Member Info for knot

Guardian Article : "The IPPR’s report calls for a new tax on the big banks that would help to recover “windfalls” enjoyed by lenders as a result of an emergency economic policy known as quantitative easing, which was put in place after the 2008 financial crisis."

"paper written by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) thinktank"

Source : https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/aug/29/uk-bank-shares-tumble-after-call-for-windfall-tax-on-lenders-in-budget

Over optimistic on the popcorn... munch... munch... munch... munch... munch... munch... munch...

"That is not the case according to the Sunday Times" - You do understand what the "windfall" actually is that the Treasury seem to be refering to rather than Sunday Times type fear factory rumour trail hitting "every bank", including those still making losses as they scale up, who have never had a "windfall". Or is that just a bad interpretation of another posters bad interpretation ?

Please explain in plain english where or what the "windfall" is that you think the government are targetting.

The "windfall" has been indicated in reference to the QE margins on bonds that have been bought back under QT - "every bank" is not exposed to this, nor are the smaller banks, nor are banks that are still holding bonds.

"major debt crisis in the next few months" - based on ? Comparable to France going first ? Driven by the FX markets ? unrelated to QT ? Preventable by BoE intervention ? Do you have a clue ?

"Advising over enthusiastic" - so not at all biased in your posting. I would maybe replace "Advising" with something else.

At least do some sensible research and factual economics rather than putting rubbish on here.

Is this post "over enthusiastic" or just more factual ?

Where's the next pack of popcorn.... munch... munch...

If you think typo's are the only issue with your posts, you really do need to go for English lessons (cultural and language), asside from basic math and economics.

Sunday humour popcorn... munch... munch...

CBG will not be liable for a windfall because their assets are below £25bn (prior windfall threashold) - hence the bank index selloff weighed on the other banks more than CBG.

Still awiaiting a public date listing for the FCA House of Lords committee, which will be very interesting to see if they let certain curiosities slip....

Appear to have livestream option on the items that are listed. Source :

https://whatson.parliament.uk/search/?SearchTerm=Financial&StartDate=30%2F08%2F2025&EndDate=29%2F09%2F2025&House=&ShowAdvanced=False

Will the committee have popcorn.... munch... munch...

CBG are getting pulled down with the rest of the banks via the bank index, even though they may well not be liable for the windfall tax, hence CBG is 1-4% better performing today out of the main banks.

Watch the 30 year yields because those bonds will likely give the feedback on the windfall tax kite flying. The tax is a backdoor route to unwind some of the costs of QE, although it wil damage the pound as per the 0.3% decline across the main currencies so far.

(Quick check of the votes) - I did wonder if voters had actually voted in the Monster Raving Looney party. Labour are starting to look increasingly dangerous to the counrties prospects long term and bringing forward the crunch moment of the pending bond market crisis.

Will Santander also be the canary in the (long since shut down) coal mine and withdraw from the UK.

Canary eating the popcorn.... munch... munch...

Just had a look at the short position update and Walleye reduced by a nominal 0.1% to 1.29%, so possibly day trading around their position or backing out a little as ActusRayPartners possibly creating three's a crowd. Always interesting to see shorts possibly having positions moving in oposite directions. Will todays 0.3% show up with one of the three on Friday ?

Stacked a bit more popcorn.... munch... munch...

Interesting chunk went through at 2025-08-28T14:00:41+01:00 and one second later a duplicate with 266,668 volume on each going through at 472.4, with before and after smaller volumes running through at the 478 level. The lesson here is if your wanting to sell or buy a volume you can either do it all in one trade and end up way off market (you take out all the volumes on the way up or down and the price you pay or get is the last price in the stack) or break the trade down into smaller volumes and wait between each trade for the automated bid and offer placements to reload the stacks with volume again. Multiple smaller volumes may end up costing more with a fee per trade, however when factoring in you may end up 1% off market on £1.2m that ends up adding up a lot more for a single trade. Separate point is that you may also find there is a buyer who is happy to sit on the bid and just keep buying, possibly £2.5m in todays instance, 533k shares or 0.35%.

Alternatively if you can place a volume at a trigger price that is another option, however sometimes if the volume is big enough you actually end up creating a resistance or support that changes the momentum of the market and then you are chasing a market going in potentially the wrong direction. Patience is not always about just holding some shares for a long period of time.

Will be interesting to see how the rest of the week plays out - did the momentum change on the 27th, helped along by a bit of volume changing hands at 480 the day earlier, stretching on the 27th a bit too far....

Stacked popcorn... munch... munch...

Truncated post ran out of characters popcorn.... munch... munch...

Model it came up with (after 3m 28s thinking time) is :

D=1−e−(0.2⋅U+10⋅S+5⋅dS/dt)

U = Emotion (sentiment modelling)

S = Short position

dS/dT = Time related influence on the share relative to the short

Formula's don't paste well at all and no images are allowed on here, so, not ideal.

Given the current 2.5% short positon and the time aspect even Grok came up with 607p as a zero short influence neutral point.

That is the current 2.5% short is creating an elsatic stretch of around 130p.

The reduced perception of uncertainty after the court case reduced the effect of the smaller at the time remaining two shorts resulting in the post case high around 560p. The perception of uncertainty and fear is what has possibly crept back in far more than the shorts (560 to 470 due to a sub 1% short addition ?).

Uncertainty still creates a much larger discount on the price relative to TNAV - i.e. everyone panic selling or afraid to buy in. This is where Buffet and the comment in relation to the market is just a way to transfer money from the impatient (emotion) to the patient (logical) becomes more pointed.

Fear is the bigger discount value driver, which is why boards like this tend to have some interesting characters and posts. When you have a share that is already discounted due to that uncertainty and posters appear with no interest other than posting fear and uncertainty you have to ask what is their real intent. Are they a foreign agent / bot or a disgruntled individual like joker who just wants to watch the world burn or someone who just does not like to see anyone prosper when they are not doing well or something else.

Management can't buy in, not a relevant or sensible point to ask why they are not buying in. Employees don't have to register any position unless they have more than 5%, which excluding the board is like asking if Walter Mitty works at CBG, or maybe Abignale.

Other times the whole market is just pulled around by late night tweets from Trump or the ever pending question around the new £50bn black hole that is possibly comparable to the size of the pothole near where I live that several vehicles could have dissapeared into with no trace at all, possibly instigating Mulder and Scully to be called out of retirement to investigate. Maybe they have already been promised jobs at the Treasuy trying to figure out what mystical forces are deluding the whole of parliament at the moment.

Uncertainty is the bigger factor in play and CBG will hopefully address some of this in the next update, otherwise it will just create another rollercoaster dip and lots of screaming before the riders return back to the same position later in the year. Uncertainty and sentiment is a much bigger factor than notional short positions.

Also bear in mind a dividend is £1.5m per 1p, 15p is £22.6m vs H1 aop £75m. or 3.2% yld.

These are just my guesses, beliefs and thoughts. None of which you should trust, do your own research.

Feeling the (sleepy)

Today looks more like just following the general pullback in banks, on a 5 day basis CBG is within around 1.5% of the rest of the pack, NatWest being lower. The rollercoaster continues, woooo... aahhhhh.....yeeee....

Screaming popcorn.... munch... munch...

I guess the market just found out where a reather significant support level is. Total of 4.8m when factoring in the other trades that went through after the auction, around 3.2% in total.

Always amusing popcorn.... munch... munch...

July 2025 - Review of the Financial Ombudsman Service - Consultation

1.14 - In summary, the government will use changes to legislation, when Parliamentary time allows, to deliver the following reforms:

● An adapted ‘Fair and Reasonable’ test – the FOS will be required to find that a firm’s conduct is fair and reasonable where it has complied with relevant FCA rules, in accordance with the FCA’s intent for those rules

● An absolute time limit for bringing complaints to the FOS – consistent with the aim of providing a simple, impartial dispute resolution service which deals quickly and effectively with complaints, an absolute time limit in legislation will require complaints to be brought within 10 years of the conduct complained of. This will avoid the risk of the FOS having to deal with a high number of historic cases, which can be challenging to resolve quickly and effectively.

6.1 This consultation will remain open for 12 weeks, closing on 8 October 2025

...

This could be implemented after motor finance... or before.... "when Parliamentary time allows"

10 Years is an interesting figure, which creates a new regulatory duration longer than the default Limitations Act six years but caps (in the regulatory redress world) the open ended issue around "deliberately concealed" allowing beyond six years.

If this is passed before, or after, the argument that the FCA has made in the past in relation to consultations and intent should be applicable here. The government have made a statement or intent as to how the FOS "should" behave and operate.

That would seem to make the 2007 stretch unrealistic running against a stated government intent. The FOS would operate the redress scheme... my guess is the FCA compromise to 2013 CONC rules (circa 8 years of claims).

Very finger in the air type worst case, FCA figure (based on 8% accrual not the 1 Jan 2026 new BoE+1%)

CBG has around 70,000 contract per year (280k 48mth avg quoted), over 8 years, with half (guess) due recourse at £950 that would give £265m in rough alignment with the £9bn from the FCA. That's going by a (guess) that CBG is average and completely ignoring Hopcraft in a possibly unrealistic manner. Drop the claims marginally, use the 2026 BoE+1% instead of 8% accrual and the provision of £165m could be quite accurate if the FCA runs wild with £9bn. That provision could then be seen as fully provided by retained dividends, separate to CBAM or Winterflood or Barrels. Leaving £200m plus excess.

Anyone up for comments on this ? Feedback ?

Source : https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68752db039d0452326e28e23/20250709_FOS_review_consultation_document_-_FINAL_V4.pdf

Do your own research.... not Ronny Regan trust but verify, rather don't trust and verify.

Late popcorn... munch... munch...

FSMA Section 3B - Regulatory principles to be applied by both regulators

(1)(d) the general principle that consumers should take responsibility for their decisions (24 Jan 2013)

Source : https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/8/section/3B

There is a lot more to this particular reference.

Zzzzzzzzzzz....popcorn... munch... munch.....

"Difference in Award Compared to PPI

The award in Johnson (full commission repayment plus interest) differs from PPI cases (often excess above a 50% notional threshold, per FCA guidance post-Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance Ltd [2014] UKSC 61) due to the combination of factors, not solely commission size. In PPI, unfairness in Plevin arose from non-disclosure of a 71% commission, but redress was calibrated to "excess" deemed unfair (e.g., above 50%, reflecting what might be reasonable for sales effort), focusing on proportionality. In Johnson, full redress stemmed from the "totality" (undisclosed tie, CONC breaches, unsophistication), making the entire commission tainted as a "secret profit" (para 330), not a partial fair amount. Size contributed (as "high" amplified conflict), but other factors justified total repayment to restore fairness under s.140B."

Note that in PPI there was no differencing interest rate over the contracting years, so a nominal 50% type threashold could make some sort of coherent sense. 50% of £100 (1% interest rate) or £1000 (10% interest rate) are quite different values.

More experience popcorn... munch... munch...

If a borrower has purchased multiple vehicles on finance in earlier years redress may have an issue....

"If Mr. Johnson had prior car finance deals without raising issues, this could evidence implied awareness or acceptance, potentially negating unfairness by showing no actual disadvantage or vulnerability."

"Medsted Associates Ltd v Canaccord Genuity Wealth (International) Ltd [2017] EWHC 1815 (Comm); appeal [2019] EWCA Civ 83: In this "half-secret commission" case, wealthy Greek investors knew commissions existed (from prior dealings) but not the exact amount split between broker and wealth manager. The Court of Appeal held no breach of fiduciary duty or unfairness, as the investors' sophistication and experience meant they understood brokerage norms and were not disadvantaged."

"Holyoake v Candy [2017] EWHC 3397 (QB): A sophisticated borrower (experienced in financial services) claimed unfairness from disingenuous lender conduct in a loan agreement. The court found no unfair relationship under s.140A, as the borrower's expertise allowed informed negotiation in a commercial context. Without concealment, prior experience negated interference—analogous to Johnson if prior car deals showed borrower familiarity, reducing vulnerability."

"McMullen v Secure the Bridge Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 884: The borrower knew of links between loan providers from prior dealings, negating unfairness under s.140A despite alleged inadequacies. Experience implied no disadvantage—relevant to Johnson, where repeat finance without issues could show expected norms, avoiding unfairness absent concealment."

... other cases...

"These cases show that, without deliberate concealment or misinformation, prior car finance deals could evidence sophistication or acceptance, likely leading to no unfair finding in a Johnson-like scenario, emphasizing personal responsibility under CCA principles."

Prior expecience with popcorn... munch... munch...

Note the ending part for some additional complexity for redress...

"Smith v Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2023] UKSC 34 (overturning the Court of Appeal's [2022] EWCA Civ 103) primarily addresses limitation periods for unfair relationship claims under CCA s.140A, not the substantive merits of unfairness. In Smith (a PPI case), the Supreme Court held that the six-year limitation under s.9 of the Limitation Act 1980 starts when the unfair relationship ends (for ended agreements), but s.32 postponement applies if facts (e.g., undisclosed commissions) were deliberately concealed, extending time until discovery. The court rejected a "longstop" bar, allowing claims if unfairness persists unremedied, but emphasized judicial discretion under s.140B to deny relief for delays where claimants "sat on their hands" despite knowledge."

i.e. if your finance agreement detailed the commission in print and you did nothing for six years... is it a valid redress case if this constitutes an instance where a borrower sat on their hands ?

Even more popcorn.... munch... munch...

Re - conference call (e.g. why seemingly only analysts on one side of the regulatory Chinese wall)

"Audience Selection and Potential Undue Influence: The invitees were exclusively market analysts from investment banks, who posed questions focused on quantum and impacts but lacked the direct adversarial perspective of lenders (e.g., Close Brothers) or consumers. This could imply an aim to control the narrative, prioritizing investor stability over comprehensive scrutiny, especially given the positive market reaction post-ruling (e.g., share price stabilization). No explicit evidence of deliberate exclusion exists, but the omission of journalists, trade bodies (e.g., Finance & Leasing Association), or consumer groups raises questions about intent—potentially favoring a "safe" audience less likely to challenge high redress estimates (£9-18bn) amid uncertainties like the Clydesdale case."

"Timing and Aim: The weekend timing (just two days post-ruling, accelerating from a planned six-week response) appears proactive for "clarity," but could reflect undue haste to frame the redress narrative before broader pushback, especially with figures exceeding sector provisions (e.g., Santander's £295m vs. FCA's broader scope). This might indicate influence from external pressures (e.g., Treasury concerns on economic stability, as noted in pre-ruling discussions), though unsubstantiated, rather than pure objectivity."

Note the regulatory obligations of any financial institution to make provisions for known liabilities - i.e. if the court rules X you have to provision for X. That's how I understand it.

"Overall, while the call remains defensible as a preparatory step before public consultation (October 2025), the conversation's progression—highlighting aggregations of breaches, ignoring Clydesdale's implications, and potential overreach on historical claims—shifts my view: There are reasonable grounds to perceive bias toward a consumer-focused outcome, possibly influenced by regulatory momentum, even if not proven undue. This doesn't alter the no-breach conclusion but nuances the "no appearance of bias" stance from my initial responses."

Do your own research. ChatGPT will give a different result, although it seems more error prone than Grok4. Anyone hear an echo, echo, echo....

Conference call popcorn... munch.... munch...

Will just start posting interesting bits as I get to them.... in quotes is wording of Grok4

"Yes, aggregating multiple breach types (e.g., discretionary commission arrangements (DCA) vs. non-DCA, varying disclosure levels) into one "widespread" scheme under s.404 FSMA 2000 raises several issues."

"R (BlueCrest Capital Management (UK) LLP) v FCA [2024] EWCA Civ 1125 clarifies s.404 constraints don't bind alternative powers (s.55J for single-firm), implying multi-firm schemes need uniform breaches to avoid challenge."

"Issues include: (1) overcompensation for non-identical harms; (2) administrative inefficiency; (3) judicial review risk for irrationality if not proportionate."

i.e. How do you have a redress scheme where one firm is applying compensation for deliberate concealed fact path with a 20% commission compared to a basic CCA unfair relationship with commission at say 80% without a deliberately concealed fact. Then allowing a 25% commission what was deemed not an unfair relationship - consider what the 80% relates to as well (take into account the influence of the interest rate at the time as to the absolute value and not just the percentage argument, otherwise at say 1% things become legally conflicted if £150 is fair or unfair). That's before getting to the whole commission or part commission as compensation, when 100% is warranted in Johnson due to those facts and arguable not 100% in an unfair only relationship value of say 80% where only 30% may be paid back on a Plevin type nominal base. That's not a consistent redress scheme, it's multiple schemes.

Just more popcorn... munch... munch...

Having multiple very, very long conversations with Grok4 at the moment, with multiple arguments due to the way in which LLM's only activate what we would call intuition on something that is directly stated or linked within the original question to a very shallow thought depth. Think of it like asking about a football match and getting back a single paragraph summary, which completely missed a massive detail around a goal awarded by a very visible hand ball (maradona).

This ends up in instances where for instance a question around the timing and elibiability of a redress scheme and 2007 gives a response with an unqualified yes, 2007 is fine. That is before reframing the question correctly with the right legal references and and then the response is conditionally yes, only with a different route, but it still has to be legally valid for compensation. i.e. the FCA can't use a possible CONC breach to override and make an "unfair relationship" out of a case that the court would deem not unfair, i.e. Wrench and Hopcraft. CONC on it's own can't make the situation a CCA "unfair relatioship", however it can plausibly cause the question to be asked, even if it stands no legal chance of being valid (no Limitations Act 1980 six year rule override). This is where "framing" of questions in the consultation paper may be quite telling.

So far with Grok4 I'm up to "The "whole picture" misalignment raises questions on FCA's independence vs. external pressures (e.g., consumer groups, politics), though no direct evidence." and at that point I will add 'yet'. Although direct evidence (how many coincidences of a particular bias would constitute proof ?) would arguablly lead to a direct legal impact and various other slight problems.... Will the government wait for these to emerge before heading off a contentious redress scheme going to judicial review ?

On the Walleye short - remember way back when I said something around short volumes being added on the second Thursday in the month (hedge / contract)... hmmmm... Another poster on a different forum questioned if they were possibly financing CMC funding and hedging out with shorts - which to me would seem more like doubling up and not really hedging, but hey, what do I know. Post clarity SC ruling could provide some certainty on some narrow cases, but enough to build even more of a short to finance CMC's ? Systematica are possibly quite different and possibly just day trading with smaller volumes around a larger swap, who knows ?

Looks possibly like the elastic snapped back a bit and the support reached after the post ruling spike sell off. Again, just my beliefs, guesses and random thoughts from the echo chamber. Do your own research and don't rely on anything I say.

Interesting times for popcorn... munch... munch...

Within CONC 4.5.3R (2014) it could be argued that the wording of the disclosure requirement "A credit broker must disclose to a customer in good time before a credit agreement or a consumer hire agreement is entered into" does not seemingly allow the consumer to find out the commission "after" agreeing to the contract because "before" was used rather than other wording to be indeterminate as to the point within the life of the contract.

Question is during the 14 day cooling off period, how do you ask for the commission to be disclosed if it is not clearly stated within the financial breakdown in the contract ?

Is this an interesting conflict of the FCA CONC rules with the purpose of the cooling off period in the CCA ?

Does it therefore assume or imply that the disclosure issue is not a relevant feature of the 14 day cooling off period and the discovery of an "unfair relationship" in those 14 days not provided for ? Slight flaw ?

If the commission is clearly defined within the signed contract then it is not concealed (visible at the start) and the 14 day cooling off period holds all of the relevant facts (invalidating concealment extension on limitations act). If it is stated in numbers in this scenario how can it be determined as unfair or are we back to hidden in plain sight nonsense ?

Just something separate that raises a different question the FCA may have to deal with. Do your own research, I'm just sounding out an echo chamber.

Cooling off popcorn.... munch... munch...