Member Info for knot

Oh, the irony, I see we have a student of Goebels back with accusations in a mirror maybe ?

The whole point about the last two holding increases is they were made at the high point of short feaver and still to unwind the effects of those shorts. The 20% run up being possibly the effect of the 1% CFD that was taken onboard, which may have needed more hedge volume. The three other chunky trades that picked up 1% may yet to be identified.

The last few days is the selloff ahead of the 30 day deadline, which I believe is Monday, although with the claims companies (at my guess) basically just going for a fake appeal to hold out for volume whilst trying to avoid large chunks of the scheme being filed in the bin.

Who knows... I might visit costco for a rubber dingy.

Popcorn always works....munch...munch...

The notification seems to relate to the increase in position they took around 31 March when the price was 380-400p. Interesting that they are posting the notification, even though with a sub 5% holding they do not need to notify, which when combined with the increase around the 13th (415p ish) which was another 1% increase by FIL makes the ramp up last week an interesting reaction. Shorts put positions on, price goes down, the whole volume of the shorts get's taken up by new longs, price goes up, shorts get nervous..... hmmm....

When looking at the shorts holding out, is the small reduction of DE one of the prisoners reaching for the exit or is the whole expectation on the CV non event challenge to try and avert a complete collapse in claim volumes.

That being the deliberately concealed fact of the biturification of the scheme into two separate schemes does not actually start the limitations clock on the FCA consultation differently to everyones expectations. Chess game is getting a bit more complex.

Challenge of the day, can you explain in 60 seconds how the consumer is expected to be awarded redress, by what amount and why that amount and then expect the average person to understand it if they could not figure out a simple loan rate in the first instance. When the redress calculation is far more complex than the initial loan is there something going wrong ? Is the redress ironically turning unfair for being too complex to understand ? I wonder how many pages of small print are involved that nobody reads and then gets upset about in 15 years time.

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

Well, it appears the claims side blinked first realising that they did not have an option to sit back and allow the car crash proposal be put into statute without some sort of challenge and they are hoping for a soft challenge to try and nudge the results out of a ditch.

The issue is that if the FCA change the rules this gives a new 90 day timeline under which the lenders can launch a fresh appeal against the scheme and then have scheme one ejected without an issue, which may show the whole scheme as a house of cards.

The interesting issue is that the FCA could play a game of chicken with everyone and pause (via legal proceedings) the implementation just long enough that they go over the 90 days and then crossing their fingers that based on the claimant companies not challenging the case along the lines of any grounds that would change the scheme and the court rules the FCA can proceed.

The court at this point is not going to be a supreme court consideration of facts outside of the specific issue.

That scenario would be one where the FCA and claims companies interests align more on volume and not at all about the amount of any claim, which is a smoke screen and route to timing out the legal proceedings. That may be why the whole issue rests upon what the CV challenge on. My guess is the action is a smoke screen to protect volumes. The claims companies have far more to loose on volume than gain on a small increment on a margin.

Just the removal of scheme one would be a considerable loss.

Chess move to the lenders side now and I wonder how long they will play around before puling the critical foundation out of the house of cards. I would imagine the FCA would love for this to end up a court case of consumer voice vs lenders to avoid being blamed for the fallout.

Maybe a different perspective or maybe not, I also have another theory as to what will happen, although that is one for a bit later so as not to spoil the moment. Who knows.... not me.... go figure and find out yourself.

Knight to D5 popcorn... munch...munch...

"Consumer Voice is recommending that the scheme can start, apart from the rules around redress"

I think I need around 8 pints to follow that logic.

The popcorn...munch...munch...

Stunning, lost for words, although this one might be of interest

"s.404E applies only to "regulated activities." Motor finance didn't become a regulated activity under FSMA until 1 April 2014 "

lol. Onwards, upwards, sideways and back... the circus continues.

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

Meanwhile...

"+## Current Flaw Count (per thesis-split/8.md)

+- Category 1 (Legal): 9 flaws

+- Category 2 (Remedial): 7 flaws

+- Category 3 (Procedural): 7 flaws

+- Category 4 (EHR/DP): 5 flaws

+- Category 5 (Market/Systemic): 6 flaws

+- Category 6 (Impl/Enforcement): 5 flaws

+- **Total: 39 flaws across 6 categories**"

Oh, where did I put the popcorn...munch...munch...

Middle of the Road - Chirpy Chirpy Cheep Cheep - Totp 1971

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSNSTerj2Kc&list=RDHSNSTerj2Kc

Always amusing on the board.... popcorn...munch...munch...

The question that nobody seems to have identified or asked in public yet.

Will the scheme be challenged before or after it becomes statute ?

Challenge before and it may be adjusted. Challenge after and the whole thing may be thrown out.

FCA enacts in the 30 day timeline... The FCA forcing a 30 day "ambition" which carries no legal force, might meet up with the reality of CPR 54.5 3 month allowance and the unintended consequence of taking far more than 30 days to write 600 pages of distractions to surprise the whole market by proposing two different schemes, which each now have to be legally analysed in detail, possibly taking more than 30 days to complete.

The Lloyds by "email" spokesperson (possibly outside of regulatory reporting requirements) quote the FT printed may or may not be as it supposedly reads.

The absolutely hillarious aspect to CPR 54.5 is that deliberate concealment (maybe that sudden change to two schemes which was not consulted on and deliberately concealed as a possibility ?) constitutes grounds to change when the 3 month clock starts for an appeal. Oh, the irony. You can't make this up.

Watch out for headless chicken in the near future.

Just guessing as usual, do your own research, figure it out yourself, I don't know

Popcorn at the ready............munch.............munch....

With the legal state of the whole redress process increasingly looking vulnerable, it's a Centrica vibe feeling back down around 45p where now CBG may have effectively provisioned half the current market cap, which plausibly could get released in full. 2007-2014 has so many issues just to start.

CBG is increasingly looking like a leveraged FTSE250 multiplier rather than fully provisioned £600m of market cap holding over £1bn in value (excluding provision).

Off to do something else for a while.... just a matter of time for this to all play out.

Yawn.... popcorn...munch...munch...

"back-of-the-envelope" - beats back of a *** packet after 8 pints and some magic mushrooms.

fos decision drn3027352 - the fos very clearly sides with the lender in 2018 on a 2014 dca finance case over disclosure in line with fca rules at the time. oh, that did not fit on a *** packet.

yawn.... back to the popcorn...munch...munch...

"A considerably larger portion than expected of the £510 million raised is for the business written post the FCA's regulatory changes in 2021."

So, what does that say to following clear FOS decisions and FCA rules that were in place at the time ?

The FCA are facing a Starmer scale U-turn or a wipeout in court. This seems far easier to predict than the Supreme Court ruling. Even the Times chipped in at the weekend with an ultra varies perspective. Reshuffle of the FCA ahead ?

I do wonder if that £500m is also a £100m plus hit to the Treasury - recall my point about provisions being a message to the Treasury ?

Sitting back to watch the FCA car crash.... popcorn...munch...munch...

This is preliminary so put a tin foil hat on, pinch of salt, disclaimer this could be a complete error, or not.

Downloaded 39k decision files (out of the FOF total 368k covering 2014-2025) which contained the word "motor" or "vehicle".

These include motor finance, PPI claims, Insurance, everything. Because the FOS don't filter motor finance separately.

Roughly 2.1k of those downloaded contain the word "commission" - which includes "commissioners"

Roughly 11k are motor finance related (including insurance, PPI, etc.) - AI process pass 1 - 140m tokens later... where the question was to identify if the dispute was about finance related to the purchase of a vehicle. This was a separate question processed for every dispute for the AI to evaluate the dispute. 120bn parameter model used.

Less than 100 of those match the simple commission keyword lookup.

Less than 10 were before 2019 - the date the FCA decided there was an issue with commissions ????

What did the FCA base the decision on that motor finance commissions were an issue back in 2019 ? Less than 10 complaints out of the 170,013 decisions the FOS dealt with in the same timeframe ? Where are all the complaints ?

Will be preprocessing all of the decision files again multiple times with a larger 379bn parameter model over the next few weeks.

FOS Decision gold... DRN3027352.pdf decision in 2018 contract 2014-2017 £20k finance at 4.78% (1.78% difference disagreement seems to indicate DCA - FCA tick box for redress) : "Mr T doesn’t recall signing the agreement but the signature is so similar to the signature on Mr T’s driving licence "...I laughed at that one... "Because I’m satisfied that Mr T signed the loan agreement, I’m also satisfied that he read the agreement. The agreement contains information about the balloon payment, the rate of interest and commission. These are some of the aspects of the agreement which Mr T says he wasn’t aware of." .... "In relation to commission, the terms and conditions say “you agree to us paying commission to any broker or supplier acting as your agent in relation to the agreement.” I’m satisfied that the point of supply documents provided sufficient information to Mr T about the terms of the agreement including (amongst other things) the final payment, interest rate and commission." .... "In conclusion, I’m satisfied that Mr T was provided with sufficient information about the terms of the loan and I’m unable to conclude that the loan was mis-sold. For the reasons given I won’t be asking Evolution to do anything"

That is the FCA are now going against a decision made by the FOS. How does that work ?

Gonna need a really, really big tinfoil hat and a lot of popcorn...munch...munch...

"Ex-regulator come KC states FCA acting ultra-vires" - what a surprise....

Gonna need some more popcorn for this one....munch...munch....

"deliberate concealment" - would also have to prove intent that the document issue was purposeful rather than an administrative error in my view and understanding. The reason why is that the correct paragraph, which the customer still had, included the disclosure. This creates an issue with the specifics surrounding the application of section 32b whereby "Reasonable Diligence: The postponement does not apply if the plaintiff could have reasonably discovered the concealed facts earlier." - i.e. read the document and discovered the correct clause.

Canada Square Operations Ltd v Potter [2023] UKSC 41

The point the judge made within the supreme court was that a significant element of the contract that attention needed to be drawn to (CONC 4.5.3R for disclosure) as it was a possible element that could impact their decision and not being drawn to the exact clause rippled back to CONC 4.5.3R.

No document error, no CONC 4.5.3R. Still time barred - ref Canada Square

Time expired popcorn...munch...munch...

"Im reading it slightly differently" - your reading it correctly.

The point is that the documentation error/issue was a key characteristic of Johnson, which pointed to the wrong section in the documentation, which allowed for an interpretation of misleading or inadequate disclosure.

Did every lender have documentation errors/issues ?

The disclosure, even with the error would have issues with deliberate concealment in order to avoid the six years expiry of a claim.

Just my guess... belief and tin foil hat at work.

Error in popcorn...munch...munch...

Searching around for data and ended up reading the FCA submission to the supreme court again... :

"67. The FCA suggests that negating secrecy will be a case-by-case assessment informed by both the content of the pre-contract disclosure materials and the manner in which terms were presented to the consumer. It is respectfully suggested that in the ordinary case where terms and conditions disclose the possibility of commission being paid, that ought to be sufficient to negate secrecy for the purposes of the tort of bribery. However, the FCA suggests that the common law is not so naïve that the prohibition on secret payments can be circumvented by deliberately misdirecting a consumer to irrelevant terms or deliberately obscuring a reference to such a payment in the documentation. In those circumstances, it is right that the tort of bribery is engaged. "

Have a read and ponder how that applies to the limitation act requirement of "deliberate concealment" - secrecy.

Notice the specific wording "deliberately misdirecting a consumer to irrelevant terms" - the documentation error/issue.

This is the FCA's own submission that seems to undermine the "inadequate disclosure" argument in relation to Section 32 limitations act and highlights the particular condition and relevance of the document issue.

Redress scheme would appear to ignore the details of their own submission to the supreme court.

Going round in circles on this, I can't see how the FCA can apply s32 and would be very interested in opposing views that are founded on case law or anything reputable.

More guesses, beliefs and puzzlement, figure it out yourself.

Zzzz...popcorn...munch...munch....

Only watched just over half before YouTube asked to sign in because it thought I was an Nvidia instance.

"In October 2020, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) started replacing Gabriel regulatory reporting system with RegData"

"Firm-specific GABRIEL data returns submitted under FSMA 2000 s.165 (information-gathering power) and SUP 16 of the Handbook are confidential supervisory information and are not public." - This is market wirde accurate aggregate figures....

I wonder what would turn up with a freedom of information request on the aggregate figures and regulatory actions carried out related to the data.

What is really curious :

"No GABRIEL return data was used or referenced anywhere in the motor finance redress scheme proposal (CP25-27) or its Technical Annexes."

Can someone else double check this ?

Puzzled the popcorn did not pop...crunch...crunch...

"A trade of exactly 3,000,000" - what are you looking at or am I talking to Nvidia ?

The chunky trade was 2026-04-02T14:25:00+01:00 / 406.2p / 707,838 / £2,875,237.96

Combined with the prior day possibly looks like someone picked up around 1% or more if the earlier smaller trade was the same buyer.

SC Hopcraft 2025. P328. "was already paying the lowest rate of interest permitted under the arrangement" ... " It is correct that the cost of the commission was not added directly to the cost of credit to Mr Johnson." ... "the commission was paid out of the interest which Mr Johnson paid. In this way the commission was recovered by FirstRand." - Does that align with the FCA thinking on interest rate levels ?

In terms of a buy or a sell. Read, and go figure, it's up to the individual to decide what to do, don't follow anyone.

Who knows.. can you make dice with popcorn....munch...munch...

Driving along and then all of a sudden you get some rambling bird sh.t on the windscreen.... not quite sure why that came to mind. Watch if the chunky buyer repeats again...

Oh, well.... back to the popcorn...munch...munch...

Grok : "Conclusion: Post-Hopcraft [2025] UKSC 33 (no fiduciary duty owed by dealers to consumers in motor finance relationships), the Medsted principle applies a fortiori to all non-fiduciary cases: where the consumer knows the fact that commission is payable by the lender to the dealer, there is no duty (fiduciary or otherwise) to disclose the exact amount."

So, with an IDD that the supreme court declared put the consumer on notice that there is a commission, the CONC rules stating the consumer can ask for the amount of commission and Medsted proving there is no requirement to actively disclose a commission.... Makes for an interesting perspective of the FCA mandating a regulatory requirement above the legal requirement, almost as if the FCA are inventing their own laws...

Ref : https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/policy/ps26-3.pdf pages 65 / 66 on the "sophisticated" carve out.

Ref : Medsted Associates Ltd v Canaccord Genuity Wealth (International) Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 83

Going to sit this out and just watch.... with the bucket of popcorn...munch...munch....