Member Info for Jperryuk

Work to dampen / temper the impact of the motor finance debacle then hit the entire sector with a windfall tax? Mmmm

What is managements cause Nihar - concentrate on building long term value or react to short term sp fluctuations?

I’m not sure what they could be doing, especially with results due.

To be fair to Chid (words I never thought I’d type), it did sound as though that was what you were asking!

My hope is that it’s shorts unwinding fingers crossed, but I’m not sophisticated enough in this to know; but i know a man who is…

I guess it depends on your investment strategy? I’m not here for the divis, I’m here for the St. James Place type spring back in the share price; with perhaps a bidding war at £10+.

But each to their own and either way GLA holders

Hi Knot,

I’ve made a point of feeding all of your posts into ChatGPT4/5 for quite sometime now; to say it is offended that you’re using Grok is an understatement.

Whatever ‘scheme’ they think they can put in place is just going to get narrower and narrower isn’t it? My concern is the sheer buggaration they can cause in the meantime.

Thanks as ever for the hard work

My socials are full of ‘refundo’ type ads telling people they could be owed £950 per agreement dating back to 2007.

When this clown at the FCA goes, as surely he must; it’s going to be really interesting to see what type of commercial venture he washes up at.

Judges at High Court / Court of Appeal level are, at the end of the day, career jurists who don’t want their judgments overturned and ridiculed by the Supreme Court. The recent slap-down was very clear: the SC basically said “stop inventing fiduciary duties where they don’t exist”. That was a sharp message not just on substance but also on judicial overreach.

So now:

• Lower courts will be more cautious — they’ll frame rulings tightly within the SC’s logic, so they don’t risk looking naïve or activist.

• The FOS is in a bind — they can’t simply wave through claims based on the old CoA interpretation, because it’s already been discredited at the highest level. If they push that line, they’re setting themselves up for a judicial review.

• Barclays benefits from “path of least resistance” thinking — if the SC has already said these kinds of arguments don’t fly, why would a lower judge stick their neck out now?

In other words: no judge wants to be the next one humiliated in the law reports. So the odds of Barclays carrying the day are stronger not just legally, but institutionally — the SC has reset the tone.

👉 That’s why I said 65–70% Barclays win first time out. The law + judicial psychology + market context all lean their way.

Possible FOS “win” angle in Barclays DCA case

1. Nature of “unfair relationship” test under CCA s140A

• The test is deliberately broad and discretionary. It doesn’t require fiduciary duty or even deliberate concealment.

• The FOS could argue that systematic non-disclosure of commission arrangements in itself tips the balance into unfairness, because the borrower was denied the ability to make an informed choice on price/terms.

• That line leans on the idea that the courts have consistently said the unfair relationship test is “open-textured” and intended to be consumer-protective.

2. Evidence of information asymmetry / consumer detriment

• In Johnson, the SC narrowed things down — but it did say that certain undisclosed arrangements can be unfair, particularly discretionary ones.

• If Barclays (or others) operated discretionary commission models where the dealer could flex the rate within a band, the FOS could argue that any failure to disclose that dealer discretion undermines transparency, and that’s enough for unfairness.

3. Deliberate concealment vs. systemic practice

• Canada Square v Potter makes concealment the route to extending limitation.

• But the FOS could argue that in Barclays’ case, the non-disclosure wasn’t accidental clerical oversight, it was a standardised commercial model — in effect, a deliberate choice not to tell consumers a material fact. That arguably falls closer to “concealment” than innocent omission.

4. Public policy tilt

• The courts have also said (e.g. Plevin) that the unfair relationship provisions are intended to protect against imbalance of power and hidden charges.

• The FOS could build on that purposive interpretation: if the lender designed products in a way that ensured consumers could never know they were paying a higher rate to fund commission, the unfairness is baked in.

⸻

Reality check

• The Supreme Court in Johnson clipped the wings of the fiduciary theory and made clear not all non-disclosure = unfair.

• So the FOS case is not strong unless they can show either discretionary commission abuse or systematic non-disclosure with intent.

• Even then, appellate courts are likely to be wary of letting the FOS stretch the law, because it blurs into retrospective regulation.

⸻

⚖️ So — a counter-argument exists, but it’s fragile. It rests on (a) purposive interpretation of “unfair relationship” under s140A, and (b) painting non-disclosure as a deliberate systemic concealment. But against the SC’s recent rulings, the tilt really is against the FOS.

Knots input to this board has been invaluable and long may it continue; attacking someone re the £9 number is just plain silly imo.

The only niggle I have in my mind re Close is, are we under estimating just how much buggeration the FCA can cause - even within a defined legal framework - they are not without teeth.

And an amateur prediction here:

September bring results / House of Lords / FCA consultation

If all three went CBG’s way, I could see a £9/10 bid emerge - and there’s your spike

GLA

Interesting numbers F4U

I’d take a tenner bid this side of Christmas. GLA

I don’t know PMF, i think the clue is in your name, Patience.

Stocks don’t go up in straight lines, never have never will; and in terms of ‘trading strategy’ I think the best bet here is just hold through some relatively short term turbulence. Wiser heads on here will have a clearer view buttoned happy with a bid @£10 to cut through all the drama really!

GLA

Today’s Close Brothers debate is interesting. Some are saying the next results will “automatically” be positive — which is a bit too neat, but the bones of the argument aren’t wrong.

✅ What stacks up

• The H1 loss was almost entirely down to the £165m provision plus chunky legal/advisory costs. Strip those out and core earnings were positive.

• Liquidity is strong: hundreds of millions in cash, capital well above requirements.

• Simplification (CBAM/Winterflood exits) cuts revenues but also removes lower-margin volatility.

• With legal/admin costs easing, the bottom line should look cleaner.

⚠️ Where it’s too simplistic

• Next earnings aren’t “automatically” positive — if the FCA forces further provisions in September results, the red ink could continue.

• Winterflood/CBAM exits hit revenues harder than some admit, leaving the bank more reliant on lending.

• Funding costs are rising post-Fitch downgrade, squeezing margins.

• Until the FCA consultation (October) is resolved, uncertainty will keep analysts cautious.

🎯 Valuation & Scenarios

• Tangible NAV sits around 840p. At ~550p, the stock trades at just 0.65x TNAV.

• Banks with strong ROE trade at 1.0–1.2x TNAV. That implies fair value closer to 800–900p if the overhang clears.

• Case A: No new provision → profit rebounds, TNAV rises → 900p possible.

• Case B: Another £150m provision → TNAV dips, ROE suppressed → 560–640p range.

• Case C: Smaller provision → steady TNAV, modest profitability → 750–830p.

📅 Key Timeline Triggers

• Sept 23–24 (FY results): first real test post-SC ruling. Relief rally to 600p+ possible if no new provision.

• Sept (Lords grilling): could pressure FCA to cap redress at six years.

• Oct–Dec (FCA consultation): headline-driven volatility; shorts likely active.

• Early 2026: FCA final decision = rerating moment.

📊 Trading Roadmap

• Now → Sept: range-bound (520–560p), shorts pressing auctions. Good zone to accumulate dips.

• Sept results: bullish case → 600–620p, bearish case → 480–500p.

• Oct–Dec: volatile 500–650p swings, trade the range.

• Early 2026: soft FCA stance → rerating to 700–800p. Harsh blanket → downside limited to ~480p.

🚦 Levels to watch

Support: 500 / 520 / 550.

Resistance: 600 / 620 / 650.

Breakout above 650 = bigger rerate in play.

⚖️ Bottom line

The “next results will be positive” view isn’t mad — provisions/legal drag are the swing factor. If September passes without fresh hits, the stock rerates fast. If not, downside is likely cushioned by TNAV. Either way, the setup into 2026 is still attractive versus today’s deep discount.

Yes Liberty2, I’m thinking of writing a strongly worded letter of complaint to the FCA

Exactly bladerunner.

Also, if I was building a stake in lieu of a bid I’d be doing it at these prices; but perhaps volume doesn’t support that thesis. Yet.

This is great thanks for sharing meconopsis, going into the weekend with the FCA having their feet held to the fire feels good. GLA and congratulations all holders on a great week

Of redress paid? 4. Noting the Committee’s concerns as set out above, can the FCA substantiate its view that it expects “a healthy finance market for new and used cars to continue notwithstanding any redress scheme we propose”?3 The Committee expects the FCA to share the modelling it has undertaken, either publicly or privately, on the likely impact that redress at the estimated scale will have on the integrity of the motor finance market in the UK. The Committee has emphasised the need to avoid regulatory unpredictability and has been consistent in its view that market uncertainty around redress, as well as the broader burden of regulation, risks rendering certain financial services prohibitively expensive for UK consumers. Noting the importance of the motor finance market to consumers, the Committee requests the FCA to appear before the Committee in September to respond to our concerns. I look forward to hearing from you. Yours sincerely, The Rt Hon. the Lord Forsyth of Drumlean PC Kt Chairman, Financial Services Regulation Committee Members of the Committee have declared interests in relation to financial services

Nikhil Rathi Chief Executive Financial Conduct Authority 12 Endeavour Square London E20 1JN By email 8 August 2025 Motor Finance Dear Nikhil, Thank you for your letter of 4 August regarding the Supreme Court’s decision in the cases of Hopcraft, Johnson, and Wrench. The Committee recognises that the FCA has worked at pace to respond to these developments and that the forthcoming consultation on an industry-wide redress scheme will set out its approach in detail. However, the Committee is concerned by certain aspects of the FCA’s forthcoming redress scheme which you set out in your letter and market statement. Given the need to ensure the integrity of the motor finance market, and to provide certainty to consumers, as you note in your letter, the Committee considers it of importance to receive answers to the following questions. 1. The FCA thinks that the forthcoming redress scheme should cover motor finance agreements dating back to 2007, on the basis that this is consistent with consumers’ rights to take complaints to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). Given that the basis of the claims for which any compensation would be payable will primarily be based on a breach of the Consumer Credit Act, the Committee considers that a period which is aligned with the limitation period for bringing a claim in the courts, specified by the Supreme Court, may be more appropriate.1 What legal advice has the FCA taken on this point? What legal grounding underpins the FCA’s proposed timeframe? 2. The FCA has estimated that the total cost of the proposed redress scheme to industry may be between £9 billion and £18 billion, on the basis that it covers agreements dating back to 2007. The FCA’s indicative estimate of the scale of redress is particularly important given the impact on the share price of listed lenders and the need for an orderly market. What modelling has the FCA undertaken on the 1 The Committee understands that the Supreme Court has held that a claim arising from an unfair relationship under the Consumer Credit Act (1974) should be brought within six years of the date on which the relationship arising out of the finance agreement ended. See: Smith v Royal Bank of Scotland [2023] (UKSC 34), 4 October 2023. Financial Services Regulation Committee House of Lords London SW1A 0PW hlfinservreg@parliament.uk www.parliament.uk/lords indicative cost of a redress scheme with a time frame in line with the six-year limitation period for complaints brought in the courts? 3. The FCA has acknowledged that its proposed timeframe will likely present challenges to both consumers and firms in recovering and processing records, and you noted on 3 August that “[t]here will be potentially several billion of admin costs.”2 What work has the FCA undertaken to model the administrative costs that a redress scheme covering agreements dating back to 2007 would impose on firms, and how does the FCA intend to ensure such costs are proportionate to the amount of

Hi Knot,

So why in your opinion are the FOS going ahead with the case rather than settling before? That’s what i don’t get given the SC judgment. Cheers

I think the posturing will continue until the news cycle moves on, and certainly until after Barclays v FOS.

They will then put a narrowed scheme in place that absolutely adheres to the SC judgment; that or face judicial review and possible overhaul / executive changes. IMO

Does anyone have a view on whether or not Fridays judgement may encourage the FOS to settle this case; or will they continue to stand alongside the FCA and take any political/ media heat that may be forthcoming?