Member Info for Jperryuk

‘it is this potential lack of equity that is holding back large investors. They don’t like the uncertainty.’

AI is good fun to play with but it can come up with alternative views - as we all can I guess. That’s the fun of the forum - and respect to any one who posts.

So MY AI has just come up with CBG being overwhelmingly owned by large investors, something in the order of 70% plus.

Fidelity, abrdn, Jupiter, Royal London; M&G about 35% between them; Hargreaves, Vanguard and Third Ave another circa 12%.

In other news I think Fidelity actually increased their stake in April?

I don’t think the sp is going anywhere now until Tribunal skeleton arguments are out there. Personally i don’t think pre 2014 needs to be swept away entirely in order for significant sp rise and yes, this could easily double later this year. GLA and great weekends

‘global financial crime compliance and reputational risk teams at HSBC’

Job done there then Lol

Can you imagine being in the private sector and managing an issue the way Rathi has managed this? Carnage.

Also, where is Reeves and her ‘might step in’ stance these days?

Feels more and more like a rogue regulator with their own political agenda, rather than pragmatic management of market issues.

And yes Birdsong, we know…

Thanks Basher.

IMO Rathi is trying to save the scheme politically by making the alternative look worse — but in doing so he confirms the scheme is legally and operationally under real pressure.

He also basically asks Parliament to assist would be my reading.

I’m convinced this is why FCA put forward a ‘two books’ scenario:

1. s404 schemes only apply to “consumers”

2. A consumer is someone using services provided in a regulated activity

3. Consumer credit only entered FCA/FSMA regulation in April 2014

4. Therefore:

pre-2014 borrowers may not legally qualify for a section 404 scheme at all

Https://cardealermagazine.co.uk/fca-launches-investigation-into-claims-management-company-over-of-motor-finance-crisis/324641

I think UBS may have re-iterated there March’ish note with a target price of 555p today; saw them listed on a tip sheet this morning.

Never be sorry for posting, even birdsong

Great weekend all

I think trading update is next Thursday

This is actually mildly positive from a signalling perspective, even though financially it’s tiny.

The important bit is:

only £8.62m remained outstanding.

The original Tier 2 issuance was £200m. Most of it was already dealt with via the January/February tender process. This RNS is basically:

“we’re cleaning up the residual balance.”

So economically:

* this is not some huge refinancing event

* not a liquidity stress signal

* not emergency capital management

⸻

🧠 What matters psychologically

Banks under genuine stress generally do not voluntarily tidy up subordinated debt structures unless:

* regulators are comfortable

* liquidity is stable

* capital planning remains orderly

So this sits more in:

“normal treasury/capital housekeeping”

than:

“defensive scramble.”

⸻

⚖️ Why it matters slightly more in the current environment

Because the market is hyper-sensitive right now to:

* capital

* funding

* liquidity

* regulator relationships

Especially with:

* FCA uncertainty

* motor finance overhang

* UK banking sentiment wobbling

So a clean redemption process subtly reinforces:

management still behaving like a normal functioning bank.

⸻

💥 What it does not mean

It does not mean:

* hidden surplus capital

* liability disappearing

* massive confidence signal

* dividend imminent

Some posters will overread it.

⸻

🧠 But equally…

If management were genuinely worried about:

* near-term capital strain

* provision inadequacy

* escalating liabilities

they would probably prefer maximum balance sheet conservatism and simplicity.

The fact they are proceeding with a planned clean-up redemption:

supports the idea that they still view the capital position as manageable.

⸻

📊 Timing is interesting

One day before the trading update.

That’s probably deliberate housekeeping:

* clear minor capital admin out of the way

* simplify structure

* no distraction tomorrow

⸻

🎯 Net read

Small financially.

Quietly constructive psychologically.

It reinforces:

* orderly capital management

* absence of visible stress

* management acting like a bank planning through a difficult but survivable regulatory event

rather than:

* a bank in crisis mode.

I wish I was brave enough to trade say, half my holding, but always feel this could permanently pop on any given day

Do you remember back in the day when The Treasury intimated they may interject in this via legislation?

Well given that’s it’s even more of a b*gg*rs muddle now, I wonder if that might be looming.

Regardless of what birdsong thinks, i believe the treasury needs the banks more than it needs a consumer payday.

Said it before will say it again, the relationship between Rathi and Martin et al needs scrutiny.

Knot, im in Gothenburg at the moment so this totally resonates! Good weekend all

SG you’re right Rathi definitely has to go

Back to volatility for a while I guess then and being suppressed below 500 until resolution clarity?

Chapeau Knot et al

Just tried to get concert tickets for my daughter and I tell you what, regulators should be actively researching these rip off merchants not going back years and years on clearly stated car finance deals. No logic

I’d be happy with a 10-15% shave off ‘old book’ costs and then move on from this.

I’m intrigued to understand at some point how the dashboard / filters the FCA scheme puts in place are being used by the banks to handle these claims.

Latest comment from Andy Smith, whose original LinkedIn post Basher helpfully highlighted:

‘ thank you for the kind words. Just to be clear apart from what’s been made public I don’t have access to what the precise nature of what the challenges are. The FCA designed the scheme to be time resistant ie the ultra vires point. The only likely challenge to that is from lenders, I’ve not seen the challenges but this might still be a live issue.

The interesting point is that this is a challenge arising only from captives. The FCA made some concessions for captives (a rebuttal is available if it’s clear a tied arrangement is in place eg VW finance for a VW car) but it might be the broad brush of the scheme fails to recognise specific features of the captive market.

So Consumer Voice challenged quantum, captives are challenging quantum and potentially scope but not necessarily the pre-2014 cases but based on captive market features. It might well be the FCAs 2 scheme design doesn’t provide a barrier to the current challenges and they will look for other ways to try to ring fence to enable progress while the tribunal challenge progresses. My guess is the FCA will be looking carefully for ways to keep going.’