Member Info for knot

"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...

Sometimes questions are asked to be on record or for clarity to remove ambiguity, however at others it does reveal a 'bubble' they may live in compared to a hire purchase payment.....

Wonder if they eat popcorn...munch...munch...

Easier to understand and yet very shallow in terms of legal argument (with case references) that will carry weight. Waffle or legal.

Popcorn all round...munch...munch...

Not really, you have to listen to the points and what is actually being said... this is the law and the courts.. it's not a conversation after 5 pints in the pub.

More popcorn...munch...munch...

Just picked up a "few" at 265...

Popcorn popping...munch...munch...

Does anyone have a link to yesterdays hearing (both morning and afternoon). Other case summaries appear to have the video linked on the main page, not there this morning (yet).

The fiduciary aspect yesterday morning covered the majority of points I raised earlier, in particular the aspect around the finance discount inherently unable to embed a fee as such, unless it was negative. Wood and Hurstanger pointed out they all employing fiduciary engagement fees, etc. I was wanting to listen to the bribery aspect again to make sure what I thought I heard was what I did hear because it may well have far more relevance than what seemed to have been recognised, particularly when it briefly touched Wood and seemed to set it on fire.....

Popcorn at the ready for todays armchair viewing without queues...munch...munch...

"Do you think it's that that caused that little spike up?" - well, someone understoood one part of what was being said... Unfortunately the bribery aspect was a bit more convoluted to follow, however the end turn may well have been the critical part of the whole hearing.

Was quite interesting watching everyone turn up... will read the FCA submission, only parts were covered in court.

Won't say any more at the moment as the shorts are quite happy loading up.... lol...

Popcorn tide turning indeed... munch...munch...

Looking at the existing short positions some look quite interesting relative to todays bounce. If I were a day trader (14:56 post) that turn and the level look rather interesting when working on a rough calculation of one of the large short positions, which seems to be around 275p. To me that would look like they are using the exits before the court case starts, and new shorts with short sight, to possibly close out thier position which they originally started around 227p..... ouch... doubled up and still seems to be around 275p.

Two other shorts seem to have books around 306p one at 300p and another at 320p.

This now seems like a bun fight as to who gets out first because there are not enough new sellers to close out 4% and not run the price back up to 350p. The new shorts have added over 1% to effectively drop the price back to where it was on the 20th March. That does not seem like a very good result on the back of adding another 1% or more short into the market to effectively tread water. It's just an elastic stretch now.

With the court case the worst case is already the CoA ruling, which has been Reeved in terms of government guidance (consider what's happening with the two-tier issue in parliament now for intervention). The Supreme Court took over what the House of Lords did in 2009, however Parliament can still intervene after the fact and change the law. Parliament is above the Supreme Court and can legislate backward and forward looking laws.

Is this a signal to buy or sell ? Up to you as to how you read it.

I'll stick with the non pyjama party long term popcorn horizon....munch...munch...

Looks like the turn

Popcorn popping...munch...munch...

Yawn....

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

In Chid's case it's not his money as he is likely not in the UK.

The insurance market is starting to understand the implications for thier markets as well, which have been operating under the law for decades without people retrospectively several years after the event complaining and holding thier hand out :

https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/uk/news/legal-insights/insurance-commissions-under-threat-as-multibillion-pound-case-hits-supreme-cout-this-week-530309.aspx

In the meantime, for the next few days it will be fear and emotion headlines. The coincidental reporting of the short positions (if I were to put a liability avoiding tin foil hat on) could/may be late regulatory reporting of positions from the Friday index settlement. Lots of people may have ended up shorter than expected on that day and looking to exit or double up and taking some hopium..

Remember all the shorts from November 2024... in Chid's world they exited with a proffit rather than the reality of exiting with likely big losses. 5% shorts below 230p....

Beware of posters that have zero vested interest in the UK and only post nothing but negative comments all round. They may well be a foreign NGO (there may be particular elements to the posts that indicate this - tin foil hat clause).

Popcorn tastic...munch...munch...

"You can't 'choose' what part of the law you want to have, the law IS the law."

Which is why the Court of Appeal bending the law way beyond prior laws was an erronous mistake, which the Supreme Court 'have' to deal with and correct. This is entirely the reason the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.

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

The big ramp squeeze followed by a Moodys led short drop, not all on as large positions as people may think....

WorldQuant added to 0.54% below 300p on the 26th and the added more on the 27th around 305p to 0.62%

Millenium seem to add around 0.2% per day, so adding during the run up (last registered short 2023).

Cubist new short with 0.5%.

That in total to me say the 'bearish experts' (lol) are hoping for a further drop this week in order to get out with a proffit, with the other longer dated shorts having missed the index after market auction volume to close out positions lower than Fridays close.

Total reported shorts is now 3.98% and that was with the shorts being added while the price was going up.... this is quite important to note in relation to all that short volume because it was being offset until Friday. Fridays drop may have been triggered by Moodys downgrade on unsecured lending, however that makes no difference to CBG operations in the next year as they are fully financed and the contingent bond does not appear to have any rating variable associated with the calculation. With Fridays volume only being 1.3m shares (relative comparison of note is the index settlement volume on the prior Friday of over 3m with not much price change). Friday could have seen another 0.5% short added, which makes for quite a squeezy type arrangement.

Radioactive vilage idiots and bearish experts asside, the case starts on Tuesday and may or may not have some interesting comments made or passed from council or the judges that could have quite a material impact before the ruling. Unless there are significant uncertainty removal moments CBG may be liquidity constrained on the buy side and quite volatile (shorts football of the week). That said, the shorts will then face a massive rush for the exit squeeze if the price is pushed down too far... the elastic only stretches so far. All the shorts can't get out with a proffit without an early ruling, which I think is very unlikely. I'm very happy with how the price has reacted so far.

Scream on the rise and scream on the fall.... the rollercoaster rides on... Done with commenting on the legalities until Tuesday... in the interim, more popcorn...munch...munch...

Sorry, 19th March.

An interesting ruling out yesterday : https://supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2023-0062

"even in the context of breach of fiduciary duty, an equitable allowance should be readily allowed"

That one snippet from the judgement give Hopcraft no chance because it fails an equitable test on full recission. Still to read in detail.

The case next week should be live streamed and trying to find the source....

Offline popcorn for the next few days...munch...munch...

Square Point closed back out of some of their short yesterday to 0.49%. Reducing only 0.02% (to get below the 0.5% reporting threashold), which makes for an interesting situation with other smaller volumes closing out with an 18p rise (and possible new index catch up buying). More of the smaller shorts possibly closed (and other longs added to ride the up trend) out and would guess more positions (both long and short) will close out ahead of the case starting, because there is a non zero possibility the ruling could arrive at the end of the hearing on the 3rd.

The Supreme Court has a lot of issues to deal with. Wood being one of them, which the CoA hinted at by way of the first principles comment. Regardless of what is presented at the hearing, in theory the SC can formulate a ruling ahead of the case being heard on matters that need resolving 'almost' regardless as to what is put forward in the hearing. The 'almost' is where the likes of the Hurstanger fraud uncertainty issue arrises that the SC may not be aware of.

305p (+2.8p) close on 1m trade volume compared to yesterday... onwards and upwards hopefully...

Popcon topped up and at the ready....munch...munch...

Walleye possibly delayed reporting a short position change by a day or added to a short where the rest of the market was buying, so they are now up to 1.12% having added 0.09%. So now we have (or had until today) 2.87% reported short position and then today happens. Could today be a trap or the net effect of the index volumes being picked up on Friday from shorts feeding in and maybe the rocket is zeroing in on the cat. When looking at todays price rise as a simple chart of trade no vs price and then placing a linear trend, you get an R2 of 96.9%. Volumes do not look big enough for a short to be exiting much and with 777k shares a 18.6p rise. After market auction only 18% of the days volume. No chunky trades by the market makers. Wonder what's going on behind the curtain at the Wizard of Oz show...

Sure, some volume could be shoved into the market to push it down, however a prisoner is still a prisoner no matter how long the sentence. 4 Trading days until the start of the Supreme Court hearing rollercoaster.

Stock up on the popcorn...munch...munch...

What is not factored in and conveniently ignored by all the doomsters is that CBG are sat on £1.6bn of retained earnings. That provides for a lot of financial options...

No broker currently has a sell rating or a price target that is lower than todays share price. Even doomster RBC has a price target higher than todays share price.

It's all due to the uncertainty the court case presents to a typical institution that stalls adding volume or making a bid at this level. Uncertainty always creates a discount.

Nobody has rationally put forward an estimate that is a worst case (over £500m) that would not instigate government intervention. Note that above £500m implies that all PPI claims are reopened and larger than prior payouts, secret fiduciary... Not going to happen...

I still think that CBG will do a buyback and very small dividend rather than all in dividend and will be better for shareholders longer term.

Stunning popcorn to be had...munch...munch...

The early run up to 299p the last 5p was on quite thin volume both up and down. Whilst this was preceeded by some cancelled trades at 8:29 that were listed at 281p and a curious volume of 404 (not found joke ?).... Within the last few minutes two chunky trades went through, 50k and 157k (both 287p), which were 0.14% of the share cap. What was interesting was these were market maker trades. The share price was pushed around Fridays auction price point and could have been an attempt to net off. What's more stunning is that Squarepoint appear to have ended up shorter at 0.51% (just above reporting level) on Friday and none of the shorts closed anything out. Square point were last reported at 0.43% on the 28th Feb, so possibly just a small increase of 0.08% (compare that to the last 2 chunky trades above the auction). Todays after market auction was for 300k shares at 283.4p vs Fridays 283.8p and 4.3m shares.... Todays volume total of 1.41m shares.

The show goes on, popcorn time... munch...munch...

I would suggest we need a new opinion category adding. "Incoherent", "Contradictory" or maybe just "Bitter and deceitful". There are others but they may draw in the non crime not a crime worry squad of 1984. What it does potentially say is that the recent spread between Llodys and CBG may close back in again (L down C up)... ;-)

Re dipping toes : Read the past two months (or more) of the forum and make your own mind up. The FCA warning at the base of the post message is there for a reason.

Re Wood ruling. In principle the ruling was correct in terms of the result (the commission was paid back due to breach of contract) but the judgement wording and the half secret nonsense is what the SC may clarify by way of the Court of Apeal conveniently ignoring the engagement fee in Wood that created the fiduciary relationship in the first place. That is the CoA weakness in Wood.

Popcorn at the ready for Monday's show...munch...munch...