Member Info for Dry66Koke

Neither shoddy nor a typo. I suggest both of you should check the actual source document, it says £320 million with a superscript '3' to a footnore.

https://www.closebrothers.com/system/files/rrp/press/CBG%20Q3%2026%20trading%20update%2021.05.26.pdf

It's an artefact of the way www.lse.co.uk has wrongly reproduced the document.

Sadly, I would have preferred to be wrong with my prediction. Nevertheless, I have to try and get something positive out of this bad situation.

Have just bought back a small amount now and will drip some more in throughout this afternoon's massacre.

I'm definitely a loser!

I bought most of my Vodafone stock back in 2014-15. Fortunately the last few months have seen an uptick to lessen the anguish.

Still moaning but hopefully not losing anymore? Let's hope for the best.

Sadly, I think @notdeadyet is going to be absolutely right about some profit-taking tomorrow (May 12th). In the past 2 months, many FTSE shares tumbled on Results day, particularly because the Results now include big caveats about poorer outlook due to the war.

So, I have sold a substantial proportion in order to be able to buy back shortly. Who knows, I'm only a moaning loser!

Daily Fail says that Santander have decided NOT to challenge the ruling.

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15765151/Major-high-street-bank-pay-compensation-thousands-customers-mis-sold-car-loans.html

Many thanks to Trek and TopFCA, I've now got some TRIG at a reasonable price point.

Was about to say that the SEIT RCF hadn't really changed much, but the accounting reclassification caused the percentage to go past their internal covenant. Major blunder that has cost the share price and them badly, and punished us shareholders.

Many thanks to TopFCA and Trek for the valuable insights.

I've been using a similar strategy to Trek and gradually averaging down my SEIT with purchases during 40-42p dips.

Trek is right, TRIG has started fallling now as the CPS news sinks in, so I am going to start dripping some money there.

Looking at the past Director's Deals, Tony Roper has almost 200k shares and Christopher Knowles 116k holdings.

These seem to have been purchased in the range 73p to 115p.

The managed wind-down will almost certainly turn out extremely painful, hence the reason why the Board may have preferred the Strategic Proposal.

It seems that the compensation will cost FirstRand more than the profits they obtained from entering the UK car finance market.

"Bosses say the figure significantly exceeds the £275m total profits the bank has earned from the UK motor finance over a decade."

Source: https://cardealermagazine.co.uk/motonovo-owner-to-pull-out-of-uk-in-protest-at-fcas-deeply-flawed-redress-scheme/323419

Inevitably, the thirst for compensation will lead to higher finance costs in future, so what the punters gain now will subsequently be slowly wrestled back by lenders through more expensive car loan agreements in future.

Key sentence in Lloyds RNS:

"The ultimate outcome may also differ dependent upon potential actions by various parties, including legal proceedings and complaints."

i.e. Lloyds may take the FCA to court. Somebody else may take the FCA to court.

Note that provision is NOT the same as settling.

AI gives an excellent explantion of the difference:

"A provision is an accounting entry recognizing a probable future liability of uncertain timing or amount. A settlement is the final resolution or fulfillment of a dispute or obligation, involving a transfer of resources. Provisions are estimates; settlements are actual, final payments."

Yes, absolutely agree with Sir_Hector. What if the lenders don't want bend over backwards to accept poorly documented claims from 2007-2014? Or the ones where the DCA didn't appear to lead to harm? I don't like the FCA approach where all DCA are considered guilty.

Yes, absolutely agree, the FCA decided (in tandem with Martin Lewis) to become consumer champions and compensation activists. They went beyond the role of giving sound, independent advice on financial matters,

What puzzles me is whether lenders can simply agree to Scheme 2 alone, while at the same time refusing to pay out for the older Scheme 1 (2007-2014)?

How do CBG shareholders feel about FCA's blatant lie?

"The motor finance market has continued to attract investment and function well since we announced .... proposed scheme. Share prices of affected UK listed lenders increased by a range of 2.1% to 29.7% in the 2 weeks following the Supreme Court judgment and generally continued to rise steadily....."

This followed by a veiled threat:"Without a scheme, the impacts on access to motor finance and prices for consumers could be significantly higher with uncertainty continuing for many more years"

Indeed, FCA sleight of hand can miraculously transform 90 000 eligible to become 12.1milliion, here's how:

Supreme Court - all 3 criteria have to be fulfilled (DCA, high interest or comission, tied arrangement)

FCA - any single criterion is suffcient to trigger off compensation payment.

La, la, la......

Ahhh, that is the killer line from the spinmasters - FCA said in a statement to the FT: “The courts have provided clarity that the law was broken."

Oh yes indeed, the Supreme Court did lay down a very specific and limited set of circumstances where compensation was justified.

But the FCA have deliberately chosen to ignore the court's clarity and instead hatched up a dog's dinner.

For sure there will be judicial reviews (from both sides), but hope that I am proven wrong.

Oh, I thought it was Mike Morgan's robust response that finally did the trick!

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-15667091/Close-Brothers-claims-car-customers-got-good-value-finance-rip-off.html

I read the two landmark FOS decisions (Clydesdale, Black Horse) in early 2024.

I identified two key issues:

1. Same Ombudsman (initials JN) for both

2. Same write-up and grounds for decision in both. Practically a Copy and Paste of one decision to the other.

I'm glad that knot is doing a far more detailed analysis. I'm very concened that one single Ombudsman has made their own decision, and then made it applicable to every case thereafter (hence, their copy and paste).

It's also a very predictable re-run of every set of FTSE Company Results in the past few weeks.

Aviva, LGEN, SDLF, MNG - all dropped between 5-10% on Results day. So, I braced myself with cash ready to buy CBG at a 10% fall today.

I got that bit right but wasn't expecting Viceroy to make it possible for me to load up at an even lower price than hoped for.

Yep, read the first 5 pages of the report and I decided to buy another chunk of CBG. There were too many unsupported assumptions, accompanied by wild extrapolation, slanted language ...clearly designed to scare the SH*T out of all of us. Let's see what transpires, and whether I get thoroughly burnt!

I have past experience of attending and giving evidence at an APPG, but today I am gobsmacked by the APPG "Car Finance Scandal" write-up.

What immediately spooked me was this lead-in on page 5, I was puzzled why a law firm was listed in the APPG report:

About

"Courmacs Legal Ltd is an SRA regulated law firm based in Blackburn that specialises in mis- sold financial services and other areas that see lay clients suffering loss. It currently represents a large number of clients directly affected by the mis-sold car finance scandal and is keen to ensure that those clients are treated fairly, can make informed choices as to how they wish their claims to be dealt with and have appropriate access to justice."

A couple of heart-sinking moments later, all was revealed,with a striking absence of declaration of conflicts of interest:

"By way of example, one case study provided by Courmacs Legal (the sponsor of the report) ..."

"Another comparator which does nothing to support the FCA’s case for a low level of redress comes from analytical work conducted by Courmacs Legal, the consumer law firm sponsoring this report. The firm has looked at its book of 4m car finance claims, spread across 1.5m victims and produced figures on how redress might look if it was pursued through the courts as against the FCA redress scheme."