Member Info for Jperryuk

Interesting find Basher but a lot has happened in the three weeks since this was posted, the banks stepping aside being a significant blow to the thesis I think. GLA and great bank holiday

Hi Knot,

Well yes, it is; but you’ve been quite eloquent on the legals so thought you might have a view to share on how this plays out.

I don’t think anyone on here has suggested the scheme won’t change; but what are you suggesting as a likely outcome Knot?

All the legal stuff is I’m sure entirely valid, but what will it amount to, in your view, in a real world scenario?

I’d dearly love to see it collapse and the FCA be seen for the charlatans they are - your research has done more than most to highlight that.

But really, complexity does not equal illegality, car manufacturers may well get a win, Courmacs may get an increase in interest paid etc; but it’s all just tinkering at the edges and this moves forward in a modified form right?

Stu,

I think that could be the ‘unlock’, why else would they have ring fenced.

I could be way off the mark as well, probably am.

But it seems no one is looking for payments to be halted. No one is looking for scheme to be ‘scrapped’.

The FCA are a bunch of ****, but they are a regulator with sweeping powers who will have stress teated this.

Tweaks not wholesale changes / scrapping.

I’m not interested in who has the best legal points. I want a share price that reflects true value and a return to core biz

Do we really, seriously think there is a risk / material chance of the scheme ‘collapsing’?

I just don’t see it tbh sorry.

Some tweaks within the current framework perhaps but not wholesale collapse; no matter the legal nuances and ‘injustices’ to fin providers.

As ever GLA

I’m not Knot (but I did used to watch LA Law and Suits so you know, some legal understanding lol)’ but:

A challenge (whether from lenders or Consumer Voice) doesn’t automatically make the scheme “sub judice” in a way that stops everything. For payments to be delayed, a court would normally have to grant a specific pause, and given the scale of this and the FCA’s position on timely compensation, that feels unlikely.

Also, the direction of the challenge doesn’t really change the mechanics. The tribunal would be looking at specific elements of the scheme (mainly how redress is calculated), not deciding whether the whole thing should exist.

To me, the more important point is that the FCA has already built in a number of “filters” — exclusions, standardised assumptions, etc — which seem designed to keep the overall liability within a defined range. That’s probably why the major lenders and the FLA have ultimately stepped back from challenging it.

So base case still feels like:

* Scheme goes ahead

* Payments start as planned

* Any challenge runs alongside and may result in tweaks rather than anything fundamental

The only itch I keep waning to scratch is why the FCA split ‘old / new’ book and then the banks are seemingly not targeting old. It felt like the FCA were deliberately ring fencing for a reason.

Basher I think that’s correct, and my hope is that we will soon see evidence of the filters the FCA put into the scheme working generally in the banks favour.

No scheme collapse or massive reduction in payouts, but impact within provisions and time to move on - hopefully

I don’t think the scheme gets delayed at all, even whilst being challenged?

This is fantastic news imo.

No more management bandwidth wasted on legals and can concentrate on:

* managing the process within known provision

* restructuring

* earnings recovery story

Taking the uncertainty out of the equation ( no legal challenge) and concentrating on the above three should result in a significant re- rating and frankly, that’s all I’m interested in.

Pay the piper (no matter how ‘unfair’ and legally suspect) and move on with doing business.

Third Avenue are not momentum or income chasers — they specialise in deep value / recovery situations, where the market has over-discounted risk. So their 3% position suggests:

* they believe the downside is now understood and contained

* there’s a clear gap between price and intrinsic value

* this is transitioning from “uncertain risk” to rerating opportunity

It also adds to a broader pattern:

* high institutional ownership already

* now US value capital stepping in

* different types of smart money aligning

That combination typically creates a strong underlying bid and supports a medium-term move higher — even if the short term is choppy.

The key nuance: at 3% they’re positioning, not influencing. But it’s often the sort of early footprint you see before a wider re-rating gathers pace.

All imo GLA

Oh hello, we’ve been expecting you…..

Forgive the motoring pun, but could an appeal in this form actually back fire on them?

Optimistic yes, but I don’t think wildly so.

Take a look at the trajectory of the St. James’s Place share price around 2024 once their own particular brand of scandal was behind them and they’d re established trust - it happened at a fair rate of knots.

In an age of AI I don’t think staff cuts will be a drag on loan book growth and efficiency. GLA

It’s almost worth not hitting a fiver today just to hear NiharRoy blame the board. Happy days GLA

I was suggesting a takeover and inviting comment on that Birdsong, but thanks for the reply.

Everyone has a right to their opinions but your sense of self loathing burns through every single one of your posts to the extent that I’d worry about your wellbeing.

Yankee banks absolutely awash with cash I see

(Insert thinking emoji here)

Patiencemyfriend - agreed, the risk is at least now ‘bounded’ imo and I’m surprised that didn’t deliver a great rise in SP.

I still think there’s a bigger story to emerge here regarding the filters that the FCA have put in place and the split between ‘old and new book’.

I’ll be interested to see how they are applied and any positive material impact they have on provisions. It feels like a way of the FCA being above to say billions have been paid out, while enabling the banks to filter out spurious claims. Game theory win win (ish)

I’m not a sophisticated enough investor to know how to go about testing this thesis; but I do wonder if SP is being suppressed whilst someone builds a stake.

News this week should have moved the dial / sentiment more than this surely? Or perhaps we await broker analysis and initial feedback from the industry on level of payouts etc before any meaningful move.

Good weekend all

Are you investing or trading Nihar?

Down @5% today, up @30% on a month, hence Shore suggesting some profit taking; which seems entirely legit if you’re trading.

I’m investing and a major road block to recovery has imo just been removed, so quite happy to go with the twists and turns