Member Info for knot

I was in a trading environment for over a decade and have not seen it all. I have seen some very strange things and I know that the market trades completely counter to the facts at times, however the market gravitates around a consensus and how that consensus is formed is by dominant opinion or facts that correct opinions and shove the consensus back closer to the factual basis. Shares are very rarely ever priced correctly and when they are it is a transitory price moment, the market does not know best.

When you phrase "prior to gambling on other shares" then I would suggest that gambling is quite different to investing. Gambling is maybe the phrase to use when you do not have the option of time. Investing is when you have the option of time and can sit back and wait for the facts to surface. Investing is the transfer of wealth from the impatient to the patient.

For CBG I view the current rollercoaster as one of uncertainty by the many because they don't understand what is infront of them that is being presented in multiple documents, court cases and news. When a market is like that it can be shoved around becuase the consensus is vauge and not very well anchored to any price level (yes, and not helped much by management).

The flawed Court of Appeal ruling was very clear to me on the implications when it was made and the media took months to even get close to the full implications of the flawed judgement. The full implications were toxic because it made the judiciary look idealistic and economically illiterate, hence there was no real explanation as to what it really implied beyond Matrin the Wise one getting a bit nervous that erven he would then be accused of bribery.

I don't know a lot, far more than what I do know, however I have taken the time to do my own homework and posted most of it on here as a form of notes and avoidance of an echo chamber (at home). If you think the shares are going to 220 at least you have a view in that consensus, fair call. I'll just sit around and buy when it looks ok to me (I have not sold any shares since 2024). Sure in the interim it may go down, just as with the Buffet farmer analogy, however I like what I have at the price I paid as an investor.

Just my opinion, guesses and errors included, see terms and conditions on page 2348 of annex Z42.

Pop,pop,pop,pop,pop,popcorn... munch... munch...

Quite an interesting day with 97% of the trades (59% of traded volume) smaller than 1k and the bulk of the action around 421-423p (46% of volume) with the upper resistance at 428p with 13%. The rest of the volume in 2/3k and 4-5k sizes that were placed through the day. The post close auction 418.8p clearing with 67% (Friday derivatives on top and close out for the weekend) of the total volume (37% traded) and 3.4p lower than the last trade. The morning gap seeking feeling giving me pause for a possible bigger fish next week.

The move down from 428 to 422 was over 3k shares spread across 20 small trades (max 527). Within the trade data it also seems quite interesting that a market maker was possibly the other side to a programatic trade that was periodically trading around 175-185 shares every 30-80 seconds with around 6k of shares involved. Market maker up for 15k of the days traded volume of 111k, not sure what to make of it at the moment. 28% of the traded volume being 184 trades of 100-200 shares at a time and 85% of the trades smaller than 200 shares. These small trades possibly an indication of how Actus are playing in the market, lots of small volumes, so will see how well that works out for them.

Actus Ray Partners (2019 Hong Kong hedge fund, ex Macquarie) adding a slightly larger short (0.11%) on the 30th (420 low, 423.6p close) in a comparable size as to what Walleye removed (0.1%) on the 29th (441.6 high, 435.8p close). If looking at the 5 day chart that would make the rise from the 28th Walleye unwind and then the drop on the 30th Actus Ray, so a rough finger in the air sensitivity of around 10-15p for 0.1% of the shares. That puts the 2.99% reported short into a possible interesting context. Citadel, Systematica and Actus now possible short day traders, who may start to fight over positioning, which might get interesting with Walleye, potentially slowly stepping back.

Nothing else stood out today, have a good weekend, usual guesses, errors, etc. do your own thing.

Popcorn away.... munch... munch....

"nagging feeling that something else is amiss at CBG, as this drop is seemingly way overdone" - when everyone else is fearful, be greedy. I just get the sense it's peak fear and uncertainty. The pending court situation to me seems more clear than the supreme court so I'm quite relaxed about the timeline and the lack of legal media is what I'm watching for a change (post official final redres scheme definition). I have posted the majority of my perspective and understanding already, with just a bit more to add later..... The final proposal is required before everyone can rip it apart from a legal standpoint.

I was just checking the shorts and noticed Walleye as well and that says something quite significant to me, so I will likely top up again tomorrow if the fall continues. Was looking at the volumes and trades, where 54% was in the range 422-425 so support around 423. Around 80% of the trades were sub 1k (automated / index) and 30% of the volumes with the effort to get to 421 appearing to take £120k, only for it to rebound on relatively little volume. Someone is pushing and I get the sense that they are on the edge with todays overall market drop providing the only edge. The brief drop to 420 saw some volumes pickup which kicked the price up to 423 and a little battle around 423 occured before breaking to the upside.

Usual guesses, errors and whatever, do your own thing, research, read, etc..

Roll on another day for popcorn.... munch... munch...

Not really, the price is reflecting the FCA dislocation with the SC ruling and the lack of public legal views on the specific issues with the redress scheme. What's interesting is that everyone is saying that the redress scheme is not in line with the SC ruling but none of them are pointing to explicit details and just keeping with vauge wording. That lack of detail is allowing the price to drift down in the interim because it's keeping the uncertainty factor high in peoples minds. Reality does not matter it's all perception. Reality wins out in the end but in the interim, uncertainty is king.

We would appear to be in a long slow downward wedge that is playing out that may still have a week or so to run or it could break to the upside after pressing post message. Some times you just have to sit back and ride the rollercoaster. The end of the wedge may well be the conclusion of the consultation period, who knows.

Should the shares be valued at the same level or lower than before the supreme court ruling ? Does that define a downside floor or an entry point ? Timing the low point is quite difficult, I bought the low around 9:50 and then someone read the post (420 not) and pushed to 421 although the volumes have picked up a little maybe creating more downside resistance to index flows that are otherwise being easily rinsed.

Does anyone expect the redress scheme to be implemented as defined by the FCA and a complete rollover by all of the lenders, in breach of their fiduciary duty to shareholders ? To me this is still just a time game and will look to keep adding on the weakness. I have done my research and happy with where I sit.

The redress consultation end will give opposing positions of lenders claiming lower and claims companies trying to push higher and at that point some specific details may emerge but I would imagine the real redress breaker details are held back for court.

In the interim, stable ongoing business that may well be redirecting the new proffits back into the business and restarting good growth.

More guesses, errors, disclaimers, yada, yada, do your own thing,

Bit of extra popcorn each day.... munch... munch...

When the markets are being led by external dynamics that are not fundamental to the shares then it creates a longer term opportunity. Added a few more at 425.48p. Disproportionate drop on liquidity where one trade from retail is over 10% of the running total does not make for a logical environment. Might be going for a final test at 420p or maybe that grasp to close the gap where a stampede awaits. Who knows.

Noticed that the CMC's an claims lawyers are all upset at the FCA trampling over SRA territory and seemingly causing the claims side to be considering legal action. FCA attacked from all sides.

More guesses, errors, disclaimer, yawn....

That annoying popocorn again.... munch... munch....

Delaying the results is a message, which will likely be followed up by an additional provision and then wonder if Santander will go the buyback route (following Barclays) to add to the tax message. That extra provision is a tax loss to the Treasury and the budget hole getting bigger.

Quite a statement to lay bare that the FCA is not helping the consumer, the economy nor the government. Would seem to be suggested that the FCA are out to protect their own jobs in building a redress scheme that only seems to benefit the FCA.

Why Nikhill also thought it was reasonable and sensible to fly over to the US to stand in front of the native motor industry to argue that they should pay British consumers for following the rules to the letter and then retrospectively being held up for claims, I do wonder. That is one meeting where a seat in the back of the meeting would have been worth paying for or maybe it's Nikhill thiniing he could get a job offer from a sinking ship.

Well today started again as a repeat of yesterday with the open sharply up and the shorts throttling it back down searching for sellers in the low liquidity market. The point with the low liquidity is that it's otherwise drifting sideways, which to me says that there are no large institutions offloading or buying and very little activity otherwise. Mr Retail too fearfull again as the perception of uncertainty leaves them on the sidelines, while the shorts search around for sellers to fill thier own budgetary black hole. The bulk of the last fall may well have been the effects of a heavy retail flush.

More guesses, errors, yawn, yeah, do your own thing, yawn, etc. zzzz..

Another day on the sidelines watching with popcorn at the ready.... munch... munch...

Added a few more again just below 429p. Not diving all in at once as the bonus of gap closing insanity may transpire before sanity prevails and that's quite appealing to still have some reserve to throw all in at that point.

Looking at the short changes from last week, Citadel day trading reduced 0.1% and Systematic increased 0.1% on the 23rd and presumably Citadel are still active day trading. Walleye had me thinking and looking back at the original short positions that they placed and the way they seemed to be instrument hedges rather than naked shorts that Citadel may be playing with. Then I'm wondering if those instruments are starting to expire and are just liquidating (short covering) on a programatic basis rather than an active day trading type activity. Not all shorts are the same.

Mornings are seemingly getting a bit more volatile and todays easing back in comparison to the larger falls on NW and LL similar to the pull back during the Trump tariff episode where CBG faired better than the rest as it was already over sold. BCAP buyed by the buy back and Saudi news.

Just some more guesses and errors, etc, etc, etc, yawn...

Another week, popcorn.... munch....munch....

Added a few more 429p. Picking up shares for 30p post supreme court ruling seems quite odd, but I guess that's the market and the shorts at play. Who am I to argue with what I consider a good price. Peak fear again with percieved uncertainty.

Back to the popcorn and a coffee... munch... munch...

Following the title of the thread....

Grok : "There is no definitive way to prove Chid is an AI bot based on public data alone, as similar patterns could stem from a dedicated human troll or ideologue. However, the combination of high post volume (1,481+), unwavering negativity without positives, repetitive style, lack of personal investment interest, and superficial financial depth strongly matches bot-like behavior designed to spread discontent."

Lloyds thread post by Admin 23 Oct 2025 : Political & Off-Topic Posts

"Due to the increased volume of both political and off-topic threads and posts, please be aware this is the final warning we'll be giving to all members on this board. Any future posts made that are political or off-topic, not in direct relation to Lloyds, will result in permanent suspension from posting on this board."

I need more popcorn for next week.... munch... munch...

Have a look at what happened with Bluecrest as an example. The FCA did a deal to avert section 55 redrerss being challenged at the supreme court level to align FCA redress under section 55 to what a court would award. Effectively clipping the wings of the FCA to be fully court alingned in all redress (which it should be). The FCA did a deal to avoid this risk and the Bluecrest court of appeal ruling that allows the FCA a wider remit under section 55 stands at the moment.

For the motor case, Clydesdale is the critical case for the FCA and if that is fully overturned then the whole redress logic falls to sub £1bn. No DCA tick box, commercial tie has to prove it was hidden, 35%/10% arbitrary level is then even more problematic standing in complete isolation as claimed to be CCA aligned.

The FCA did not comment at all about the supreme court over turning some of the basis in Clydesdale within the HoL hearing. Nikhill also made an odd comment that is aligned with the courts and redress, such that it is for the customer to prove deliberate concealment and then carried on with a parallel universe that comment did not happen. That conflicted position to me reads as they have a problem they can't get out of if the lenders go full court route.

@SG2025 - your thinking that the government has leverage, when going into a budget black hole that requires borrowing costs to fall. Reflect on the Truss moment. Barclays have indicated their position. Does the bond market view the government as a safe pair of hands with gilts at highs last seen in 2009 ? Those 10 year rates have quite an impact on the borrowing costs and self inflicted next budget black hole. The consumer is no longer a factor as the sums involved are too small and timing means the money is released very slowly.

We are around 30p difference from pre-supreme court ruling on bribery with worst case redress outlined and the only path from now is a reduction in that redress total. Stripping the emotions out, what's the logic to say it's going lower and sustained for how long ? Walleye, the long term short since Dec 2024 has been reducing from the peak 26 Aug 2025 with the latest drop on the 13 Oct (447p close) and prior reduction was around 490p, does that say anything ?

That's my view and position, added more today around 427, same value as yesterday. The day trading shorts are just pulling the market down near term but they can't hold that position longer term. It's just a basic wait and watch play with the emotions put away on a shelf.

My usual guesses, errors, disclaimer, do your own homework, think, at least read links provided if they are marked for Frank.

Back to the popcorn... munch... munch...

"rumours of HMG curbing bonuses etc" - like the recent removal of regulatory rules to allow more bonuses ?

Might run out of popcorn reading the rest.... munch... munch...

Yes, the government are starting to realise that £11bn handout means around £220bn (at typical 5% bank gearing) less lending for the government to reduce the yield on the gilts. That's separate to the impact on general lending and interest rates as a whole. There is no way that the government could think that this is beneficial to them. Once the court timeline and implications become more aparent the government may end up firing the leadership at the FCA.

The next step will be for all of the lenders to follow Barclays and move dividend payments to buybacks to signal the Treasury by removing the predictable and upfront dividend tax. Truss found out that the bond market is far bigger than the government and the lenders learnt not to trust the government with PPI.

Transcript for the HoL meeting is available and well worth a read https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/16543/html/

Just my guesses, errors, etc.

Goodnight popcorn.... munch.... munch....

My theory is that the FCA can't back down much because it exposes a flawed legal basis for the initial proposed consultation. The FCA can't knowingly present an illegal proposal as a consultation and that I believe is what determines the future path. The proposal forced banks into making extra provisions, which has a cost.

The proposal will be weakened a little, but nowhere near enough to avoid a likely multi stage legal challenge which will leave the FCA's reputation rather battered. The real issue is when it comes to light that the FCA's own legal justification was known to be flawed and they will hide behind the courts, claiming Clydesdale still stood.

What does this mean for timing - if the FCA don't bend then :

Jan/Feb 2026 redress proposal

Mar/Apr judicial review application (many lenders appealing)

May/Jun judicial review hearing (one for the popcorn stocks)

Aug/Sep judicial review ruling (oh, dear, Clydesdale put aside)

Sep/Oct FCA application to appeal (denial of reality - appeal Clydesdale stands)

Jan/Feb 2027 Court of Appeal hearing (to clarify Clydesdale)

Apr/May CoA ruling (Clydesdale overruled)

May / Jun FCA appeal to supreme court (new magic potion wish prayer to the gods)

Sep/Oct Supreme court hearing

Jan 2028 Supreme court ruling (FCA left battered but a token £2bn redress scheme)

What does this mean for lenders ? Sitting on provisions earning 5-8% return, whilst ongoing business makes a proffit and adds to the ever growing cash pile. If it heads to the Supreme Court I and CBG don't make any sort of return to shareholders before then I would imagine someone will take them over.

I think the FCA have trapped themselves. They can't appeal to the CoA and SC. The initial JR will rule against the FCA.

If you want to cause the FCA to ponder, make FOI requests for the documents relating to the legal advice, external expert (referenced in redress but why does the FCA need an external scape goat ?), all communications referencing redress and insurance.

I think we are just in a peak fear moment again (hence me buying) due to the provisions (tax defferal message to the treasury). Are you gambling short term or investing long term ?

Just my guesses, errors, etc. what do I know...

Back to the popcorn.... munch... munch....

The redress proposal is a consultation, it's not a definative point to argue or oppose. It's an FCA ambition, which you can't exactly take them to court over (yet) without a high probability you would loose.

Once the proposal is final, then you will see the real fireworks begin and the true underlying sentiment because the gloves will be off at that point. Management at those levels are barred from trading because they have inside information and equally are constrained from arbitrarily shouting into the market opinions, which will move the share price around.

Another few added just over 429p.

Scream and shout or just sit back with the popcorn... munch... munch...

FCA try to implement the proposed redress = 100% certain legal action

Curtail awards back to 2014 = 99% certain legal action (limitations act issue)

Retain any of the three tick boxes = 100% certain legal action (waiting for the six foot showroom banner being rolled out in court to clarify if it was too small and deliberately concealed)

The FCA may well want to avoid Clydesdale from being overruled and the deal could end up being a Bluecrest equivalent deal of avoiding a legal ruling being overruled which curtails the FCA's future actions. To do that the claims would have to end up £3bn or lower and even then that may well still be in excess as to what a court would award.

Did you know that Bluecrest withdrew from the Supreme Court appeal the day after the FCA published the redress scheme. That makes for some interesting timing.

Usual guesses, erorrs and disclaimer to tell you to do your own homework.

Putting the shoes on.... popcorn away... munch...munch...

@SG2025 You only just figured that out ? Frank is well pleased.

@topchat - look up section 75 and why the dealers will not face any recovery. It's a particular regulatory hole in enforcement, which is inconvenient to say the least, for the FCA.

Dealers supposedly do wrong (Johnson document errors and misleading panel) and the lenders under section 56 are held liable for the dealers actions. Go figure.

Off for a coffee and maybe some popcorn....munch...munch....

"I haven't read the link, I know nothing about bluecrest, but IF I am reading it right"

I'm not saying anything.... wheres the popcorn...munch...munch....

Lol, that's funny, had to respond.

Barclays have just said to the Treasury they need to add over £100m to the budget deficit.

Increased provision £235m (25% corp tax) = £59m less tax

Buybacks instead of dividends £500m (8-33% tax) = £50m approx less tax

Possible reduced lending due to extra £235m provision at 5% lending rate = £4.7bn lower lending

Wonder how the Treasury is going to react to the FCA growth priority on this ?

The 5 day pattern says a lot, stretchy times.

https://www.google.com/finance/quote/CBG:LON?window=5D&comparison=LON%3ABARC%2CLON%3ANWG%2CLON%3ALLOY

Clowns in charge of the circus popcorn.... munch... munch...

"Really turning into a dog of a share now!!"

That's why I topped up this morning 432-433, peak provision fear moment and we seem to be in a falling wedge as well. Off to do something else now for a few days.

Provisional popcorn... munch... munch...

"Can we be sure that CBG legal team are as up to speed as you are?" - more than me, I'm just guessing.... I did wonder why they tried to argue against bribery that had been part of law for several decades though.

There are a lot of lenders all aligning with the same goal on this, it's not like in the CoS / SC instance where the three cases ended up with a different pitch for each one and where council conflicted (disagreeing on Wood when they should have both been signing from the same hymn sheet) at the CoA hearing for example. This is an instance where the legal minds of all the lenders are focusing on the same 'issue' and I'm quite interested to see how the FCA is going cope. I'm curious if the lenders are going to get together to mount a joint judicial review challenge or we will see a dozen lenders pitching a dozen issues at the hearing.

I'm still wondering if it's going to end up a lot more simplistic (and faster) with a single challenge that undermines the whole lot rather than arging that it should not be 35% rather 50% or commercial ties that had a six foot banner with the interest rate in the showroom negated secrecy and the commercial tie was actually disclosed (not a consideration in the redress proposal). Would be quite fun to see a lender roll out a huge display banner in court and ask the judge if that amounts to a deliberately concealed fact.

More of the usual guesses, errors, tin foil hats, whatever, do your own homework, check everything and anything.

Fun times ahead, get the popcorn ready.... munch... munch...