Member Info for knot

"Under the correct interpretation of section 404(8) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA)—as confirmed by the statutory text and FCA guidance—a consumer redress scheme cannot revive or require redress for claims that are already time-barred under general limitation laws (e.g., the Limitation Act 1980) at the time the scheme rules are made. Subsection (8) is narrowly worded to provide that firms must proceed with the scheme steps "even if, after the rules are made, a defence of limitation becomes available," which acts as a "clock-stopping" mechanism to pause the running of limitation periods prospectively from the date of the rules' enactment. It does not retrospectively override or extend pre-existing limitation bars, nor does it allow the FCA to ignore primary statutes like the Limitation Act 1980 in a blanket manner. If a claim would be time-barred in court proceedings at the point the rules are made (e.g., due to the standard 6-year period for contract or tort claims under sections 2, 5, or 9 of the Limitation Act 1980, or 12 years for deeds under section 8), then section 404(1)(b) precludes the scheme from applying, as no "remedy or relief would be available in the proceedings.""

This was from Grok4 after it confused the wording of 404(8) and other references that made it interpret that the FCA could make up any arbitrary start date and ignore any statute of limitations legislation. This would appear to mean that in order for the FCA to get back to 2007 they must rely upon Canada Square and "deliberate concealment" for instance, which may be the case for unique and complex Johnson type situations (personal loan + commercial tie / misleading statement on panel of lenders + documentation errors).

An interesting one for some more research : "Yes, the 6-year limitation period under the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) applies to motor finance cases involving claims for unfair credit relationships under section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA), which form the basis of most such disputes over undisclosed commissions."

Again, do your own research, don't rely or act on anything I say. I'm just here avoiding an echo chamber. What do I know ?

Expired popcorn.... munch... munch...

This might get quite interesting and problematic for the FCA unless the industry agrees to self immolate and hand out money like confetti.

"All elements of the section hinge on failures in these contexts: the scheme can only address non-compliance with requirements linked to such activities, and redress is limited to losses where a legal remedy (e.g., damages or rescission) would be available in court proceedings arising from those failures." (Grok4)

As per section 404 (1) (b) "have suffered (or may suffer) loss or damage in respect of which, if they brought legal proceedings, a remedy or relief would be available in the proceedings" - i.e. they have to be within the law as if being ruled upon by a court.

Reference back to the Supreme Court comment [297] "The application of the test in each case will, inevitably, be a highly fact-sensitive exercise" - which is where the FCA have to be very clearly making that determination on the side that is well defined, in law, otherwise they will be immediately challenged on the legality of any stretch determination and in breach of the FOS who would administer the redress scheme.

Could the FCA rely on possible breaches of CONC rules at the time ? From the Supreme Court ruling as a bit of guidance as to what was referenced :

[259] CONC 3.3.1R - communication “clear, fair and not misleading” - the 'panel of lenders' misleading Johnson hiding the commercial tie first refusal.

[299] CONC 2.5.8R "A firm must not:" ... "(13) give preference to the credit products of a particular lender where the object of doing so is for, or can reasonably be concluded as having been for, the personal gain of the firm or of a person acting on its behalf, rather than in the best interests of the customer;" - the commercial tie reference the FCA will possibly lean on.

Take very particular note of the wording "rather than in the best interests of the customer" - implied fiduciary duty.

However paragraph 4.41k referenced in the handbook states "giving undue preference to the products of particular creditors where the object of doing so is, or can reasonably be concluded as being, for personal gain or advantage rather than in the best interests of the borrower. For example, because the credit broker or intermediary stands to benefit financially if the borrower purchases a product being offered by a particular creditor because of the financial arrangements between the parties."

This particular wording either requires a fiduciary duty or is otherwise conflicting and overruled by the recent car finance Supreme Court ruling that allowed a brokers commercial interests and not "best interests of the customer".

CONC 3.7.4G on disclosure was implemented 28 Jan 2021 and is still only guidance.

CONC breaches on their own are not necessarily enough under CCA as per the SC.

Open to other legal feedback or cases of interest, more to follow.....

Not found 1 popcorn... munch... munch...

Started off looking at 404 and drifted back up the legal path.... Reference back to the Supreme Court ruling in the particulars of the Wrench 2017 case. [29](2) "Interest charges were £1,578.84 at a fixed rate of 4.32%. This was chosen from a discretionary range within which TT Sports had authority to set the rate, of between 3.25% and 8.25%."

[31] "FirstRand paid TT Sports commission of £408.98." ... "The first part, of £299.60, was derived in part from the difference between the minimum interest rate in the range referred to above, and the rate actually set by TT Sports. The second part, of £109.38, was described as a “revenue share of advance” and calculated as 1.25% of the total amount of credit."

[270] "Rather the point is that there was no express undertaking or assurance by the dealer to put its commercial interest aside in seeking a finance package for the customer."

The Wrench case was ruled in favour of the lender, which is a clear case of the broker increasing the interest rate for a commercial consideration and not found to be an unfair commercial activity by the Supreme Court. That was even with faulty paperwork pointing to the wrong clause, but no commercial tie like Trade Center Wales. Couple this up with the FOS winning the case on the basis of a "disinterested duty" via the Court of Appeal (which was overturned) as well and you have a very problematic case for the FOS to actually win at appeal when the Supreme Court has removed one corner stone and very clearly allowed a second aspect of the main argument.

The Wrench type cases aligns with the case being ruled in favour of Barclays to align with the Supreme Court ruling and would be very difficult to see how the FOS can now win the case without a disinterested duty. The FOS may then be denied a challenge at the Supreme Court because the Supreme Court have allowed explicity the interest rates to be set by the broker, which is the main argument of the FOS in the DCA case.

I would really, really like to hear a counter argument that could plausibly give the FOS a win in this case (not just blind opinions, ones actually backed up with a legal rationale). I'm not certain, however it seems 'slightly' (you figure out what slightly means in this instance) tilted against the FOS.

First part of the section 404 analysis.... it has a link because it helps with showing the conflicting (paperwork errors not on thier own a reason for an unfair situation) issue of cases 404 could apply to.

Reviewing a bit of past popcorn... munch... munch...

Mrmarkyw, I was writing it for a while in response to the earlier posts and noticed yours just before I sent it and thought about the timing and tinfoil hat claims I'm an AI. The exact route of challenge for the lenders on any redress scheme I'm not fully clear on all paths on at this point as I have not done much research on the details around those paths. What I do know is that the FCA have to operate within the laws thare are defined, they can't make new ones up, whatever route they try to go.

I believe the whole process may be in a window of resetting expectations, coupled with the FCA wanting to save thier own jobs.

Liberty2, re the "widespread or regular" - the Supreme Court made the case that each instance is highly fact dependent and I believe was indirectly saying a wide redress scheme is not legally sound. I will do more research on the whole FCA/FOS routes in detail later because the details are what a lot of LLM's can miss out on and matter much more (recent SC ruling for instance).

Out for coffee and popcorn.... munch... munch...

Just with the various recent court cases they define within a certain bounds what any redress scheme could look like, however they still have to wait for the Barclays case, which could go to the Supreme Court in 2026. Any hopes of an agreement prior to that are pure fantasy - how do you have a redress scheme that could rely on a case going to the Supreme Court in 2026 ? That's going against the possible (read every disclaimer under the sun and I have a bridge to sell) 90% probability that the FOS are going to loose the case later in 2025 (it relied upon the CoA ruling) or that the FOS take it to the Supreme Court in appeal at loosing to Barclays in 2025. That case loss will likely reduce the imagination of the FCA and bring it back to ground with a bump.

The FCA have proven quite clearly that their timelines are quite innacurate and do not track the legal process timelines. The weekend knee jerk reaction after the SC ruling a case in point of six weeks rushed into a few hours with quite apparent lack of legal clarity or research.

If the FCA try to impose or force anything that is outside of the legal bounds expect a joint court case from the banks, either a judicial review or a direct challenge. If they try and go down the route of making the FOS £650 charge an equivalent back door fine (regardless of redress) then also expect legal action.

My current expectation is that nothing will be agreed by the end of 2025 unless the FCA climb down from thier high horse and back to legally sound ground, which is much lower payouts (which will be very uneven between companies) and a massive reality check on the 2007 aim (different ruling on statute of limitations).

I still have as an outside possibility a path where the FCA are taken to court for a breach of thier fiduciary duty, which would possibly stop or pause the progress of a redress scheme. That could instigate an overhaul of the FCA at the same time, which I believe Labour are wanting, having fired the the heads of various other regulatory bodies.

Those thinking a redress scheme will impact all banks the same have not understoood the whole legal process at all, nor the operating differences between companies.

Another thought is regarding the £650 fee from the FOS, which may fall into a cost bucket that could be counter claimed against the claims companies where they have (un)knowingly filed claims without due care and attention (pending different ongoing court case that will define this path). These costs could end up being a high price the claims companies end up paying indirectly as an unintended consequence of the FOS wanting to do the right thing.

As I have said many times quite clearly before, there are just my guesses. Do your own work and figure it out yourself. This is very clearly not an investement advice platform, otherwise do you have any bridges for sale ?

Popping into 2026 popcorn... munch.... munch...

"all of these analysts are also clueless?" - Yes, quite clearly because all of those consensus values are from before the court ruling and the CET1 ratio is already clearly wrong. Just look at the broker recomendation page on here and tell me which analyst had a price target that was anywhere near correct ?

The FCA have to opearate within the bounds of the multiple recent SC rulings and within the law and CBG also had to operate within the bounds of the CoA ruling, which was proven wrong by the SC. CBG made provisions based on the CoA ruling as legally required by any prudent company that has been operating for over 100 years. If you think the provisions have not changed by the SC ruling, I guess your just the same as all the Jun 2025 consensus.

Keep up with the £9 out of context reference and ignore the much lower closing price part of my prediction. That I would agree was innacurate, however how much do you think the FCA have scared the market as a whole by a word salald of legally a questionable redress figure of £9bn on the low side.

Fortunately you have proven you have not read all of my posts, so keep popping with the popcorn.

Popping off for more popcorn... munch... munch...

Manfor - if you actually read what I posted correctly I clearly stated that the £9 was a spike expecation on short limits being breach before falling back quite significantly, which was before the FCA did a knee jerk out of regulatory remit conference call with investment analysts about the FCA's perception as to the Supreme Court implications on a redress scheme. Along with the FCA quoting finger in the air figures they refused to back up with actual calculations and an £18bn figure, which implies the FOS or FCA are going to try and impose £5-9bn in costs, which in the context of FCA comments about claims firms fees it makes for some contradictory humour.

That still did not stop some larger shorts from closing positions out after the court ruling as well, which pushed the price up in the few days after the ruling, hitting 560p resistance from a year earlier. Yes, much lower than I anticipated before the FCA went rouge. I have prior to that indicated that £8 is my near term target, which I think will be reached by the end of 2026 at the latest.

In terms of earnings, you seem utterly clueless as to how economic reporting works because you are completely ignorant of the results that have been reported so far in relation to your 50p earnings "within the next couple of years".

Why do you think that CBG will sit on excess capital without getting any type of incremental return is a question I would like to ask back as to how you think the economics of a company works because your version would appear to be different from any market reality.

A 15p dividend may well be an initial token start announced next month due to the reduction in uncertainty around the value of claims (Hopcraft type reserves released), because (check papers) the FCA actually have to follow the rule of law, the FCA are not law makers and cannot impose a redress scheme that is counter to the law of the land. CBG also have a very clear legal position on non DCA (Barclays) cases and a very clear position on the 2007 nonsense.

I'm not at all dissapointed with the share price because there was enough volume sitting on the sidelines waiting for the SC ruling to be made before buying in that the volume created a pool of limit breaches and nervous sellers that shorts are able to cash in with in the near term.

Markets are irrational on a short term basis and at the mercy of emotions, longer term economics rules the day and patience always wins out. Most can't sit by and just wait. I have not sold anything yet.

Patiently waiting for more popcorn to pop... munch... munch...

Popcorn breaking bad style I would argue is not really sustainable, particularly from an addiction and behavioural perspective. The popcorn also tends to leave bits so having any in crime will always leave a trail of evidence, worst case litterally to the front door. That's before considering the basic health aspect if it is closer to american style with more E's than an 90's disco night out. As always, everything in moderation is good, it just depends on your perspective of moderation....

Now, where was that pack of popcorn.... munch... munch...

"The FCA seem to be creating more uncertainty than the SC.." - Only to those that think the FCA have a clear idea as to how, legally, they are going to implement anything that runs against several recent Supremem Court rulings.

The FCA are in my mind in job protection mode and they committed to a plan and are yet to admit that the plan has to change because of the recent fiduciary nonsense being overturned (amongst other rulings) back to long established legal principles. If the FCA admitted to the implications of the SC ruling and the pending defeat of the FOS on the DC case with Barclays they would have to admit they have been wrong for years and heads would roll. This is purely into the land of politics, which leaves uncertiainty as a false king in this instance.

In terms of valuation, everyone has different numbers and in some instances those numbers really are litterally made up when formulating a bid. Don't overthink that the world operates on magical complex all seeing models. I can't remember if it was Hanson (80's / 90's) that first evaluated a takeover prospect on the value of the cars in the car park outside the head office. That was the complexity of the modeling, which still holds in some regards.

Otherwise argue with the absolute direction of the wind. The wind has a general direction everyone agrees on, however the closer to any perception of truth is more hisenberg (not breaking bad) territory.

Breaking campervan popcorn... munch... munch...

Systematica have been one of the participants day trading the shares down and flushing out limits and other nervous holders, hence their increase of around 75k yesterday. No real difference in the market activity compared to when we were down at 300 range, only the removal of uncertiainty has just moved the risk price point up a bit. Those short additions will still drive the price back up when they are closed out, so the additions are just elastic being stretched and they work on the basis that others capitulate and sell out to reduce that stretch a bit and make the margin there.

The people who all sat on the sidelines waiting for the SC to rule before buying in have now realised that the risk return (in the short term) is no different from buying in before the ruling if looking at the drop from 560p vs the climb from 400p. Missed out on 80p gain or missed out on 80p loss. We are now at an interesting mid point in the pricing rationale and any further drop from here starts to look well over done in the near term (more so longer term), however short term the markets can be irrational for an exceedingly long time.

Today looks like the short strategy of selling the day down and closing out in the auction has made a return, however this is zero to do with long term valuation and is just how the shares are trading at this moment in time. The market is still biased away from an equilibrium of buyers to sellers, favouring the sellers. Those with good legal teams will see through the FCA and make their own valuations, those who believe the FCA will maybe join the £40bn analyst.

The FCA have yet to make any company pay out a single pound yet via any sort of imaginary redress scheme, so to claim victory otherwise is very clearly factually wrong. The FCA also have six months or more to go with other court cases before they can even contemplate claiming any type of win, which will certainly not be spread evenly across the industry. The hopes of a consulatation is that the industry acts voluntatrily, which after PPI they have learnt not to trust a regulators tojan horse so there will be no industry agreement, asside from the clear lack of legal bounds for a wide handout. The FCA and FOS will still have to act within the law and follow the relevant supreme court rulings.

Remember, the markets never price any share correctly and the shares actual true market price is possibly only ever seen for less than a minute once in a blue moon as the price moves through that price point.

Watching the elastic popcorn.... munch... munch....

"There's a series of highly attractive assets which have sat in private equity portfolios" - not so attractive as to wanting to hold onto them....margins are going to get squeezed and those already cost cutting will be able to cope better than others.

For those with a good legal team they will already be able to guage as to who is potentially attractive compared to those that may have issues over "deliberate concealment" and hence a possible liquidity defining moments of above or below zero net worth (to be or not to be the administrators).

Integrating another book into a business may well make sense if the T1 capital headroom is combined with different risk assets, so not necessarily motor aquiring motor business.

In terms of analyst targets and evaluations, remember that none of them have any inside information and they may or may not have even attended any investor events that are held by the company concerned. The £40bn ex analyst who dreamed a dream (and was seemingly let to to follow that dream) maybe proves an example as to how right or wrong even professional analysts can be.

With todays 82% of traded volume creating support below 500p and the flurry of 30% of the total days volume in after market / auction activity at 498.6p it looks like some short term shorts flushing a few people out may have hit a new segment of buyers as well. Who knows... ? Frank ? Meanwhile, the rollercoaster screams continue.... remember to scream on the rise and scream on the fall.. it ends in the same place, sit back and enjoy the ride.

Popping off for popcorn... munch... munch...

Is there a Frank Abignale at the bar ? Anyone called Frank Abignale ?

Jump seat popcorn.... munch... munch...

"the value of the company is down 10%" - that would be correct if the £10m was not earnings and pure capital, i.e. drawing £10m out of a £100m bank account. For an ongoing business making more than £10m the value of the company does not go down.

If you have difficulty with that perception, maybe read basic accounting 101.

poppy popcorn... munch... munch...

Another way to look at it is if you believe in the business do you want them to progressively give you your own money back slowly over time (taxed each year) and still have the same holding in the business or let the company keep hold of your money and reinvest it year on year (compound investing) to grow that money over multiple years into a much larger pot (taxed only when you sell up) ?

Dividends = short term (taxed annually) - even reinvested you may pay tax if it's above the £500 allowance.

Buyback = long term (taxed only on sale)

Inside an ISA this is partly irrelevant as your tax sheltered and more applicable on holdings outside of pension / ISA tax shalters. Those tax shelters are looking more and more likely to get taxed and SIPPs are now a captive tax target (inheritance just passed and pending other tax grab).

Would not surprise me if they try and tax dividends in ISA's claiming they are not taxing the capital rather the income. That said at least with an ISA you can take the lot and move it compared to a SIPP / pension fund that is a possible sitting duck. I'm now more cautious about putting anything into a SIPP because the benefits longer term are no longer a given and may end up worse in a financial crisis of the pound.

Tax is way too complicated and some of the rules are not clear themselves (i.e. does dividend tax count first or capital gains tax in relation to which rate is applicable first and that's before the question of bank interest). You can in theory end up with over 11 different tax rate bands being applicable to different sources in different orders. So much for the average person being able to work their taxes out easily (view to some recent court cases on expectations as to what legally your expected to know or be capable of understanding - and therefore legally liable for).....

Taxed popcorn (20% VAT)... munch... munch...

Dividend allowance £500 (0% tax) then 8.75% (basic) on £2,500 and then 33.75% (higher) - No choice as to 'when' you are taxed.

Capital gains allowance £3,000 (0% tax) then 24% (higher) or 18% (lower) - choice as to when you pay tax.

Paying dividends to any higher rate tax payers is hugely detrimental compared to share buyback because. Smaller shareholders with a £500-£3,000 gain would also pay less tax (and a choice as to when) compared to dividends. Lower rate taxpayers would also benefit. Dividends cost higher rate tax payers far more and not beneficial to hold if they have a high dividend yield.

How does this work ? Company has £10m to return, do they pay a dividend or buy shares back in ? Buy depressed valued shares or distribute a dividend that may or may not raise the share price ?

Let's say your a shareholder with 1,000 shares that have a market price of £1 and the company has 100m shares in issue (£100m market cap). The company buys back 10m shares (£10m) and cancels them, so the prior shareholder with 1,000 shares (of 100m) now has 1,000 shares of (90m) so the shareholder increases thier holding in the company. Those shares should then in the market be worth £1.11, however early in the stages of any buyback other trend followers buy in and push the price up before the company buys. The company would typically buy say 100k per day for x days in order to aquire the 10m shares or less shares if the buyback is a value £10m.

Basically if your wanting to combat shorts and raise the share price a buyback can be very effective, whilst also making a lot of your shareholders happy they have a choice as to when they pay tax.

Given the uncertainty around the autum budget (tax raid or Truss 2 moment) I would side with CBG going for a buyback rather than dividends because a buyback just seems to make more sense on from a lot of perspectives. Hope that helps, there are lots of other examples on the net that are probably better worded.

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

With the uncertainty that the FCA are trying to create (job protection mode) by trying to have a consultation process, whilst the Barclays case is unresolved, makes for legally a problematic situation. The FCA seem to be quite good at having a complete lack of ability in defining a simple calendar and a list of critical events on the calendar that need to line up. The ludicrous "within six weeks" that turned into an overnight knee jerk reaction to the SC ruling (which slapped the FCA) acompanied by a curious conference call with investment banks, to which a regulator should arguably never have (single minded duty - will that fiduciary aspect actually come back to haunt the FCA and be it's downfall).

The FOS will have the decision, if they loose (highly likely) the Barclays case, to take the case to the Supreme Court, which will then place the decision well into 2026 and the consultation process would have to pause or be renewed after the result of the case. The DCA question around interest rate setting may become a simple question around the split of interest/commmission on that interest rate differential above the minimum where zero commission is awarded way above 50%. How this aligns with the £950 of the FCA becomes an interesting question because if they have relied upon a route, upon which other SC rulings have indicated is not legally sound, this could place the FCA into a rather problematic legal position (fiduciary duty to the government and the public).

I'm waiting for the first instance to appear where the fiduciary duty of the regulator is questioned and openly challenged, which would be a critical moment and defining point of a reshuffle.

The second pertspective to consider, which is quite a basic view, is the perspective around the retained earnings. CBG have around £1.6bn of retained earnings, which arguably could be making a return of 5% or £80m a year without any type of business activity around it. Rent free is the thought that comes to mind on retained earnings, which are equally an easy prize if discounted in a takeover where the TNAV is above those retained earnings.

The LLM Chat output is potentially questionable as to the numerics and financials.

Summer popcorn... munch... munch...

That summary is missing quite a few critical points.

The FCA have to have rules that sit within the law and they now have some rules, which legally are now contradictory to different supreme court rulings. That is they are not legally sound and would not stand up to a legal challenge, which by the way the FCA is heading (job protection mode) is an innevitability.

The legal route to go back to calims as far (why not further back) back as 2007 must have "deliberate concealment" (Canada Square v Potter [2023]) and this does not automatically make a claim unfair. If there is no deliberate concealment, the FCA rules in place at the time were followed and the commission payments were not beyond credibility (consider the context of the FCA conflicting £950 vs Johnson) there is no legal recourse for any claim.

When the Court of Appeal ruling occured CBG immediately complied with the ruling at the time and changed some aspects of the business to comply with that ruling (whilst some other companies did not) and it created a huge legal uncertainty beyond motor finance. Now that the Supreme Court has clarified the nonsense the CoA imagined up (trust to fiduciary Keech contradiction) there is a very clear legal deffinition on a lot of motor finance cases (e.g. Hopcraft type) that will release provisions and not require even more war chest building. The market agrees with this perspective, hence the share price rise after the ruling. I still believe a share buyback is highly probable and potentially more preferable than dividends (autum budget madness).

The veiled by the FCA that they would allow the FOS to impose the £650 challenge penalty into the £bn range is quite a rediculous proposition as to think this would occur without a significant and very rhobust legal challenge, either by way of a judicial review or a separate route. To imagine that the FOS could apply a financial penaly, on the deffendants, multi £bn of claims that do not stand up is to effectively instigate a penalty to prove your innocent, whihc is even more counter to basic law than an immginary half secret imagining up a fiduciary out of blind trust.

Walleye increasing their short last week is interesting on the timing after building a position, then increasing shortly before the court ruling blew a £2m hole in that position and are continuing to build at a time that most shorts exited. That said the timing of the trading has possibly indicated that the position is hedged or is part of another instrument, which they may or may not hold exposure to. Systematica have been consistent in a short and then day trading around that position, although they too were hit by around £1m on the court ruling impact on the shares rising. Ho hum. Wonder how much they would loose on a bid approach.

Part 1 of popcorn.... munch... munch...

Very light volume for the drop and it's run out of steam, coinciding with Chid, it marks the trading low point. Flushing nervous retail out. Last two days have closed with a premium in the auction, showing the elastic is stretching.

Friday popcorn.... munch... munch....

No short change as expected.

End of day auction flipping to a premium today (part expected) and 51% of the trade volumes in support at 532-535p. Relatively spread volumes on the way down with just below 540p having a little resistance, otherwise last weeks support looks to change the direction for Thursday to potentially try for the double top resistance next week.

Will not be posting a summary unless anything significant happens with usual rollercoaster expected over the next few weeks with no real surprises so just typical trading noise on a long term holding position....

Enjoy the popcorn.... munch.... munch....

Sunshine and a coffee with a nice view indeed makes the day much more plesant, asside from the hillarity of some posts on here.

The one thing to bear in mind is how CBG reacted to the court of appeal ruling (as it was law as it was passed) when they implemented the ultra conservative finance approach. Now that they have a definative legal perspective from the Supreme Court, which the FCA will have to follow, the existing level of reserves now at hand is in excess of even a conservative requirement. From this perspective I would imagine that September may well have some sort of action to reallocate those reserves, although I am hoping that it is not in the form of a dividend given the government perspective on tax and the £50bn black hole which is lookling likely to have a CGT and or dividend tax impact of some sort included.

I'm guessing from the last week that one or two of the shorts finished off closing out their positions with the peak over 560 hitting last years high, so a double top resistance point in the near term. Usual pattern kicking in of people cashing in short term, shorts jumping on the trend and riding the wave for now. Back to the 525-535 point where there was some different volumes last week, so possibly looking like the tail end of the falling wedge trading pattern.

Chid has been really good at one thing, which is correlated posting that marks the end of a short term bear trends and today is looking like matching that trend and predictive value. Buffet applicable ideed.

Back to the comfy chair and popcorn again.... munch... munch...