Member Info for BasherSmith

I missed out 6 to 8 bank shares depending on whether there was a counter offer for one CBG share.

The Institutions (88% of the shares) must be as hissed off as we are at the share price and the lack of dividends.

I know a British bank which spends billions buying back its own shares, which indicates to me that it has run out of ideas and obvious business opportunities.

The Institutions holding the majority of CBG shares might be more amenable to swapping their shares for shares in a bank which pays good dividends, than parting with them for cash.

For a bid to succeed the bidder would need to get control of at least 40 to 50% of the Institutional shares.

The acquiring bank would be getting a screaming bargain with a load of cash which may not need to be spent.

Lloyd George knew my father, my father knew Lloyd George.

( I know I'm dead wrong, which no doubt someone will be very quick to point out!)

If only I had got out last August at £5.65 and done something else with my life in the meantime!

SG - Is it shorters driving the price down, or is it at least partially the market makers controlling the price, or dropping it (tree shaking) to fill orders which are hidden in the uncrossing trade?

It would be nice to think that someone is building a stake.

Just some idle thoughts on a hot afternoon.

Doesn't the share price basically depend upon which of two views you take?

1. Analysts take the view that the £320m or more set aside is likely to be used and give a share value of £5.35.

2. Rightly or wrongly most of us on here take the view that most, or perhaps all of that money, will not need to be used. We may be wrong but I don't think so at this point.

The difference between the two views is £2.00 a share at least. I'm backing the view that it won't all need to be used and therefore staying put.

In November we will have gone three years without a dividend or without management giving any clear indication of when dividends will resume. I find that very irritating, but there it is.

In my 30+ years of investing, waiting for a takeover is a mugs game. They never seem to arrive and if they do it's always a lot later than you think - but you never know. It's at least a glimmer of hope.

They do say that the biggest enemy of the Investor is impatience!

Thanks Random. So this must apply to the FCA as well, what's sauce for the goose etc. On a normal day this might have given a positive reaction to the share price, but today everybody is working from the garden and who can blame them.

I imagine it should read:

"Application - Notice of Appointment to appoint an administrator on behalf of our client Close Brothers Ltd."

Probably a debtor of Close Brothers has gone belly up.

Thanks for replying so promptly. What would we do without you!

Knot - did you form any opinion of the way the lenders case went. I know I should watch it for myself, but I really can't face watching two and a half hours of legal arguments that I don't understand. As you say the outcome of this case could have a profound effect on the implementation of the scheme .

Thanks.

History

County Court (Sept 2023): Initially, a judge sided with the lenders, ruling it impermissible to use a single claim form. The judge ordered the claims to be severed and refused a formal sampling process.

High Court (March 2025): The High Court overturned the previous decision. Mr Justice Ritchie ruled that bringing thousands of claims together under "omnibus" claim forms was acceptable, giving managing judges the flexibility required to deal with mass claims.

Court of Appeal (April 2026): The case was elevated to the Court of Appeal to provide ultimate guidance on how bulk motor finance claims should be procedurally managed.

Ignore "skip past newsletter promotion" in my last post.

From a Guardian article on the 9th of June.

"Labour MP John Grady questioned the FCA’s estimates, noting that the process could last even longer than its forecast. “The timetable you’ve set out, I suspect, doesn’t take into account the fact that the judicial review could then go to the court of appeal if it’s a point of law, and then the supreme court,” he said."

If it gets to the Supreme Court the FCA will just be told to go back and look at the Johnson verdict and align their scheme with that. The current Supreme Court verdict is the law unless it's changed by either the Supreme Court or Parliament. I think the higher Court will just look at the law as it stands and kick the chair from under Rathi and pour a bucket of cold water over him - I hope so anyway. I see that VW and Co are challenging the basic legality of the scheme - excellent!

skip past newsletter promotion

Oh dear - I wrote **** up so Auntie LSE punished me by taking out all my capital letters!

what an unholy mess. i go back to what mr john swift kc said:

"the supreme court has sought to introduce clarity, whereas the fca have created confusion."

rathi gets paid over £500,000 per annum to produce this **** up.

HtTps://committees.parliament.uk/committee/158/treasury-committee/publications/3/correspondence/

So assuming that is correct, I wonder how much this could reduce the potential CBG bill? I'm guessing 20% to 25% . CBG will know, but they aren't telling. In fact they aren't telling us anything, which is one of the reasons why the share price is on the floor.

HtTps://www.oeclaw.co.uk/news/view/has-the-fca-exceeded-its-powers-in-the-motor-redress-scheme

Ben Strong KC on the Scheme 1 2007 to 2014 question.

1.Alternate scenarios: The expected fallout if the scheme has to be altered or abandoned entirely.

2.FCA's powers: Lessons learned from this case regarding the FCA's ability to implement compensation schemes.

I would really like to see the FCA's reply to those two questions from the Treasury Committee. I would also like to know why they think they have the power to penalise lenders who were acting in good faith and following the rules in force at the time. IMO they have violated both common justice and common sense and totally exceeded the judgment given in the Johnson case. One day I hope a Judge will point this out to them.

I will still be reading the FCA response though with interest and looking for clues as to their thinking.

HtTps://committees.parliament.uk/publications/53178/documents/297461/default/

Sorry.

HttTps://committees.parliament.uk/publications/53178/documents/297461/default/

Apologies if already posted.