Member Info for Jperryuk

So price pre scandal was @920p and business arguably in better shape now.

Today 99.9% placed a ceiling on uncertainty, so happy days.

Too simplistic?

By your reckoning Jokerman, everything is broken.

You may be right, I may be wrong; but sooner or later one of us must know.

Right now though, all I really want to do, is block you.

Birdsong quoting Bob Dylan puts me in mind of Idiot Wind.

In the words of my idol and mentor Alan Partridge:

‘Can I just shock you?’

I hope that any JR is quashed and the scheme goes ahead as is.

The legal arguments I see on here are I’m 100% sure substantively correct - and much appreciated; but where would actioning them actually get us - and the share price?

I think the filters built into the system will do their job and enable the lenders to weed out spurious claims and reduce the bill below provision.

Lack of JR eliminates most uncertainty and enables a sp hike based on that alone.

A few months of applying filters then indicates take up and pay out are lower, further increase in sp.

This enables bank to comment on divi reinstatement and off we go.

Dan! Dan!

GLA and happy Easter

Guys,

Is Birdsong actually………..Chid?

A disguise so cunning you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel. (Name that comedy series)

Rathi is far from being a moron I’m afraid.

But PPE is THE degree of choice these days for anybody that has political ambitions; and that I think is the very real problem with him, he’s managed this as though he’s running for office.

If I were CBG management sitting around a boardroom table right now, I’d be asking two questions:

1. What would NiharRoy do? (Sorry couldn’t resist)

2. Why shouldn’t we make another provision, just for the hell of it

GLA

I’m not Knot, so can’t deep dive into the legals; I can barely paddle.

But pragmatically I feel the FCA’s proposal might be quite elegant in some respects. By that I mean the split between ‘old book’ and ‘new book’.

This whole sh*t show gets taken to court and old book gets quite rightly shredded and lenders and their shareholders benefit from this.

This doesn’t get framed as a win for the baddie banks or a loss for the goodie FCA; because the FCA can rightly point to the - still - significant sums - being paid out on the new book.

Win / Win.

It’s the sort of compromise I think you’d get if you’d had all stakeholders in the room and said ‘we need to game this out gang, what you got?’

But the lenders’ liability is overall significantly lowered.

Agreed Sg - at least we now know how big the crock is

I think they’ve left the earlier book open to legal challenge knowing it’s weak; but they save consumer face (Rathi’s gotta keep Martin happy) by showing billions being paid on new book (simplistic of me I know but optics etc)

For me, this is the Bazinga:

‘outcome must reflect real impact on the customer’

Has to be a net positive right?

Kills the viceroy narrative, provisions ‘about right’;put it in the rear view mirror and crack on with cost savings and growing biz. Restore divi and on we go.

I don’t see how grouped claims sit within the Supreme Court’s requirement for fact specific testing of individual cases; the FCA must operate within that and courts can’t ignore it

I think if you look back Lewis actually refers to a private briefing from Rathi. I think at the time I compared Rathi to an American DA type courting public opinion for his next role

Regardless of outcome, the whole relationship between Rathi and the likes of Martin Lewis should be investigated imo

I’m probably wrong here but I thought the FCA had always referred to the appeal court ruling. Them now seemingly referring specifically to the supreme court ruling COULD be the FCA quietly acknowledging that the parameters have tightened (narrower scope, more thresholds, less automatic compensation, more emphasis on actual loss).

Excuse me I have to go, more straws to clutch at

This has to be net positive right?

When the FCA scheme is announced and digested, then the ‘known unknown’ of the overall potential hit becomes a ‘known known’; it removes uncertainty and unknown liability so stability returns to the sp and any JR wins just add to the upside.

Or am I deluding myself

DD thanks for this and please don’t go to the trouble of checking, I knew it was around 20% of portfolio. I just wanted to challenge the intimation that they were over committed/ at risk in this area. Gla

Agreed sg. My concern is that nicktims seems to be conflating CBG’s market share of the overall car finance sector, with the car finance sectors share of CBG’s biz activities- then presenting it as top heavy / over reliant therefore risky to CBG.

That’s why I’ve asked what % of total CBG biz activity is motor finance.

It is possible for a biz to have a decent market share in a specific business sector, whilst having that revenue represent only a minor share of the businesses activities. It’s risk and portfolio management. It’s basic Ansoff.

It just irks me when people say they’ve done their research then seemingly try to spook others by suggesting / over representing risk. Feels like shorting.

What is the car loan book currently within the overall CBG portfolio nicktims, I’m interested to hear as I admit I’ve not done any real research on this and you raise an interesting point

Nicktims, your comment regarding always doing your research doesn’t sit particularly well with your statement re CBG having all their eggs in one basket.

It’s borderline oxymoronical