Member Info for knot

The charges apply from 1 April 2025, so the majority of existing claims that have been filed may well at the moment escape the charges.

The devil in the detail may be that after the Supreme Court rules if those claims need to be applied for again (under the new or changed legislation), in which case the £250 may then be applicable and a lot of claims companies may not have the capital to front up the payments. I have not looked into the detail surrounding this scenario yet, but it may be what breaks the claims companies and be way more critical. Ideally if the payment is required on changed claims that would potentially make the SC ruling a bigger rocket ship than what Musk has.

With an expectation (my view) that the SC removed the half secret hidden in plain sight fiduciary the majority of the lower values claims all dissapear anyway. Plevin type arrangement inherently does the same as the £250 for the smaller values because it removes them completely. The CBG claim value in Hopcraft would bar the claim company from virtually any commission (success cases claim back £175 of the £250) because with about £130 in claim value and £75 in cost to file and then applying the 50% Plevin max it makes for a very small return for the CMC. The kicker is the capital requirement, especially if the FCA delay the process to 2026 and require the £250 paid upon lodgement, which creates the cashflow issue for the claims companies. With the scenario of no change in the SC ruling the £250 becomes more of a factor, but that is not what I expect to happen.

That is why I said it may be a mute point, because in my view Plevin is the worst case as I already expect all the low value claims to dissapear..... will read into the devils details later.... In the meantime.... (after a coffee) popcorn... munch... munch...

The rally on Friday may have been either Walleye reducing from the 0.7% they have or possibly Marshall Wallace continuing to exit because they last had 0.43% on the 28th. Walleye appear to be well burnt from the position.

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

Those below 0.5% there is no regular updated visibility, however when they drop below this level the last report will show the last residual or position below 0.5% (historic worksheet in the xlsx data). In MW instance they unwound 0.56% to 0.43% on the 28th. Millenium last report was 0.48% on the 22nd, although they may have continued to close out earlier. Mondays report may show who was the cause for the rally, either way it was either a short closing or a long getting in with a bit of volume traded in the day and a chunky 658k shares at the close auction.

https://docs.londonstockexchange.com/sites/default/files/documents/market_close_information_document.pdf

The drivers for next week may be a rollercoaster in the extreme, because we are approaching FTSE250 re-entry index tracker volume tail wind and Caius who still have a chunky short of 1.88% who may also add to that short on Thu and Fri because it appears as if it may be a hedge/instrument structure of sorts. Looking back at the prior increments in the short position for Caius they appear to have added at a regular point in the month. If they add on 13th Thu / 14th Fri that would confirm, to me, and the position instrument may then have an aligned contract expiry, possibly for April (6 month instrument ?) April may align with a FTSE250 swap and a re-entry play. What it may indicate is that they may be on the sidelines and not an active short day trader or likely to randomly add or close the short position. The short may well be just one leg of an instrument. Either way next week could be volatile. The addition of the short, may however be a way for one of the other shorts to close some more volume out, so could be balanced short to short transaction of sorts.

The note around the cliams companies being asked £250 per claim, instead of the £50 the ex FSO head wanted, may be a mute point (claims may already submitted...). The bigger point is that the FSO head was ousted... so I wonder if FCA head Nikhil Rathi is next after his earlier clueless request for clarity on "acceptable level of consumer harm". That seemed at the time like the type of question you hear people ask before they are fired or persuaded to leave... much like your a square £50 peg and we now have a round £250 hole... bye....

Those are my thoughts on last week and the week ahead.... quite possibly an interesting popcorn rollercoaster ahead, so, don't forget to scream on the rise and scream on the fall and remember to hold on tight........ munch... munch...

I do wonder if Walleye 0.7% short is partially being unwound as they hit the wall.... eye, eye.... as FTSE 250 index re-entry territory lies ahead.... with an interim rollercoaster ride..... Walleye last changed on 30th Jan and may well have been day trading the position since then, however the shot across (or firing of) the Ombudsman is an omen too far.... another burnt short ahead....

Index ranking positions : https://www.stockchallenge.co.uk/ftse.php

Popcorn, popcorn... munch... munch....

"quit unexpectedly" - after 2-3 years in the role it was either a resign or be fired moment or alternatively another warning to the other heads of the anti-growth regulatory circuses. Asking a regulator to think about growth targets is just the political way of telling the regulators to back off. Regulators are not going to come up with any growth strategy. It would be like asking prison wardens to have a target of freedom of movement for prisoners. Maybe if they were only half prisoners I suppose in the CoA mindset it could work as they would be half free. The CoA has taken on the plot of the Marvel multiverse......

CoA Half popcorn indeed... munch... m... doh...

"can they be sued for incompetence" - not for incompetence. The Bribery aspect could draw the FCA in as a participant of the bribe alongside the lenders, so that they could become jointly liable. I have not seen this approach 'yet' and I would guess the FCA are with crossed fingers the fiduciary and resulting bribes dissapear. Curiously (not really) the CoA completely omitted the whole aspect of the FCA rules explicity allowing non disclosure. The FCA explicit allowance of some commissions conveniently and in plain sight was completely blanked in the case. The CoA ruling looks more and more like an attempt at a complete setup, bending the law almost as bad as Joe i'm not going to pardon my son Biden.

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

Separate older article from a different law firm : https://www.osborneclarke.com/insights/court-appeal-ruling-raises-questions-uk-credit-brokers-disinterested-duty-and-informed

"depend on the sophistication and vulnerability of the borrower" - The CoA ruling did not even attempt to distinguishing qualification for unsophisticated, nor vulnerable. Hurstanger touches on sophistication being based on prior dealings, so taking out and complaining about your 3rd loan would fail in Hurstanger. Completely ignored in the CoA ruling.

"The regulator's rules in the Consumer Credit sourcebook only require the broker – and not the lender – to disclose commissions, and then only in certain circumstances." - The Bribery 2010 Act - which is implicated if a fiduciary is upheld then makes the FCA a participant in the bribery due to the rules being worded to explicitly allow such conditions and encouraged them as guidance. This is more than a slight issue hidden in plain sight and seemingly raised in secret. I do wonder what the CoA was smoking....

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

Curious article, which does not quite get some facts correct. Although possibly expected from a claims company angle.

Case is 1-3April (3 days not 2 as indicated)

Ruling may be provided at the end of the hearing on the 3rd

CBG is also involved in the case, not just FirstRand (2 of 3 cases)

"and had all dealers made it simple for customers to use external brokers" - this was never a factor. Raising an unsecured loan to compete with a loan secured with the car is different.

“The Court of Appeal went one step further, not only refusing to grant permission to appeal, but giving a clear reason why, which is not common practice.” - but a normal procedure. Also one expected from an outlandish ruling.

"43.66% of the total interest charged on a car finance agreement funnelled into undisclosed commissions" - Plevin PPI 50%. Credit card rates are higher interest rate, the margin is just not called commission.

"I don’t expect the outcome will provide all that much clarity in itself, whichever way it goes," - Stunning comment proving they don't understand the ruling.

“Ongoing uncertainty seems likely to lead to more of the lowest cost providers restricting lending or leaving the market, leading to higher prices.” - Increased rates and a Martin the wise one Lewis retrospective unintended consequence.

“Moody’s now saying it could come to £43 billion, but the fixed commission is paid to head office, which means double market exposure,” Ward says. “That means £100 billion of compensation is truly owned.” - I guess he would qualify as unsophisticated and numerically challenged in a basic ability to understand numbers. 1+1 = 27.

"Rose agrees that consequences beyond the motor finance sector are possible, but not necessarily constructive to consider at this point." - no s..t batman.... yeah, not constructive to their claims justification on a hugely problematic ruling. Shoving under the carpet moment.

“For example, the theory suggests that customers not taking out finance are likely to be subsidised by those who are.” - Dilusional justification propping up the CoA ruling.

I can't continue reading... I need popcorn... munch... munch...

Just some of the problems and flaws with the CoA case are :

1. Hurstanger was based on a flawed financial agreement - see post 30 Jan 2025 13:44

2. Invention of a fiduciary via an implied secret negative payment in the car purchase price - irony 101

2a. Implied regulatory hats and roles without appropriate qualifications or training

3. Ignoring 1934 convention on the written contract - see post 13 Jan 2025 20:14

4. Interpreting Wood case as bribery based on breach of contract where terms were plainly written

5. Half secret nonsense in Wood - "half in prison" - "half signed" - "half arrested" - half an idot

6. Ignoring Hurstanger interpretation of (un)sophisticated - e.g. prior dealings (3 car contracts)

7. Default assumption of unsophisticated with no attempt to determine education or numerical literacy

8. Directly contrary to FCA rules - implicates FCA in encouraging or participating in bribery

9. Re-opens PPI to even larger claims of the sub 50% overriding Plevin ruling - 2008 here we come

10. Breaks contract law and finance in general due to how the case will be used and applied in the future

I'll stop at that..... for some more popcorn... munch... munch...

Adding last week increased my average and I'm not leveraged so, CBG is one that I will sit on for some time. The only thing that shorts will be able to flush here is the toilet. 800p is my target.

Curious about your 100% in 2 months, was that with just CBG ? I guess each GAL has an opposite.

Popcorn... munch... munch....

I used to work within one market, where stochastic events occured over quite a few years, which were rule changes, politics, etc. I was always amused by academics, who would take the data set as a whole and assume a constant though the data. In one instance one event changed the way participants behaved, sort of a step change in approach, where no rules or anything else occured. Stood out and was as clear as day if you knew what it was. Academically, it was treated as just part of the same data and assumed nothing fundamentally changed either side of the step.

Charts work when there are no real stochastic events (e.g. the Treasury suddenly intervening on the side of CBG) and if you don't understand the steps, beware.... some gaps don't fill....

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

"hope to get close at 250 again in the summer" - lol. At least research CBG before posting.

Short position report on this site is still wrong. No change reported for positions on Friday (31st) (Walleye still with 0.7%) Caius unchanged.

Todays early morning flips between 303 and 311/314 was quite interesting as an initial shoves down (with help from Trump tariff scare) was met with near equal shoves back up. The step up around 3:20pm appeared to have little volume so more a direct participant / market maker moving the price up, or a short closing out out for the day.... Possibly Walleye day trading ?

When looking at the day, compared to the other majort banks, CBG was on par with Lloyds and Nat West and better than Barclays, which dropped further. Over the last 5 days they are within 0.2% of each other appart from Lloyds that is down more. So, the rollercoaster ride appears more scream up, scream down, flush whoever out volatility that did not really go anywhere in the last 5 days.... even with the interesting short position changes. Sometimes looking at the market over more than the last 12 hours gives a different context.

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

Walleye appear to have added a 0.09% short on Wednesday/Thursday. The reporting increment of 0.1% allows some tollerance as to when the reporting is required. I would presume it was Walleye that pulled the price down on Wednesday and may have closed some (or all the new short) out again on Thursday.

Given where the share price is now they may well have backed out again, 0.09% is around 135k shares so would not stand out too much in smaller trades. My gut feel is they shorted 29th and backed out some on 30th, although that will not show up until Monday.

On balance this week :

MW closed out some on 28th (0.13% or 195k shares bought)

Walleye added 29th (0.09% or 135k shares sold)

Walleye may have closed out some 30th - or is possibly underwater on the short from the 29th.

31st Push and shove.... going nowhere....

On net balance between Walleye and MW the net difference is around 60k shares.

So, on the net balance of 60k bought (less of a short) on the week is roughly around 10p gain, although that does not factor in other longs that added in the week, myself included. Which potentially leaves Walleye looking as if they may not have made a smart move by shorting another short who is closing out.

The original data is correct, the short data on this site is wrong because they dont have Walleye at 0.7%, Caius unchanged at 1.88% (suspected swap / contract linked and not a spec play)

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

Popcorn for the weekend.... munch... munch...

They may well have done an intra day play, to slowly run the market up as they had to buy, draw in additional trend followers, some tracker volume and day traders and then sell out a portion of what they bought. Close a position out at a loss, but in the process making some money on an intra day trading play. If the volume was thin (as it appeared) then the sell down was more steep than they were maybe expecting, so resulted in a closing of some of the short or more than intended. Sometimes with larger institutions the position is separate from the trading, where the traders may job around in the market on smaller positions and they are given buy and sell orders for larger position strategies. That could have been an instance where the traders made the money and the larger strategy lost. That does happen within companies...

Maybe they intended to sell out a lot more than they did and hold a larger short, who knows indeed....

Back to the popcorn....

It's beginning to look a lot like Tuesday..... and there I was thinking Christmas... oh, well, will just have to wait for the real present in April....

Marshal Wallace exited more on 28th (Tuesday) so you have your answer in part, now below reporting at 0.43%. I would say MW were the programatic buy and curious they bought all the way up and still never fully close out....

Market volume was around average yesterday and today seems thin, so not real volumetric push and shove going on, although if you gave it a huge shove down you will likely hit a wall and get run over with a large buying opportunity (and MW closing). I added a little yesterday. That's where I think the shorts are, cautious to add to a position they were burnt with and maybe unwilling to fully close out or just waiting for pullbacks to close out the rest.

"but the bank clerk will tax the hell out of it" - which decade are you living in, sounds like the 70-80's, paper pass book, ah, the memories....Death and taxes, you can't argue with either of them, both lethal........

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

With the comments in relation to the £400m cash build (which requires 2 years dividends to be suspended FY24 and FY25) the larger tree in the woods, appears to be the loan book value, which is in the order of circa £1.6bn. Add these together and you have a company with closer to £2bn of value. The £400m sort of becomes a little smaller in that context.... still trading below 25% book.... but don't forget your a participant in the market rollercoaster, where everyone screams on the rise and fall....

popcorn...munch... munch....

Within the CoA ruling several prior cases were draw upon to provide the legs and foundation upon which the CoA ruling was based. One of these cases in particular was Hurstanger, which involved a loan that was required to have relevant terms (see section 10) required by the CCA 1983.

Section 11 quoting the prior judgement 33 : "these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated."

Note in particular : "cannot be in the slightest mis-stated."

Adding another part of the ruling for clarity (9) "An improperly executed agreement is enforceable against the debtor only on an order of the court (section 65 (1)), but no such an order can be made unless it contains all the prescribed terms (section 127 (3))."

Then proceed back to section 6 which details the terms of the loan A through G and these are the terms, to which the Judge in accordance with the CCA quoted "cannot be in the slightest mis-stated."

Section 21 : "This led Mr Say to submit that if boxes F and G contained the terms upon which a total of £8,295 was to be repaid box D, which stated the rate of interest, would be wrong and so the agreement did not comply with schedule 6 paragraph 4. This, as Mr Say conceded, was an extremely unmeritorious argument but as the agreement does not bear the construction upon which it is premised I do not need to deal with it further."

Curiously this part of the ruling that touched on the details reinforced the belief the figures were correct and only considered a very minor difference in the interest rate hence "extremely unmeritorious".

Now, with your choice of loan calculator, work out if (G) is correct or anywhere near correct and not just an inconsequential minor difference. An error of 44% of the original loan value (payment difference x 240 months / loan). The scale of the difference is a material fact and over 10x larger than the value being argued about. The loan was never going to be repaid. That's a slight problem to start with.

This could render the ruling in Hurstanger as flawed and it was indeed hidden in plain sight.

Popcorn.... munch... munch....

Yesterdays run up and todays run down, back to square one. Just like a rollercoaster, everyone screaming along the way. The journey still ends up in the same place. I had thought that yesterdays climb seemed quite programatic (large buy order steadily in the market) and by the close, daytraders closed, shorts piled in to the trend with some carrying over into this morning.

Todays volume compared to the price move is more telling and to me looks more like bit of momentum that is just flushing people out after the shock rise, some longs who are not long term and aided by intraday momentum trades. Will another institution create a large short going into the court case, very doubtful.

Looks just more like an opportunity to shove the market one way and the other, like running side to side on a ship. All a bit pointless in the long run, but makes for amusing comments and times. Like, popcorn time....

I guess you never did a jigsaw in your life because you can't seem to piece anything together logically or remotely factually.

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

Sun Tzu : Only the wisest and stupidest of men never change.

Make your own minds up over some popcorn... munch, munch..

"Never interrupt you renemy when they are making a mistake"

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