Member Info for knot

There is another case that was a few days before the CBG hearing, where point 2 that was raised is comparable to some aspects of the discressionary interest rates that is also in the Barclays case. The LIBOR ruling would possibly need to be before the CBG ruling because they can't be miles apart on the decision. Three of the judges on LIBOR are also on the Hopcraft hearing, so the ruling will be indicative as to how the finance ruling and Barclays will end up. I'm now wondering if this is going to move further into August to combine all three cases within the wording of the rulings of the LIBOR and CBG to mean that the Barclays case is effectively not required.

Might make for some interesting trading if hedges were placed for high volatility in July and it turns out a big nothingburger, hence the narrow gradual moves as volatility dissipates and no gap trading.

Pending popcorn... munch... munch...

The drop after 3:09pm was on the back of 17k and no trade above 1k in volume during that time. Meanwhile 63% of the volume was in the 396-399p range, knocking on the door of 400p. Further up at 403p being the only other chunk of 10.5% in a 1p range.

The clearing auction after the close 2.6p lower at 396.4p (120k) where only 17.7k shares traded at or lower in the day, so someone trying to push down or sold out at a loss on the day, expecting it to clear higher ? No idea. Tight range trying to escape up. No change on the notified short front.

Plain popcorn sumary... munch... munch...

Ah, but is it really only half irony ?

Makes for an interesting situation if the court rules there are no claims at all. FCA no defined path for a redress scheme, CMC's with no win no anything, consumers shrug with nothing gained nothing lost. Market reacts positively.

Flip side is court allows some claims, FCA start a redress scheme and CMC's end up taking more fee's by way of charging for the additional work because the compensation route is via a redress scheme and not via the CMC, so they charge more as a result of the 'extra work' involved.

The absolute double half secret irony would be where CMC's end up taking more than 50% of any redress awards, potentially more than 100% in some instances of low values. That would likely lead to a large clearout at the FCA if there is any accountability, oh, forgot, it's the government with no accountability..

No half nonsense, full nonsense popcorn...munch...munch...

"regardless of the SC decision" - The FCA and any redress scheme must be within the law and regulatory framework that was applicable at the time. For bribery in CBG case CONC 4.5.3 (01/04/2014) specifically allowed for small commissions to remain undisclosed (secret). For the SC to rule against bribery the FCA would not be able to implement a claim against Hopcraft (small) type cases prior to 2021.

Either way, uncertainty is going to be removed from the share price and uncertainty always carries a discount. The point earlier in relation to the TNAV is indicative of the scale of that discount and that uncertainty risk also blocks virtually all takeover potentials. Consider the keg business removal as a cleaning of the business, which may well make it a more appealing target.

Sometimes, online, you do get some very strange and varied characters who are online for various reasons. Some basic common sense and a little research usually clarifies the question. Do your own homework, don't trust anyone, including me, make your own mind up. If you think it's a falling knife that's up to you.

Tired popcorn....munch...munch...

Curious day with Systematica trimming the short yesterday by a rounding error of 0.01%. The steady climb on the day with 28% of the volume in the last 10 minutes of the day to push down. End of day auction 96k (22% of vol) interesting with a slight discount to the last trades but 5p lower than 10 minutes before the close to duck back under 400p and close flat on the day. 97k of volume for a 5p drop or stretch.

51% of the volume 400-402 (2p range) and a gap of 1p before 24% above 403p, the possibly overhang of hedge volume from days when the price was a lot lower and way out of the market calls may have been cheap. Round figure of 400p as the added attraction to the calling.

Asside from CBG loosing interest in beer, not a lot else to pop..

Popcorn waiting for action.... munch... munch...

On Hopcraft and bribery, what must be remembered is that small commissions were very explicitly allowed to be secret under CONC rules since 2014. There are also a vastly larger markets that are exposed to this aspect compared to the car market. That is asside from the 1949 irrebuttable aspect that was brought up by CBG legal council and some other aspects.

The court overruling what was previously very explicitly allowed under the regulatory rules does not bode well for Starmer and Hermer pushing a "rules based order", when those rules can be retrospectively dumped and trust in the law erroded.

Today looks like a day for knocking on the door of 400.

Back to bribing for more popcorn.. munch... munch...

Again this is just Grok, read the cases yourself, read the other cases, figure it out yourself.

"On Bribery: The CoA applied the common law tort of bribery to fully secret commissions, treating them as bribes inducing breaches (even without corrupt intent), leading to presumptive remedies like rescission and disgorgement. Lenders argued for narrowing or abolition, emphasizing rebuttable presumptions and alignment with the Bribery Act 2010. Given justices like Lord Hodge's strict bribery jurisprudence (requiring clear corruption) and the panel's questions on origins/intent, I estimate an 80% probability that the Supreme Court overrules or narrows this aspect, potentially making presumptions rebuttable or limiting the tort to egregious cases. This avoids overextending beyond precedents like Industries and General Mortgage Co Ltd v Lewis (1949), reducing automatic lender liability.

On Other Aspects of Fairness: This encompasses fiduciary duties for dealers (imposed ad hoc by CoA based on trust/vulnerability), accessory liability for lenders in partial disclosure cases (via dishonest assistance), and unfair relationships under ss.140A-C of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (due to non-disclosure creating imbalance). The CoA's expansions were seen as misconstruing Wood and Hurstanger by overlooking formal engagements in those cases. With justices like Lord Briggs and Lord Hamblen expressing doubt on dealer fiduciary roles (e.g., comparing to non-fiduciary advisors) and FCA warnings on industry impact, I estimate a 75% probability of overruling or narrowing these, possibly holding no broad fiduciary duties absent explicit undertakings, stricter dishonesty thresholds for accessories, and limiting CCA unfairness to cases with proven causation/loss. Some pro-consumer elements (e.g., basic disclosure norms) might persist, slightly lowering the probability compared to bribery."

This would align more with what my belief has been from very early on, namely the Court of Appeal massively over stretched the law.

Again, read, do your own homework and figure out your own view.

Meanwhile... some popcorn on the side... munch... munch...

Extracts from Grok - not legal advice - it's just output, so large pinch of salt or just ignore it - :

In relation to the judges : "This panel composition—dominated by commercial and equity experts—suggests a preference for predictability in financial markets, aligned with the FCA's concerns about retrospective liability."

"A 4-1 or unanimous pro-lender majority is plausible, with Lord Lloyd-Jones potentially concurring separately on remedies. This aligns with post-hearing commentaries predicting a "brake" on CoA expansions to avoid industry chaos."

"March 19, 2025, in Rukhadze and others v Recovery Partners GP Ltd and another (UKSC 2023/0062) : In this case, the Court unanimously reaffirmed the strict "profit rule" for fiduciaries, holding that a fiduciary must account for all profits made in breach of duty" - "Held that fiduciaries must disgorge all breach-related profits without proving "but for" causation"

Bribery : "Abolition or Narrowing: Alternatively, urged abolishing the tort or confining it to statutory definitions (Bribery Act 2010), as it duplicates unfair relationship claims under CCA ss.140A-C. Emphasized commissions were not "bribes" absent fiduciary duties, which dealers lack in sales roles. "

In relation to duty : "Yes, both Wood v Commercial First Business Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 471 and Hurstanger Ltd v Wilson [2007] EWCA Civ 299 involved fiduciary duties that arose from structured engagements," - "This contrasts with the more purely ad hoc basis in the motor finance cases"

"The CoA in Hopcraft did not overlook the differences entirely but arguably misconstrued or downplayed them by analogizing too broadly, potentially leading to an error in extending strict fiduciary principles to less formalized relationships. This could be a key ground for reversal in the ongoing Supreme Court appeal (heard April 2025, judgment pending)."

"Potential Misconstrual and Error: This broad extension could be seen as an error because Wood and Hurstanger involved clearer agency (e.g., mortgage/loan brokers retained for expertise), where fiduciary duties align with traditional equity (trust creates duty, per Keech v Sandford 1726). In Hopcraft, the CoA arguably reversed this by letting circumstantial duty create fiduciary status, overlooking that dealers' primary sales incentives inherently conflict with impartiality, without the mitigating structure of a retainer. The judgment downplays dealers' dual roles (seller/broker) as "independent," but critics argue this ignores real-world dynamics where no explicit engagement exists, potentially overextending liability to millions of pre-2021 contracts (£10-16bn impact). The FCA's intervention in the Supreme Court appeal highlights this as retrospective overreach, suggesting the CoA misconstrued precedents by not limiting to cases with explicit undertakings."

"In my opinion, this represents a possible judicial error, as the CoA prioritized consumer protection over precise equitable boundaries,"

Back in Feb 2025 I explored the court case with Grok, going over the legal aspects and the conversation ended up very long. So long, the output text was starting to get very compact and difficult to read.

With Grok 4 and giving it the same conversation :

As Grok 4, with enhanced reasoning, the differences highlight a clearer “cart before horse” pattern—trust creating duty contradicts Mothew/Keech—raising the potential overrule probability to 85% at the Supreme Court (judgment pending post-April 2025 hearing, no decision as of July 14, 2025). Outcome: Duty likely narrowed to explicit engagement, reverting to Plevin-style fairness—commissions compliant under pre-2021 FCA upheld.

Will explore more and post later.

Curious popcorn time.... munch.... munch...

Missed out Millenium adding 135k to the short on Friday, so that was a part of the 10p drop on the day, which mostly reversed back out today. They are now at 0.7% and 3.33% overall, or 5m shares short.

Maybe falling wedge popcorn flavour ahead... munch... munch...

Bouncing around 390-400p for the last few days, awiating the removal of uncertainty. Today saw light volumes and a steady rise with the auction clearing nearly 2p lower as some day trading volumes balanced out at the end of the day. Todays volumes showing a bit more of the underlying pattern now with 391-392p (30% vol) support and 399p (26% vol) resistance showing a litte more with the 3p of range being 56% of the activity. This range looks likely to persist until later in the week, or not, who knows...

Mansion House speech later in the week may be the prelude to the FCA getting a 'refresh' as part of the reduction in the regulatory burden, given the FOS review came out over the weekend with the FOS board not looking so bright. This should be quite positive for the whole sector given the regulatory overhead at the moment, especially if it coincides with the SC ruling being given a definative date. This is all removing the uncertainty discount on the shares, separate to the aditional clarity on any redress, which is now seemingly covered by the CBG warchest that has been prepared. As always do your own homework, I know nothing.

Sunny days, windy days, rollercaster days, popcorn days.... munch... munch...

Headless chicken day, where the shorts went chicken hunting. After the early screaming stopped, it looked like the majority of the chunky day trading volume may have closed out. No change on the shorts yesterday, so they would have been happy with today and wonder if any used the dip to close anything out or they are 'shout the court'. The no short change puts yesterdays price rise/squeeze in an intersting light.

Volume today a chunky 1.44m. After market only 248k so a lot of day trading volume closing out. No real significant price points with only 337-381 and 390-394 making up 43% of the volume. 380 support and around 392 seemingly a resistance or day trade cash out cap. Not just shorts day trading judging the 379-380 support.

Interesting popcornish day...munch...munch...

They are providing certainty. The earings volatility of that smaller market was far greater than it should be and to remove volatile earnings they are getting rid of short payday type loans of £300 to focus on larger less volatile loans.

For a 4% reduction by that market, they will be able to reallocate the capital into other businesses and the £20m saving is close to the indicated volatile returns. From a 2030 perspective a zero sum situation, whilst adding less volatility to the future earnings picture. To me it looks like throwing out a small kitchen sink before the court announcement.

First bit of trading in a while today, so added a few at 379 just after the turn. Had to be done. Interesting battle at 389 now.

Trading popcorn...munch...munch...

No, just shorts flushing out limits. It may well struggle around 370-375 and bounce at that point, looks to be running out of momentum.

Curious timing ahead of the ruling. Other banks not correlated so it does not appear to be a pre-annoucement move to get ahead of the ruling.

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

Still no notified change on the shorts.... Pant stretching day today. Based on todays rise I would be stunned if none of the notified short positions changes. End of day auction closed out 411.2 compared to the last trade at 419 so a lot of volume basically running the price up day trading or a buyer getting in. Volume for the day in total 901k with 204k in the auction, so maybe 50k closing day trading ? Still an interesting two phase run up bear trap.

What was possibly quite interesting is that there did not seem to be any real specific resistance points above 400p that stood out in the volumes. Could this be the point nearing a more rapid price change due to the lack of derivative volumes at near market price level, who knows...

Tomorrow may start of with more close out of the uncertainty discount trade as the supreme court decision looms ever closer or it could fall back as the full squeeze is not quite there yet, who knows ?

Another day, another scream on the popcorn rollercoaster.... munch... munch...

No short change. Looking like possibly bouncing off the 375 support, hence the 3p after market auction premium that was 48% of the total volumes on the day. Bounce off 370 ot 375 tommorrow, no idea.

Early morning tussle for direction and then a push down in two phases with modest additional directional volume. 5 trades 10k and above. Weak direction, light liquidity.

Spell casting popcorn....munch...munch...

Guardian math : "Of the 4,000 people surveyed, 45% believed they were likely to be eligible for money back, which equates to more than 23 million adults across the UK"

Google : "There were just under 34 million cars registered in the UK at the end of June 2024" - see the prior case about fraudulent claims.

Source : https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jul/07/more-than-23m-britons-think-they-may-be-due-compensation-for-mis-sold-car-loans-uk-poll-finds

"there’s a risk that a redress scheme leaves many people disappointed"

Popcorn breakfast...munch...munch...

The SC can be viewed as two decisions, bribery and other.

Under bribery, if upheld the ramifications are much larger than PPI across the whole finance industry. In the current state of the abacus rattling this would likely trigger a bond market melt down. This is what they mean in relation to the scale. I think the CoA was just playing the game of make a ruling much worse, everyone screams, the SC gives a ruling that is a sigh of relief, however that ruling would have created larger screams on day 1 if it was ruled then.

Other ends up with some payouts, everything rolls on and long term valuation perspective dominates. This is the most likely in my guess.

The next two weeks could be defining moments for the UK at a 2008 scale.

Stock up on the popcorn, grab a comfy chair, keep calm and....munch...munch...

No change on the shorts, so that 3.19% has swung around £1.5m since Thursdays low.

Today saw the clash at the 400 level, however the trade volume was more in the 397-399 (2p) range with 32% of the days trades. Only 4% was in the 399-400p slot and under 6% above 400p. Given that the daily bid offer spread is around 1p it would look like Mr Retail cashing in 55k of shares 397-399, rather than market makers holding the level with volume stacked offers at 400p. The lower 393-395 (2p) range saw a similar 22%. The base potentially looked a little different with 390-391p then showing more volume, so that was the floor buying level with 15%, which could have been a bulkier bid placement to buy with. Still, smaller volumes today 173k traded and 152k auction. The 5 after (16:58) auction (16:35) market maker trades listed with 51k at 397.97p then look interesting at that level, given the auction cleared at 390p.

In terms of the ruling by thought it that it will be announced next week that it will be released the following week (week of 14th). Purely because they may have avoided having to change any of the ruling based on what could have arrisen during the Barclays case hearing. If it is the week later then it could mean that they are trying to add into the judgement sufficient clarity to avoid the Barclays case ending up in the Supreme Court. It could also mean that the sun will rise on Monday morning and fall later in the day. Who know's ? Do your own research.

Weekend popcorn...munch...munch...

Yesterday would appear to have been the daytraders that were caught out because none of the larger reported shorts have notified a change. That makes the rise after 2:30pm quite interesting because it was not driven by a larger short exiting. It may have been a smaller less than 0.5% position that was exiting or a long building, who know at this point.

Todays volumes look a little different with 55% of the days trade volume in the 395+ range, so showing quite a bit of resistance at the 395 and 400 points. Chunky volumes almost all above 390, so may be some defensive sell attempts. We may be into a different range now.

In relation to the Barclays case postponement it was very interesting to note that the FCA's perception of the case was completely wrong because they did not think there was any overlap. The judges gave a verdict on that and postponed the case. That is how bad the FCA are and reflect on the 'within six weeks' statement after the Supreme Court hearing. Separately to the "I told you so" from my earlier posts about the issues with the Barclays case. Either way, the situation seems now that either the SC rules the Barclays case is not required (sides with FOS - which I think unlikely, or effectively rules against the FOS) or the Barclays case will go ahead and the redress scheme can't be defined until 2026 and that is assuming the Barclays case does not go to the Supreme Court in 2026 and a ruling around May time ? That makes the FCA look worse than useless. Santander may force the point by leaving the UK due to the bank levy which looks like going back up in the autum abacus shuffling show, otherwise known as the budget.

Just my usual guesses and random number generator in action. Do your own homework.

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