Member Info for knot

People can day trade long or short. That's up to them, be it based on luck or guided probability of outcome. Being clear and open about it, I say fair enough and welcome. It's the closest thing we have left to free speech. Big Head could mean many things that the 1984 comission could call around for if joked about. I should maybe put a Bell at the End of the path for the 1984 comission to ring when they turn up for that reason.

Emotions are high and more so when there is a perception that the price is just randomly moving around outside of your control. This is the market. Understand why the price is where it is and that gives you the foundation upon which to make the choice to buy or sell and removes stress. If you don't understand why the price is where it is and what is moving it, then it just adds that emotional pot of confusion and stress. Uncertainty = stress.

I'm quite happy that the price is where it is given the 5% short overhang, the largest market correction since 2020 and the completion of the SC hearing. Especially given the ramp up dynamics earlier in the week the shorts scrambled to suppress.

However, I would say chill, it's a sunny day, get some popcorn...munch...munch...

These are the current shorts as per the FCA report today (link below).

Caius Capital LLP 1.24% 11/02/2025

Cubist Systematic Strategies, LLC 0.50% 27/03/2025

Millennium International Management LP 0.58% 03/04/2025

Squarepoint Ops LLC 0.54% 03/04/2025

Walleye Capital LLC 1.20% 31/03/2025

WorldQuant LLC 1.02% 03/04/2025

Source : https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/data/short-positions-daily-update.xlsx

Well, yesterdays rise was possibly Millenium getting limits closed out and they reduced the short from 0.61% to 0.58% ! However, Squrepoint added 0.05% and WorldQuant added 0.07%. Total reported shorts are now at 5.08% and I'd be stunned if none of them took todays maket pullback to close out some of those positions. If they have not, it's getting stretchy and squeezy.

In context since the drop the 18th March close was 271p, since then the shorts have added around 0.8% and even with todays large market drop the share price is 266p. Granted prior to the reaction of the provision in the results the share price was around 330p, however the shorts added big to pull the price down, separate to the 0.8% added after the fall....

Overall I'm quite happy I bailed out of Barclays into CBG last year given how far Barclays has fallen back (to where I exited).

The show goes on and on... with popcorn at the ready for next weeks installment... munch... munch...

"Certainly a few bargains around" - indeed there are. Even with todays makret drop CBG is only back at 2 April trading level, compared to say Barclays that is down over 15% over the same time... To me that is quite comforting....

Court ruling for CBG July, Barclays ruling Oct, possible Barclays appeal to Supreme Court hearing Mar 2026, ruling Jun 2026, FCA redress scheme outlined, FCA scheme challenged in court (BlueCrest), appealed, appealed, 2027... Potentially no payouts for a looooong time yet... Best case for FCA is payouts early 2026, worst case mid 2027 or never.

Sitting back watching the show with the usual popcorn...munch...munch...

Looking at the volumes, price and trading time today it would appear that someone either bought in or closed out a position ending around 10:30am. Rough finger in the air is around 500k shares, so a position of 0.34%. Yup, that relatively small volume pushed the price up 30p. Now consider the 4% or 6m shares in the context of the short positions. To me that is saying the shorts are very vulnerable to a buyer squeezing them out given there were 5 (possibly less after today) large shorts outstanding.

The drop in the market due to the tariffs also made CBG a safe haven given that the share price is effectively below the asset value including 0.5bn of claims thrown in. Overall creating a very peculiar day in the market. After market auction also had residual shorts hoping for a drop in price, however a nominal increment of 0.6p above the close.

World Quant, not sure why, added to their short on Tuesday by 0.08% or 120k shares, however today they would have been feeling rather uncomfortable today and sitting on a sizeable loss.

With the hearing now expected to rule in July, there are no other bearish events as such to be announced between now and July and in normal market behaviour the shares should drift up (deminishing uncertainty) unless the shorts double down to try and push CBG back out the FTSE250, however that would levale them very exposed to a massive squeeze.

Another aspect to consider. The interest rate on claims is deemed at 8%, however the ROC is above that, so the deferment of any payments is actually making money at the same time.... maybe a few % on that £160m to offset the legal costs....

Some very interesting trading days ahead, so top up on the popcorn...munch...munch....

Ruling expected in July...

Popcooooorn...munch...munch...

Scheme under 404 needs 4 conditions to be met, which a fiduciary with no proven loss fails. They stated if I was not mistaken that they need the court to make the conditions for such a scheme to work.

The "skin in the game" question from the judge comes back and the senario of the finance being too much and the car price being changed.

Also the FCA go against both council on how Wood is presented, which is a stretch to say the least.

Popcorn almost run out....munch...munch...

Arguing that the clause 12.x disclosing a commission may be paid and the client can ask the broker for the ammount (in line with CONC at the time). Why would clause 11 be any different or clause 4 ? i.e. if you can devalue a clause in intent and implication why not do the same to any other clause ?

There has been a consistent ambiguity of referenced cases which did and did not include pre-engagement fees that engaged a fiduciary relationship, however these cases have all been used and implied they are equially applicable to the car cases. This is inherently wrong and one of the judges picked up on this when asking if there was a "fee" paid, to which council said yes. This is very distinct and different to imagining an ad-hoc pop up fiduciary occurs.

Even acknowledging that the client got the lowest interest rate available seems to be conflicting with arguing that the broker did anything otherwise (the basic principle of loss). What was the bribe actually achiving if there is no loss and the client attained the lowest interest rate ?

PPI was baselined on the 50% threashold being based off the premium of the insurance (the equivalent of the cost of the car). Very interested distraction method after the presentation of the PPI back to informed consent away from the base of the 50%. Same pattern through the whole case.

Much popcorn...munch...munch...

Is it me or does this look like the case is imploding ?

Judge asks question - no answer provided, political rewording around a different aspect.

Did the judge just also ask how on earth did this case get here ?

Confused popcorn....munch..munch...

Financially unsophisticated is being qualified as a resons to avoid the repercussions of your actions. What happens if you go into court and try and qualify a legal position that you were legally unsophisticated in the process of breaking a law and therefore should not be held accountable and therefore given a free pass ? Do lawyers then qualify for more severe penalties because they were sophisticated ?

Unsophisticated popcorn question...munch...munch...

Might be about to start a second squeeze, nothing clear at the moment... possible bear trap. Seems a lot is going on outside of the market. If a big enough player is in they could likely squeeze out one or two of the shorts limits. Either way I bet that the larger shorts are concerned if they are following the case.

Scream on the rise and scream on the fall, the rollercoaster rolls on, so does the popcorn...munch...munch...

"They will aim to take this back to 270p." - Doubt it's going back to 270p. The song Heigh-Ho comes to mind with a subtle variation...

We dig dig dig dig dig dig dig in our book

The whole day through

To dig dig dig dig dig dig dig is what we really like to do

'It ain't no trick to get rich quick'....

Popcorn musical...munch...munch...

Squeeeeeeeeeeeeeze.... pop...pop...popcorn...munch...munch...

Well, interesting after market auction 4p higher at 276.4p than the last trade before the close.

Shorts added yesterday, very likely the volumes that dropped the price back from that spike. WorldQuant added 0.16% and Millenium added 0.11%. That 0.27% increment in short has done nothing to the share price on a day to day close basis, which points to new buyers (me included) offsetting the majority of those new short volumes. That does not make for a good trade from a short perspective, unless you think the longs are going to cash out what they just bought. Maybe the shorts are going to go further into the deep with bigger positions, may just create a possible better buying opportunity and stretch that elastic even further.

Total reported shorts now 4.42% and with the case so far, I'm not quite sure what those shorts are expecting to happen after todays round of questions from the judges. Maybe they are not actually following the case in as much detail as you would possibly expect.....

Out for a popcorn top up...munch...munch...

"Does anyone really expect Boycie from Only Fools and Horses to do anything other than maximise his chances of getting securing a car sale?" Non crime not a crime ageist comment, only those who experienced watching TV with a CRT may relate to that. hahahaha.

The £8,000 financed will always cost more, you don't get interest free loans at zero cost, unless we are in a 400 year low of ecnomic fallout from a near exonomic collapse in 2008. Magic money only exists in the world of MMT after taking an acid tab.

That last comment from the judge in relation to the commissions prior being part of the accepted way to get business was not understood for what it was. If you have commissions that are part of the widespread business practuice commonly known and accepted within the market the comissions are just an element of competition driving costs down across the industry as a whole. Bribes are are where the payments are more one on one, not market wide and widely known (the FCA were 100% acceptance of commissions). This to me is a fatal flaw in the whole argument. Unsophisticated or just lazy ? I can't be bothered to read what I sign..... hence the spelling mistakes, lol.

Truck load of popcorn soon...munch...munch...

That would be a prime example that would completely fail the rationale being put forwards at the moment of car buy then finance with no interlink between the two. That's the "skin in the game" issue that at least one of the judges clearly recognised. The contract encompases and binds both the car and finance together, not separately.

Hugely frustrating when he was quoting an Australian case and then denying another one in another country because it's not the UK !

The judges in this hearing are quite different from the Court of Appeal and picking appart the argument in a lot better manner.

Nearly out of popcorn...munch...munch...

Two way fiduciary arrangements require all parties to know of and accept the situation. i.e. the customer would have to know of and accept. That's a different issue.

Completely ignores the situation where the buyer says they can't afford the finance and the car price is reduced to make it affordable....

This whole case should be done with actual purchase and finance examples because if all of the examples don't fit the rationale being put forward then you can't have a universal ruling.

Inventing a new ad-hoc pop-up fiduciary will be more damaging to the whole economy than the smaller car finance aspect. This would almost certainly make checkout selling of extended warranties prime cases to be looked into.

Irrationale popcorn...munch...munch...

Wow, an outright conflict of statement. Dealer arranges car price and then finance commences..... really... contradicting an earlier industry expert in court that stated the finance can and frequently occurs first. No wonder the judges are questionning this.

Popcorn munching moment...munch...munch...

No. Bribery can exist outside of a fiduciary. Why the fiduciary matters is that the remedy is trying to be directed towards the payer of the bribe. With bribery outside of a fiduciary relationship the issue gets complicated around where and how the value of the bribe ends up (recovered). The complication is that the earlier argument was that the value of the bribe is an added cost to the purchase of the car. This proffit in the car resides with the dealer in that case.... If the bribe proffit is not disgorged it's a problem..... That's how I understand it.

This case is about extending common law, it's not about implementing the law as it stands.

3D chess popcorn...munch...munch...

"joint liability"... that phrase that keeps popping up... that creates a problem with trying to get the lender only to pay.

Bribery still ends up with the massive issue in this case that the bribe is not recovered...... all of the focus is avoiding this issue. The FCA even said "At each stage, the Court should avoid double recovery."

Show goes on with much popcorn..munch...munch...