Member Info for Jperryuk

Https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/16676/pdf/

Https://www.cityam.com/lloyds-boss-concerned-with-motor-finance-impact-on-uk-investability/

My thinking (flawed as might be):

Three reasons the consultation quietly shifted from before the Autumn Statement to after:

• A) Political pressure to not rock the gilts boat before Reeves unveils the “growth” narrative.

• B) The FCA buying time to quietly renegotiate scope — possibly with Treasury involvement.

• C) Someone finally realised that dropping a full-fat £11bn redress liability days before a growth budget would be suicidal optics

Will the Treasury intervene?

They can( I think ?)— and probably already are, behind the scenes.

• Under FSMA Section 1JA, the Treasury can issue public interest recommendations to the FCA.

• The last one, Nov 2024, mentioned “growth” 24 times.

• The FCA’s current stance? Anti-growth, anti-competitiveness, politically toxic.

Now layer in:

• Rachel Reeves reportedly showing interest in the Supreme Court case.

• Santander openly calling for her to intervene.

• Bond markets twitchy about UK regulatory credibility.

If this were any sector other than finance, maybe you’d doubt it. But when the City’s rep, consumer credit, and gilts are all wobbling?

So the end of the consultation period has been moved from one week BEFORE the Autumn Statement to two weeks AFTER- am I reading that correctly?

If I am, do I don my tin foil hat and go into conspiracy mode ?

Reeves did after all want to contribute at SC level and did I think mention possible law change,

All above may be incorrect / misremembering, hence asking

This report will not shift regulatory direction. If anything, it hardens the FCA’s resolve to position itself between overreaching CMCs and the financial system’s operational integrity. For Close Brothers:

• The APPG report adds no risk — it just spotlights how desperate CMCs are to stop the FCA capping their payday.

• If the FCA holds its ground (or even trims further), CBG benefits. Because the market is currently pricing in an outcome closer to the £6bn end of the spectrum.

• Every time a CMC shouts louder, institutional investors are reminded how flimsy the high-end redress logic is.

The APPG report is a badly disguised CMC press release, trying to strong-arm the FCA by pretending to be an objective policy document. It fails, and in doing so, it actually strengthens the FCA’s ability to say:

“Look — this is exactly why we need to control the process.”

Which, ironically, makes it quietly bullish for CBG.

I’m really surprised by Martin Lewis, he’s increasingly looking like Rathi’s patsy in all of this.

Just now:

‘My budget will be a budget for growth’.

They’re going to intervene, much bigger issues at play here than someone getting a windfall and buying a new telly.

Just my uneducated view

If you listen closely enough, you can just about hear the creaking as the thumb screws turn inexorably tighter on the FCA.

‘Unintended consequences’ feels like the RNS version of the football chant ‘come and have a go if you think…’

Randommix - yes apologies - I meant positively!

Because the market is pricing in a worst-case scenario — and it’s overdone.

Right now, stocks like CBG are trading as if they’re on the hook for £3–4bn+ of redress, plus years of legal chaos and reputational damage.

If the final scheme is capped below £1bn, that’s not just manageable — it’s a huge relief rally. You’d be removing an existential risk discount and restoring visibility on dividends, capital returns, and takeover appeal.

It’s not about the absolute size of redress — it’s about the direction of travel. The market is terrified of a regulatory sledgehammer. If we get a negotiated tap on the wrist instead, the share price reaction will be rapid and sharp.

IMO

This doesn’t go near a court room, it’s too toxic.

1. The banks and govt reach an accommodation

2. Rathi survives because ‘started before my time’, ‘just trying to clear up mess’, ‘ bad legal advice’ and because well, people like him do

3. FCA legal counsel and exec director who appeared at HoL are suddenly can carrying toast

4. Redress scheme of sub £1bn announced

5. Rapid re-ratings for stocks impacted

6. Cheeky £8.50 per share offer for CBG

7. Yankee raider takes CBG out at £11 per share

All within 18 month window.

This morning the first time I’ve heard them mention the motor finance scandal in more than just a passing comment; to paraphrase - banks disputing impact and seeking to reduce cost during consultation period. Santander next up.

Lol

So long, farewell

Auf Wiederseh'n, adieu

lol

Bye

One senior City source said motor finance lenders were in a ‘state of rage’ after digesting the 400 page consultation on the compensation scheme.

Interview with Rathi - clearly distancing himself from the scandal he ‘inherited’ etc.

But interesting the ceo of the regulator is doing interviews like this. Feels more like personal reputational damage limitation rather than presenting a case for their current stance.

On that stance and whether there would be significant changes to it he says he’s ’not ruling anything out, but we would want strong good evidence’.

If I was FCA Legal Counsel I’d be feeling quite the potential fall guy at the moment, Rathi is the type of slick player every org unfortunately has.

Hxulcolrdoh,

You nailed it

Didn’t CBG report only a couple of weeks ago, with bad debt at around only 1% of loan book and a 4% decline in the size of that book? That would sound like well managed risk exposure.

They do flag credit risk and impairment provisioning as key areas of judgement, and yes, macro stress could change that. But for now, their capital buffers and risk controls suggest resilience.

Regulatory overhang remains the bigger threat — not credit losses.

All IMHO etc GLA - I’m buying

Stubbed my toe this morning; damn that pesky CBG management !!