Member Info for knot

Sorry, I maybe misunderstood, all I seemed to register was [blah, blah, blah, IF, blah, blah, YOU, blah, blah, Alan Sugar, blah, blah, blah} Nothing really stood out, so the waffle really did seem to be waffle and I was worse off.

You obviously only ever pop up when shorting, so that's your choice, having seemingly baught in to Lloyds at 230p 2 decades ago and seemingly never traded since. What a story, lol.

Spout all the poison wispers you want, I'm just sitting back watching the show.

I prefer popcorn to waffles either way...munch...munch...

'Are you better off or worse off after listening to all this waffle' - not at all

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

Not illogical, it's just the markets. Irrational, speculative and agressive would be the words that come to mind. The markets are never logical as a whole because they have smaller emotional investors, longer term strategy plays in the years and mid term 1-2yr P&L based focused trading books that don't care for longer term investment and are limit bound. Volatility matters for each group differently. Emotional flushes, book limits reached and strategic mistakes are the deffinitions I would attach to each type.

This flush on the back of headlines that don't make a difference to the court case are just par for the course. Notice how all the headlines did not focus on the positive for CBG that the FCA were given permission, rather the emotional trigger of the Treasury being denied with the hurrah for the consumer perspective. Reality does not matter, it's headlines that sell that matter. Emotion. As an investor you have to recognise the differences and look into the deatail of the matter so you know what is completely irrelevant and what is not. Curiously Caius and Walleye have not changed their short positions yet, so the smell of burning is more of a simmering pending fire type smell.. the flush of the emotional seems to have run it's course.

Smoked popcorn.....munch...munch...

Yawn, I think I smell something burning.... munch... munch...

"The City regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority, will be allowed to take part in the case." - as a party that is otherwise implicated as assisting in and encouraging of the act of bribery, which the media dumbs down as just "unlawful" because it's too complicated for the issue to be explained properly. The FCA themselves will be wanting the fiduciary revoked and the court has recognised they actually have a valid legal position rather than just a voice of opinion like the other three who were refused (and would have otherwise used up valuable court time that CBG and the FCA will use to great effect). The Treasury were going to make no difference offering an opinion rather the act of intervening was the key aspect that was valuable and significant. This is what is not understood.

Todays move just goes to show how little is actually understood about the whole situation and provides a sort of perspective as to what uncertainty for a share means.

Should make a movie of this some day, everyone clueless running side to side on a ship screaming when the ship is in 2ft of water and grounded on a beach.... the show goes on..... munch... munch...

Put very bluntly and very clearly.

The Court of Appeal ruling basically said the FCA was a primary instigator to the act of Bribery (the actual crime defined via the creation of the fiduciary and the resulting commission). The Court of Appeal ruling effectively implicates the government as a prime instigator by creating very clear rules that if followed the Court of Appeal ruled you were actually committing an act of Bribery. The Bribery Act 2010 has some interesting aspects to it and avenues for innocent parties that had been lead into committing an act, otherwise known as entrapment. The case has more legs than a centipede.

That is another one of the very basic aspects to the case, go figure what you think the Supreme Court is going to do. Are they going to allow a ruling that will result in the FCA being taken to court for entrapment ? Hillarious case ahead if they are.

If we drop much lowere I'll be looking to add with whatever I can find down the back of the sofa. I'm quite frequently still surprised at the compelete irrational behaviour of the markets or maybe more the opportunistic moments of shoving a share price around quickly before people figure out what is actually going on.. Meanwhile I'll sit and watch the show, munch, munch.

Well, the Treasury being refused is actually beneficial for CBG. The reason is to do with how the time for the case would be allocated. The more people who are granted permission to appeal effectively take a slice of appeal time away from the main applicant to the case. So, if all of the applications were granted permission to appeal on the side of CBG (and could not offer specifics to the case) they would have a net negative impact on the ability of CBG to cover multiple angles and aspects to the case.

Granted none of this will be coveres in the headlines over the next few days and the immediate knee jerk perceptions that this is negative for CBG.

What was the treasury going to offer up that is not otherwise going to be highlighted to the judges in other ways before the case ? The Treasury can only offer certain types of evidence, rather than a direct intervention as such with the legal details of the case.

Quite an interesting day because it appears that someone had the news before it was released....

Popcorn time... munch... munch...

Interesting quet day, with morning share dynamics, which look very appealing. It took 2.5 million shares to drop the price by 30p and then this morning it only took around 85 thousand shares to go back up 10p. Those are dynamics which look appealing. Yes I know they were not all buys or sells, however its possibly quite indicative as to the direction next week, with a steady rise back up. The main element next week will be the FTSE250 index threashold and how CBG does before the review date in March. Next week will be indicative of the tussle between anyone who has a strategy or play to keep it out of the 250 before the SC ruling. The hour and a half sell down at the end of the day well may be indicative of the ongoing rollercoaster.

Lovely popcorn... munch...munch...

Shorts supposedly unchanged, which I find a little hard to believe given the volumes that went through, although if someone is playing under 0.5% they will not have to report. Curious if the data is to be belived because Caius closed out causing the run up and then what may turn out to be quite humourous is short term longs (flushed) and new short additions (to close out) pulled the price down. Whoever added a short at that point might then have to wonder who will get out first out of the short positions. Pulling the price down with a short position, where there is no follow through volumes (e.g. tracker volumes, stop limits being hit or short term longs cashing in), is like pulling on an elastic band. Worse, is that during the time you have a short and new buyers enter, which just results in the price ending up even higher as per what happened with Caius, Walleye, Marshall, etc,. Shorts have to rely on either flushing other buyers out or significant one way tracker volumes, which CBG does not have as much being out of the FTSE250 at the moment.

My view on the rollercoaster of this week is that it will just ratchet back up. Shorts still have to close and the short term longs do not have that much volume. Uncertainty has not increased for CBG, if anything it decreased on the update where they indicate the current PE ratio is only around 3.3 and that CBAM is closing in the next few weeks.

Back to the popcorn to watch the show continue... munch...munch...

Data seems to be updated between 16:45 and whenever the organ grinder is given a nudge

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

Source page : https://www.fca.org.uk/markets/short-selling/notification-disclosure-net-short-positions

Alternative summary : https://shorttracker.co.uk/

Close Brothers short summary : https://shorttracker.co.uk/company/GB0007668071/

"I do not understand the significance of CBG's share price close on Thursday and Friday of this week."

Using the short data from the FCA the position history of Caius can be seen and within the trading history they appeared to be following a pattern of adding to the short at the end of the second week of the month, more in a contract style of incremental position if the short is say one leg of a swap instrument. With the run up in the price they drew down the short starting Friday last week, which was unexpected because they had the short position and did nothing after the news releases that cuased some of the earlier climbs in the share price. Wednesdays volume of 2.3m shares may appear that Caius sold back down after buying back in around 325-350 on Friday and 350-360 on Monday and again around 350-360 on Tuesday. If the contract position is being added to they could have used the momentum to fluf up the price before they short again and lock in a proffit from the Friday-Tuesday purchases. The point here is that the trading on Fri-Tue could be under a different book to the longer dated contract hedge.

I would have a guess that it was Caius that was possibly responsible for maybe 1m of the shares sold on Wednesday, so they may well be back to the contractual position build, which has been traded around in this instance with the proffit possibly going to a different book.

Caius would appear to have a contract hedge of sorts rather than a pure speculative short position so they may appear to be unlikely to close out the short because the short position may be just one leg of an instrument that has been hedged or set to expire. That position could effectively dissapear if it is sold out or at contract expiry is delivered to another participant who has already built a long position on the opposite side to the trades.

After this week, Caius may again go quiet until around the same time the following month. That is my guess as to what is going on and why Thu Fri may yet have some relevance and volatility. Caius may have added the short position on Wednesday and we could see the price recover to the end of the week as a result or drop back if the short is not fully positioned. The moves are in part just expected volatility along the way. Caius are not necessarily seeing anything new and would rather more appear to be just trading around a position, so not much of a surprise. Either way when they started adding the price was down around 315p, so even at 346p it maybe did not have the intended outcome they were expecting because over 1% of the short position lost around 30p in that time. Will see on todays short report at the close...

All this has zero bearing on where the share price will be in 6mth, 1yr, 5yrs and is just part of the market noise or the usual rollercoaster where everyone screams on the rise and screams on the fall..

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

"could still allow current claims" - Obviously having never looked at the case because it does not match your negative shorty perspective. I'll contact the Food Standards Agency to ask for an update.... Beware of cross posters who never relies on facts, offers gambles, opinions, sprinklings of BS and all the while holding no CBG shares. I would question why post, ego problem or just a shorter ?

"No wonder the shorts haven't vanished" - lol.... check Caius buying back in yesterday, clown. The buying back in is another uncomfortable fact for you, which you just ignore. Facts don't lie, unlike some.

The current movements are more to do with the FTSE250 and Caius than any change in the court case perspective and the CBG update was not bearish for this share price level.

Caius reduced yesterday again and now sitting on 1.24% with Walleye unchanged, however the FTSE250 index re-entry battle seems to be well on, so it will be curious as to who sold down today.

Yawn.... back to the popcorn to watch the show.... munch... munch...

Based on the new art work that Reeves decided to hang on the wall it is now seemingly quite clear as to the pattern of logic currently wizzing around her brain....

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/02/12/rachel-reeves-portraits-pms-art-commemorating-lockdown-uk/

For those that get a block the image of the out in artwork...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2025/02/12/TELEMMGLPICT000411914173_17393552884610_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqqVzuuqpFlyLIwiB6NTmJwfSVWeZ_vEN7c6bHu2jJnT8.jpeg?imwidth=960

Back to moar popcorn... munch... munch...

Looking at the share rankings, in relation to the FTSE250 re-entry (https://www.stockchallenge.co.uk/ftse.php) this could be the real reason as to what is going on with a potentially more dominant driver to the shares. The tussle between re-entry and delaying index tracker volumes.

365p appears to be an interesting level, above the re-entry point and the 350p appears to be below with support.

Rangebound trap even with the set-asside of a figure from CBG, which is covered by the witheld dividends let alone the cash from CBAM.

Additional cash will at the moment have to go into capital buffers because until the Supreme Court hearing even the FCA can't make a decision about the abandonment of the redress scheme for 2026.

Whilst the share price is well below the £200m CoCo, which has a conversion price above £6 it would seem more likely that a share buyback may occur rather than dividends in the near term. This to me would make sense for a numer of reasons. I would also argue that a share buyback will have a greater incremental impact on the share price than a small notional cautious dividend to start off with.

With the rollercoaster well underway this week so far, there are still a few days left before the climb may resume without as much screaming inbetween. The shorts still have to close out, be it via a contract expiry dissapearing act (the short dissapears as the short position is just offset against a counterparty long who holds the contract instrument) or as in the case of Walleye, possibly via picking up the shares in the market.

The 100k around 387p this morning on the rise says someone thinks 387p is still quite reasonable to drop around £400k at. With my caution about Caius (earlier posts) for Thu and Fri I'll be quite interested in todays short report for yesterdasy activity to see if Caius are just playing with the position or closing out. Next week may well be a clear steady climb beyond £4 for next Fridays (21st) close.

Popcorn at the side... munch...munch...

Nick2732 : The problem with that article is the whole premise and misunderstanding about what the CoA ruling actually is, what it means and what options the Supreme Court has available to it. The very basic principle issue in the CoA ruling is the fiduciary. Without that fiduciary the bribery aspect does not exist. Without the bribery more than 80% of the claims dissapear completely. Without the fiduciary PPI can't be raised from the dead. The only sensible option for the Supreme Court is to negate the half secret engagement and creation of the fiduciary. That may well be forced if the flaw in Hurstanger I posted earlier is used within the appeal. Unless the Supreme Court changes or limits the creation of the fiduciary the government will face a funding crisis (hence the Treasury intervention) because the banks will draw in capital and some markets will fail (e.g. vehicle fiance could get very expensive). The other aspect the Supreme Court also needs to stop is all the nonsense about half secrets and allowing contractual wording to be completely ignored. These are some very basic fundamental issues that will negatively impact finance (and contract law) in the UK for the next 50+ years if they are not corrected. That is what is at stake and the issues. The Supreme Court can't uphold the fiduciary because it's far too damaging to everyone in the long run. No utter nonsense about any vision of short term tat benefit. As for the half secret I can't be bothered to read the contract nonsense, the Supreme Court needs to reinforce the 1934 standard and completely throw out the CoA hallucinations that seemed worse than an early ChatGPT conversation.

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

Well, it appears that a great short rollercoaster exchange may have happened today, although that will be Wednesdays update.

Monday saw Caius draw down the position again, with some chunky volumes around the 360 level, so their position is still 1.62%. Walleye curiously unchanged and either head in the sand or waiting for Caius later in the week. I'm a little cautious on this as Caius may be trading around a contract position or not that may be on Thu and Fri. Still out on that one, because it makes little sense for Caius to sit on the sidelines for so long and then only now to start closing out. Today may have seen Caius or Walleye increase the short position in the morning, however it looks like one of the other outstanding short positions used the drop to close out some more.

Marshall Wallace did not fully close out when they dropped below 0.5%, so they may also still be buying in.

The interesting part today was it appeared like a cap was being held around 365p, until 09:36 when between 250k and 500k shares went through to shove the market down, which is what triggered the fall until around 11:30 when some other volumes started to buy in. The rise starting 2:43 seemed more interesting as the market volumes on the up tick seemed quite low, so the available sellers may have vanished without the short pushing down, which then left the market price to rise back up with the lack of sellers. This could have been off market activity driven, although it looks interesting because of the larger volumes earlier in the day resulting only in a temporary reduction by the close. One for the existing shorts to seriously contemplate about in relation to where the volumes are going to come from to close out those shorts.... more than 2.32% to buy back in.... from who and at what level....

For all those asking about the short data, the original data is reported via the FCA and published after the close for the previous days short positions. The data file the short data is contained in is :

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

You can get whatever summary from other web sites that may or man not (LSE) work, however this file and source is where they all get the data from... that sheet also contains the full short position history for all of the market. Or you can ignore this and carry on asking where to get short data from....

Popcorn for the day popped..... munch... munch...

Caius reduced to 1.71% last week on Friday 7th, down from 1.88%.

That makes for the big rally on Friday driven by Caius appearing to be backing out... that blows a hole in my theory... although I will await the end of the week to see what happens.

Walleye still at 0.7% and unchanged.

Total reported open short is 2.41%

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

Either way the current share price is at FTSE250 index re-entry, so at this level the inclusion back into the index will draw in the tracker volume again... burning shorts ahead...

Moar popcorn !!!!! munch... munch...

Chid may be busy having a philosophical debate with the Bureau of Fiscal Service in the US and trying to work out how they apply within the UK. I'm slowly being traumatised by Southpark flashbacks.... wheres the popcorn... munch... munch...

OMG... the N word.... I can hear the police cars already charging towards a non crime, non still not a crime incident. Slaughter is now being talked about as well... more police...

I'll go back to the mute point and just not talk about it. My time machine is broken so I can't consult with the Financial Services Authority in 2013 and I keep having flashbacks to Southpark Timmy character whenever i see REEVES in a post.

I'll consult with the Food Standards Agency (aka popcorn agency) on a different moot point.... munch... munch...

There is a limitation, the FCA decided to try and overule it against what the underlying legislation allows for. This is part of what will be clarified in the SC. The CoA wraps onto the flawed logic in the FCA handbook on claim windows that does not have any legal basis of enforcement. The FCA can only add to or rely on existing law, not make stuff up.

Whilst I don't disagree with everything Chid said ("squander on tat", lol, been there....), just the majority.....

"So to me any Supreme court and FSA rules will be more for 'future' damage limitation" - you still seem to refuse to understand what is going on. The whole share price isssue is around retrospective damages. The CoA and SC are all about if those damages are valid and applicable historically. If companies are following the CoA they are not liable to any future damages. There is no future damage issue. You can't get any worse than the CoA half secret.

BTW, it's the FCA... The FSA is the Food Standards Agency... oooohhh. popcorn agency !!

"us shareholders" - lol, really ? Should I call you in the Scot style of Shorty Mc Shortface ?

"huge swings" - yes, that's what you call a market, what's the issue ? Who do you think is gaining and who do you think is loosing ? More interestingly who do you think the real winners will be in 1yr time, 5yrs time ?

"too late to benefit from future rule changes" - your sounding a bit clueless. You do know what the Supreme Court is for and about ? Or, maybe sounding just a more obviously disingenuous about your posts.

Based on your post timing I may look into whichever piggybank rattles and take a hammer to it as I see an opportunity may arrise this week..

Chilled popcorn.... munch... munch...

Policy document : https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/324553/Charging-professional-representatives-Policy-statement.pdf

"These rules will come into force on 1 April 2025 and will apply in relation to complaints referred to the Financial Ombudsman Service on behalf of complainants on, or after, this date."

"We will therefore proceed on the basis that the fee level payable by CMCs will only reduce when the case closes as a change in outcome in favour of the complainant."

Reading through it's not necessarily as simple to understand because of the way that FCA time limits may force CMC's to formally lodge complaints for all claimants and not necessarily just a token case example. Separately depending on the wording used within the original claim the validity of the claim as it was submitted could be undermined by the Supreme Court. Think along the lines of if claims have used the specifics of the CoA fiduciary ruling and worded a claim as such. Should the SC remove the fiduciary the basis of the basis of the claim also dissapears as it had opriginally been submitted and then may need to be re-submitted under different terms, say in the instance of Plevin. That second submission may then fall under the £250 requirement. It also creates a potential rush to get all claims filed before 1 April.

Also, in group claims not all need to be argued, only one of the type that another 5,000 may be a copy of. Again I'm not sure how the FCA timelines and lodgement requirements apply fully.

Curiously in the 48 pages there is no comment about unsophisticated (CoA justification for a claim), however pages 35 and 36 maybe quote some pending unintended consequences of choice of wording. The survey of "19,145 respondents" also does not seem to have enough married or pregnant responses such that the "Data for this group is very limited so we cannot draw any meaningful conclusions".. Maybe just the way the FOS works or does not..

Still going through the popcorn of it all... munch.. munch...