the "balanced outcome" of partially overturning the CoA decision to be the most likely. Of course, the Lloyds share price is likely to crash - because it always does - plus we have Trump tariffs restarting, as well as Lloyds interim results this month. So I expect it to be volatile, but I feel more positive that we wont be faced with a PPI sized bill. The pro consumer decision of upholding the CoA would lead to contagion in other sector's and ultimately it would make it harder and more expensive to obtain car finance. This is not the best outcome for the consumer and there was (imho) no real harm caused to anyone. But if they were not informed at all about commission they will probably get compensated for it.

Fwiw, I recently sold out of LBG as its my biggest holding. Then I changed my mind and bought back in. I figure it might get ugly in the short term, but it wont substantially change Lloyds long term strategy of increasing dividends and reducing the share count. It will be interesting to see if the market reacts when the "future judgement" is announced, or if the share price will just collapse on the day the judgement is handed down. I also continue to hold CBG.

Heres what it had to say about the impact of Option 2 on CBG and LBG share price:

"A balanced Supreme Court outcome partially overturning the Court of Appeal would significantly reduce financial and operational risks for Lloyds Banking Group and Close Brothers. Lloyds could see a 5-10% share price increase (e.g., 55p to 58-60p) due to lower provisions and restored lending confidence, with its diversified business cushioning residual risks. Close Brothers, more exposed to motor finance, could experience a 15-25% share price rally (e.g., 330p to 400-420p) as it resumes lending and releases provisions, though its smaller size makes it more sensitive to regulatory outcomes. Both banks would benefit from clarity and reduced liability, but share price upside could be constrained by FCA actions or market conditions. Investors should monitor the judgment (expected July 2025 or later) and FCA announcements for further clarity."

Having thought about this today, my money is on Option 2. I'm trusting Grok and I'm holding on to my LBG shares.

Option 1 would be completely destabilising for the car finance sector and it would also set a precedent for many other sectors. Grok says these include "personal loans, credit cards, retail finance (e.g., for furniture, electronics, or home improvements), mortgage broking, buy-to-let financing, bridging loans, general insurance (e.g., car, home, travel), life insurance, health insurance, wealth management, pension advice, investment broking, buy-now-pay-later (BNPL) schemes, in-store credit, online retail finance, holiday finance, timeshare agreements, travel agency credit arrangements, energy comparison services and utility contract brokers."

Grok's conclusion:

"A pro-consumer Supreme Court ruling upholding the Court of Appeal would significantly impact sectors beyond motor finance, particularly consumer finance, mortgages, insurance, investment services, retail financing, travel, and energy. Any industry relying on intermediaries who receive commissions without full transparency could face increased scrutiny, liability, and claims for historical practices. The extent of the impact would depend on how broadly the Court applies fiduciary and disinterested duties and whether it aligns common law with existing regulatory frameworks. Firms in these sectors should prepare for potential compliance changes and consumer claims, while monitoring the FCA’s response and the judgment’s final wording, expected in July 2025 or later."

I dont think they will want all that to happen!

Option 3 would be absolutely fantastic, but is extremely unlikely.

Right, I'll let you all get back to bollatics now.

B

"It seems damned unfair to me."

Yes and to me, as well.

I bet every single person who bought a car on a DCA was grinning from ear to ear when they drove it off the forecourt.

M

"It’s not the SC’s job, though, to worry about any resulting economic consequences. That’s the job of the Government."

I agree, it is. But I suspect these things are more blurred than black and white. If Option 1 means a total lender meltdown and the only finance available to buy a card would be at credit card level rates, that isn't a good outcome for the consumer. Particularly if the mortgage market then crumbles because lenders have to prioritise repaying £30B over lending. And thats just in the car sector. Option 1 is problematic as it would set precedents for many other sector's as well.

I may be wrong, but I'm not sure that making law in these matters is like maths, where there is only one correct answer. I expect they have choices over how to interpret it all and may seek a pragmatic outcome that benefits the consumer without destroying the market (Option 2)

I hope so, otherwise Option 1 is going to sink any prospects for Lloyds and Close Bros. I think Option 3 belongs to the land of dreams, though obviously is the one I would like to see! And in reality, who was actually harmed by any of this? They all had choices where to buy cars. Car dealers sell cars, they aren't best interest advisors.

1) Uphold the Court of Appeal- a pro consumer outcome

The Court could affirm that dealers owe fiduciary and/or disinterested duties, requiring full disclosure and informed consent for commissions. Lenders would remain liable for secret commissions (as primary wrongdoers) or inadequate disclosures (as accessories). This would align with precedents like Plevin and reinforce consumer protections, potentially leading to a wave of claims and a redress scheme akin to the PPI scandal (estimated costs up to £30bn). This outcome would likely find insufficient disclosure creates unfair relationships under the Consumer Credit Act, enabling remedies like rescission or compensation

2) Partially Overturn the Court of Appeal - a balanced outcome

The Court might narrow the scope of duties, ruling that dealers owe a disinterested duty but not necessarily a fiduciary one unless a clear agency relationship exists. This could limit lender liability to cases of fully secret commissions, reducing the scope of claims. The Court could also clarify that FCA regulations set sufficient disclosure standards, avoiding retroactive liability for pre-2021 practices. This would mitigate industry disruption while still addressing egregious non-disclosures.

3) Fully Overturn the Court of Appeal - a pro-lender outcome.

Less likely, the Court could rule that dealers, as commercial entities, owe no fiduciary or disinterested duties beyond regulatory requirements, and that commission payments do not constitute bribery. This would significantly reduce lender liability and align with the appellants’ argument that historical practices were lawful. Such an outcome would limit consumer remedies and could prompt the FCA to tighten regulations to prevent future issues.

It predicted 2) as the most likely:

The Supreme Court is likely to lean toward a balanced outcome, recognizing some form of duty (likely a disinterested duty) owed by dealers but refining the Court of Appeal’s broad application of fiduciary obligations and the tort of bribery. The Court may emphasize the need for adequate disclosure to negate secrecy, aligning with consumer protection principles but avoiding overly punitive remedies that destabilize the industry. It could also provide guidance on remedies, favouring commission refunds over automatic rescission to avoid windfall gains for consumers. This approach would address the FCA’s concerns about legal gaps while providing clarity for lenders and dealers.

The Court’s awareness of the case’s “seismic impact” (noted by legal commentators) and the FCA’s ongoing review suggests a decision that balances consumer rights with practical considerations for the motor finance sector. The exact ruling will hinge on the justices’ interpretation of fiduciary law, bribery, and statutory fairness, with a judgment expected to clarify these principles for broader financial services.

....to clarify these principles for broader financial services.

I asked AI the likely outcome of the SC decision this month.

1) Uphold the Court of Appeal- a pro consumer outcome

The Court could affirm that dealers owe fiduciary and/or disinterested duties, requiring full disclosure and informed consent for commissions. Lenders would remain liable for secret commissions (as primary wrongdoers) or inadequate disclosures (as accessories). This would align with precedents like Plevin and reinforce consumer protections, potentially leading to a wave of claims and a redress scheme akin to the PPI scandal (estimated costs up to £30bn).

This outcome would likely find insufficient disclosure creates unfair relationships under the Consumer Credit Act, enabling remedies like rescission or compensation

2) Partially Overturn the Court of Appeal - a balanced outcome

The Court might narrow the scope of duties, ruling that dealers owe a disinterested duty but not necessarily a fiduciary one unless a clear agency relationship exists. This could limit lender liability to cases of fully secret commissions, reducing the scope of claims.

The Court could also clarify that FCA regulations set sufficient disclosure standards, avoiding retroactive liability for pre-2021 practices. This would mitigate industry disruption while still addressing egregious non-disclosures.

3) Fully Overturn the Court of Appeal - a pro-lender outcome.

Less likely, the Court could rule that dealers, as commercial entities, owe no fiduciary or disinterested duties beyond regulatory requirements, and that commission payments do not constitute bribery. This would significantly reduce lender liability and align with the appellants’ argument that historical practices were lawful.

Such an outcome would limit consumer remedies and could prompt the FCA to tighten regulations to prevent future issues.

It predicted 2) a balanced outcome as the most likely, quoting as follows;

The Supreme Court is likely to lean toward a balanced outcome, recognizing some form of duty (likely a disinterested duty) owed by dealers but refining the Court of Appeal’s broad application of fiduciary obligations and the tort of bribery. The Court may emphasize the need for adequate disclosure to negate secrecy, aligning with consumer protection principles but avoiding overly punitive remedies that destabilize the industry. It could also provide guidance on remedies, favoring commission refunds over automatic rescission to avoid windfall gains for consumers. This approach would address the FCA’s concerns about legal gaps while providing clarity for lenders and dealers.

The Court’s awareness of the case’s “seismic impact” (noted by legal commentators) and the FCA’s ongoing review suggests a decision that balances consumer rights with practical considerations for the motor finance sector. The exact ruling will hinge on the justices’ interpretation of fiduciary law, bribery, and statutory fairness, with a judgment expected to clarify these principles for bro

Card

"I wish it would get resolved sooner"

It's imminent, hold on to your hat and put your seat belt on. This month the Supreme Court will make an announcement the week before the judgement is actually published. So very likely in the next three weeks we will have the outcome of the car scam and we also have mid year results on the 24th July. It will be interesting to see if profits remain subdued as well as if the judgement goes against us. I am betting on no fiduciary duty and profits remaining flat and hoping that creates some lift in the share price towards 85p. Its anyones guess though, and historically I have frequently been proved wrong... I do expect the judgement to result in steep gain or loss immediately for LBG as well as CBG, before it flattens out.

Stoop

Thanks that's helpful. You can also see easily on the news section https://supremecourt.uk/news

Anything that is billed as a "future announcement" is giving notice of when a "latest judgement" will be be posted. It will be intriguing to see how the market handles the period of notice, prior to announcement.

I believe judgements are only handed down on Wednesdays?

I'm assuming then, it will be on either the 9th, 16th, 23rd or 30th July, in the early morning. There will be a video posted on the SC website giving the judgement summary. I'm guessing we will inevitably find out first by seeing the instantaneous impact it will make (either way) on the CBG and LBG share prices.

Good bounce at the opening

"The chancellor is going nowhere"

A headline that many would echo; it's the main reason she should be replaced.

"Reeves has PM’s full backing"

There is something about that statement that suggests it's really the exact opposite.

I cant imagine what it is. Oh, yes of course - because it's another promise from Starmer.

Hu

"when they have been cancelled we will be under 60 billion shares in issue"

Almost certain to have less than 59B after the buyback is completed. At least until the next lot of staff shares are issued.

If we spent all of the remaining money at todays price, another 1.275B would be cancelled.

Todays slide in the share price is about the same as the one we had at the end of April / start of May. That was spread over two trading days, we will see what tomorrow brings.

Hb

"sell my next tranche at 94p"

I'm sure 94p would shake it all about for a few of us, here's hoping.

Lti

"you turned around and jumped in 2p too soon"

Yes, I also noticed that. For a while about a penny of it was clawed back, it reached around 73.82p. Always a challenge to keep fixed on the longer term prospects, without losing confidence from the setbacks along the way. It may well prove silly of me to have jumped back in at all. I was going to transfer it over to a cash isa for a year, then reduce debt next year. I'll certainly feel pretty foolish if we end up at 50p again.

Lti

"I bet you are good at the "Hokey Cokey"

Yes, that what its all about

"Not my HSBC"

Phew, nor mine either. But Natwest are 4% off, CBG 4.5% off

Who would have thought Starmers refusal to back his chancellor would taken over 3p off lloyds share price?

I cant see any thing else to blame for it