Member Info for Jperryuk

I’m qualified to suggest that based on the substantial volume and substance of your posts you may want to seek therapy (CBT based I think), I’m also offering to fund it. So yes, respect and empathy.

Chid,

I just feel that making money and having a bit of respect for my fellow man aren’t mutually exclusive activities.

I’m not losing money, I do ok, well enough to offer to cover your counselling expenses should you ever decide to face the psychosis you suffer under; a big step I know but we’re all rooting for you.

‘The great unwashed’

You nasty small minded little person.

I’d value Knot’s input on whether shorts are closing etc.

But sentiment does seem to be turning, long may it last GLA

More of those pesky ‘unintended consequences’

FCA - the gift that keeps on giving

Wouldn’t surprise me at all if all guns were trained on cmc’s as part of a future massive face saving exercise

I think CMC’s are regulated by the judicious, rational and level headed leadership of………the FCA

This was just covered on cbnc but unsurprisingly no mention of motor finance.

There absolutely has to be convos going on at the highest levels regarding this, the banks are simply too important as drivers of growth.

We keep focussing on JR being the most logical direction of travel, but I wonder if an act of parliament (mooted at some point?) becomes the nuclear option here.

What do I know. But I do think continued legals benefits no one - and damages the economy.

The unintended consequences of the FCA’s behaviour ( and it is behavioural, not process driven) keep compounding; it’s almost become ‘no-one expected the Spanish Inquisition’.

GLA

I used to mentally dismiss NiharRoys negative comments re management as perhaps a lack of understanding of the culture at the bank; but I’m fast becoming in agreement.

There’s a difference between being conservative/ circumspect or being seen as too passive or actually asleep at the wheel.

I understand that the SP is probably being massively played at the moment; but leadership do have levers they could pull to the benefit of shareholders.

Perception is reality.

I can’t justify this, but I do feel the board are putting a great big shiny bow on the business and saying ‘come buy us’; perhaps confident in the fact that this will never go to court and that they have over provisioned.

Is it me or are all the banks statements re current FCA status almost verbatim?

Tend to agree. I challenged the other one - Paul Lewis - on Twitter a while ago re comments he states the SC had made. He really didn’t like it; but I guess the new journalistic model is as you say, clicks for commerce and integrity be damned.

Does surprise my that someone like Martin Lewis has nailed his colours to the FCA mast without seemingly doing his own DD; he does have a reputation to protect after all

The FCA’s frog is slowly being boiled, and that can only be good for CBG.

Key stakeholders (eg Treasury) will not provide a public running commentary but I would be stunned if conversations weren’t ’being had’; noticeable to me that the banks are being more publicly vocal now and we are beginning to see trade bodies publicly rebutting the FCA’s ‘position’, such as it is.

I’m convinced the FCA are setting themselves up for ‘previous management / we’ve been reined in’ type fig leaves for when it hits their fan.

But what do I know.

Ongoing thanks to Knot and Liberty2 for their insight and time; it’s kept this board top notch

I think I’ve said before my poly market is Legal Counsel and Exec Dir who appeared at Lords carrying the can.

Oh look, a fig leaf has appeared; regulators and the treasury giving themselves political cover

My tuppence worth - we’re very lucky indeed to have Knot’s expertise but yes, I’d expect the banks legal teams and external counsel will have this covered.

In fact I wouldn’t be at all surprised if we started seeing articles in legal journals setting out the banks stance fairly soon.

The banks therefore take the macro ‘UK growth / invest ability’ stance while their legal proxies set out the flimsiness of the FCA’s stance.

Thanks Liberty2 - and to Knot for last nights research and views.

The banks breaking cover and going public suggests this gets nowhere near a court room amiright?

My reasoning being they wouldn’t do this unless they were pretty sure of the legals as well as the political optics and support.

I think the President of Barclays and CEO of HSBC are at the Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee this Tuesday

My understanding of what the SC said re interest rate:

Context of the “55%” commission figure:

In Johnson v FirstRand (Hopcraft), the original car finance agreement included a commission of 55% of the interest charges — which was undisclosed to the borrower.

This figure was used by the claimant to argue that the commission was “grossly excessive” and therefore made the relationship unfair under section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act.

What did the Supreme Court say?

They did not say that 55% = unfair per se.

Instead, they said:

“The size of the commission may be relevant when considering whether the relationship is unfair, but it is not determinative on its own.”

In fact, paragraph [320] is key:

“The mere fact that there has been no disclosure of the commission, or only partial disclosure, will not necessarily suffice of itself to make the relationship unfair for the purposes of section 140A.”

So:

• 55% was the number in that specific case.

• The court acknowledged it may raise fairness concerns, especially when combined with lack of disclosure and discretion.

• But they stopped short of saying any % threshold (e.g., 50% or 55%) is automatically unfair.

Incendiary (they’re not wrong, but incendiary nonetheless):

• Charlie Nunn (Lloyds):

“We’re operating under one rulebook, and now being asked to apply another, retrospectively.”

• Matt Hammerstein (Barclays):

“The FCA seems to be saying: ‘We think this was unfair, but can’t prove it, so we’ll build a scheme that assumes it.’”