Member Info for knot

Missed this one.

https://assetfinanceconnect.com/barclays-judicial-review-delayed-pending-supreme-court-judgment/

The Barclays case has been postponed until after the Supreme Court ruling. This is hugely interesting and I would encourage you to contemplate the reasons as to why they would suspend the case.

Has the screaming of the shorts from yesterday stopped yet ?

Popcorn in the sun, munch...munch...

Rollercoaster big dipper ride. Closing only 2.6p down from the opening trade, recovering from a 19.6p low trade of 355p. Must be that elastic and the abacus rattling in the backround trying to work out the next black hole.

No change for shorts, chunky lumpy day with a relatively small end of day auction and screaming shorts. Compared to NatWest 5.5% down, not a bad day at all.

11 trades 10k and above making up 32% of the traded volume at two tight ranges around 370p and 360p, possibly looking like limit and protection triggers. Lookig at all the volumes, 29% in the 369-371p (2p) range and 36% in the 359-361p (3p) range with a mind the gap warning inbetween, so we fell through the floor, hit a bumpy patch and then launched back in the air helped by or aligned with the US market open at 2:30pm.

That snap back late in the day against Barclays, NatWest and Lloyds not recovering feels quite nice.

Big dipper day spilling popcorn...munch....munch...

Citadel ducking to 0.58% from 0.61% on the regular day trading Monday or auction on Friday.

After market auction 1.6p premium with 27% of the days total volumes. 25% traded was 369-371p (2p) and then 56% traded 373-376p (3p) showing two distinct levels. 370 support, 375 resistance. No big volumes below 370p, so possibly looks more like no sellers to push into. Falling wedge broken, 375p still holding for now.... the strong support level possibly building. Just my guess...

Onwards, sidewards and more popcorn...munch...munch...

No change on shorts, 40% of the days trades in 13 trades and 39% of the days total volume in the after market auction with 428k in total on the day. 40% of the days volume also in 369-371p range and 75% of that volume (76k) was support in the afternoon before only 18k in volume pushed down to touch the days low before being snapped by only 10k closing out.... Seems like there are different players in different parts of the day with their own reasons driving the price. Not what I would necessarily call an efficient, well operating and liquid market. Stretchy shorts.

Hey ho, it warm, popcorn on demand....munch...munch...

Thinking about this further, potentially it could end up with a follow up case of the banks all claiming back the £650 fee's reffered to the FOS because the FOS allowed cases to be presented that had no merrit. So if the claims companies go into administration, they could also be in a strange situation of the administrators obtaining the 30% fee, only to give it back to the banks involved in the case as damages. How utterly insane is that for a system ? Absolutely appauling image for the FCA as they would look like completely incompetent, more so than they do now.

I'm still a bit stunned this case ruling (going to trial) is not highlighted as much. The FCA and FOS must have to make a statement ? Because I can't see how the FCA can proceed with this hanging over their heads. How can the FCA instigate a redress scheme when 90% of some CMC claims are invalid or outright fraudulent and have caused X x £650 per claim in damages ?

Still thinking on popcorn...munch...munch...

What is surprising about the judgement is the lack of media coverage. Even the lack of comments in the Law Society Gazette article.

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/banks-case-against-firm-over-reckless-claims-allowed-to-proceed/5123692.article

The way in which this could impact the whole claims process I'm still thinking about because it could end up looking horrendous for the FCA and FOS in allowing such activity if it ends up being ruled illegal. It would then possibly be an interesting situation if the damages end up having to be paid out before the claims payments are made if Barclays ends up running into 2026.

Very interesting times ahead....popcorn again...munch...munch...

No change on the reported shorts. 70/30 split (785k day total) on the traded volume with 30% in the after market auction at a 2.8p premium. The later afternoon pushdown reversed at 3:30 from 370p to 376p by the close with 44k in volume for the 6p rise. At 12:32:43 there was an interesting 200 share trade by a market market at 368.6p which was 30 seconds after a 20k trade at 371.214p and then the next trade after the 200 was a 100 share trade at 372.4p, which looked like the market maker trading off market (I don't have the bid offer pricing at the time). Google charts wrongly tags the 20k in with the 368.6p, which may or may not be known. That 368.6p was actually the days low. 43% of the days volume went through 374-376p (2p range) with a slight skew on the remaining volume to the downside. By the close price it looks like we may be nearing the point of stepping over the 375p and a short reduction may be an indication, under that scenario it occurs. Otherwise another sunny day.

Popcorn as always...munch...munch...

Good find. That case is potentially massive. Will have to have a read and a bit of a think about it.

In relation to the Barclays case the DCA claim in that instance is on the interest rate differential and not the absolute rate. Bear in mind that credit cards can be over 20% and the Barclays case was less than 5% from a consumer 'protection' perspective. Credit card companies will also be looking at the case ruling. The Barclays case ruling will have to take into account the SC ruling and given that the Barclays ruling relies on the SC outcome it will be ripe for appeal to the SC on the basis that the ruling was made upon law that did not exist at the time of the hearing and is therefore potentially unfair.

Very interesting two weeks ahead...stock up, popcorn time...munch...munch...

Theoretically the SC could also squash the Barclays case by ruling that DCA's are fine as long as they are not 'excessive' (Consumer Credit Act) and that excessive level may be left to the FCA or FOS to derive. That said I don't think the DCA aspect was covered in a way that closed all the gaps in the CBG hearing. Might be wrong and the FCA may have ther answer six weels after the CBG ruling with the DCA covered, but that would mean that the DCA case against Barclays then rules in Barclays favour (before the verdict as the SC would override, being law before the Barclays ruling that can't run counter to a SC verdict) and overall a low (below reserve) payout with no bribery. That's my perspective, thoughts, liability abandonment, do your own homework, guess. Same as below.

Optimistic popcorn...munch...munch...I'm full...

The Barclays case is all about DCA specifically and given that it is onlt at the court of appeal it could in thoery still end up in the supreme court. The current CBG case has some DCA elements, but the Barclays case varies in detail on how the DCA has been represented. In the SC case the DCA values were very thinly covered and not really pushed as to a definative solution or answer, nor detailed or argued about interest rates and differences. The Barclays case was ruling about the minimum 2.68% rate vs 4.67% rate which was agreed and the compensation was the whole interest related to the rate differential, i.e. theoretically no margin to the bank nor agent if 2.68% was the cost of finance to those parties. Basically the Barclays case can't be ruled differently to the SC ruling, however if the SC leave gaps in their judgement then this would leave Barclays open to appealing to the Supreme court to address those gaps and in the SC appeal they would then bring into that appeal the ruling from the CBG case. Hence rolling into 2006 for a definative answer that the FCA can action against, whitout the FCA ending up in court over an illegal scheme. The case is also against the FOS (Financial Ombudsman). That's why when the FCA quoted six weeks it seemed quite clear they had no clue as to what they were doing, oblivious to the DCA details of the Barclays case.

Yes, collaborative reverse 2026 popcorn required...munch...munch...

Ramp and slide with the after market kick. 33% of the traded volumes went through 374-376p (2p range) with the second interesting band 370-372p (2p range) with 18% and then the rest scattered about sub 10% volumes in each 1p range. After market auction giving a particular kick at the end of the day (373p) with a 3.4p premium to the shorts using the index to close out after the 2:20pm push failed. 525k for the day with 21% of that after market, so a little pickup from the lighter days. 58% of the days volume in only 25 (5%) of the 493 trades listed, or 492 excluding the zero oddity. Gives and indication and perspective on sub 5k volume trades, where most retail and automated hedging resides.

My view on when the court case will be announced is either next week (30%) or the following week (70%), because the Barclays case on Tuesday needs to be heard before the ruling and next week may be too early. Slowly pushing at the upper resistance.

Rollercoaster days are back, careful with the popcorn...munch...munch...

Completely missed the small trim of Kopernik's position from 3.04% to 2.99%. My thought and theory would be that this has been trimmed back to just under 3% so that a 5% threashold or other larger holding would not breach trigger points. Possibly a way of advertising that they are open to the whole position being available for a takeover approach. Also, of someone else with 2% picked up the position they would be under the 5% reporting level, so could remain hidden for longer. Just some thoughts.

For the shorts, try explaining why they reduced the position after a higher price level and even then why such a small nominal rounding type adjustment. Try a logical and good articulated argument witout it being based on multiple if's and pure opinion.

Waiting for an illogical response with popcorn in hand...munch...munch...

Pass. If it was a hedge it may have seen smaller delta's upto this point and then just tripped the 0.1% difference in reporting requirement. Or it could have been a step position in protection. For a 1.2% prior position size I would have thought the move up from 2.50-2.90 to the current level would have seen more volume and we did not see a change on the earlier 19-20 May spike. They added around 290 and 300 on the last step up. Feels more like twitchy protection ahead of the ruling if they think the market is likely to run and noticed Citadel day trading to keep it down by liquidating retail day traders. Who knows ? I dont...

Uncertain times....more popcorn...munch...munch...

Interesting, Walleye short increased 0.1% (150k shares) yesterday to 1.3% with the price closing 372p, so either they added with the prior days after market index closer to 362p or ran against someone else buying ? Today looks like they may have doubled up or had help to push down again.

Interesting that 45% of the days traded colume was 372-373p pointing towards someone not wanting the price to go above this level, quite a strong panic / defense, which could be understandable if you see a risk of it blowing your short book up. So, I wonder if anyone ended up having to add to their short to protect the book.

Books, books, books, popcorn...munch...munch...

Wow, guess this site is super woke ******s

Removed caps when woke filtered popcorn....munch...munch...

"‘presumption of loss’ rebuttable" - this was specifically addressed by cbg in the case ponting to the fact that the irrebuttable argument was originated in a prior judgement without any basis, nor explanation, just created by the judge at the time. the key aspect to this is if the law is changed today, it should not have any retrospective application to new cases or claims that are not before the court. i.e. the fca can't retrospectively apply new laws because that is fundamentally not how the law works. this is part of the whole insanity of the approach of the fca to work around the law and make up new rules than are contradictory mechanisms and retrospectively apply a judgement today on claims dating back nearly two decades. it's like changing the speed on a road and then retrospectively trying to hand out speeding tickets for the last 10 years. it's not how a stable system operates and ******s in government think otherwise.

rebuttable popcorn...munch...munch...

There is a basic reason why the majority of day traders loose money..... Today just looks like someone shorted with a bit of volume early on, walked the price down with retail day traders jumping in, then closing out the bulk of their short in one trade lower down, leaving retail dangling in the wind. Too many people are far too impatient and 'trading' in a manner that is comparable to going down the dogs and putting £10 on Dilbert to win the next race.

Flame on, here come the screams of day traders.....

Patient popcorn...munch...munch...

So, today opens up with a 369.2p trade, then market maker volumes at 374.2p then a single share trades from a market maker at 364.6p. Then it's like tumble weed blowing through until 50k 8:18 372.2p and there off.... Citadel, may well be the lone big short day trading volume in the market at the moment, so if it's only one primary driver and lots of trend followers it may be exposed to a squeeze by a different larger long participant, as has happened on some days in the past. just my guess. In the current middle east situation, it may well be that the trades are not directly for CBG rather CBG is a market proxy and liquidity constrained football of the moment. Things may turn on a dime or not, however it may be after the SC before the brighter fireworks become a major concern in the market due to the interim disruption delivered from heaven.

Back to squeezy popcorn...munch...munch...

Short report... Citadel back up to 0.61% on Monday and likely run over today, oh dear.

Sad popcorn, munch...munch...hurray...munch...munch...hurray....

Another day, almost completely driven by Trump. Almost, aside from the shorts getting run over from 11am and then after the squeeze 376.8p flush out spike a second run, only to fail again towards the close as the end of day push down failed. After market auction cleared 372p at the last market bid (attempt and fail to push the auction down below market trading level), again sub 100k. Short report is late.

Squeezed out popcorn...munch...munch...