Member Info for knot

"There is no way that the Chancellor would have said what she did without prior legal advice and assurance." - Or, if you know that the case has no merit and is going to be ruled against, do a Borris. Run to the front and shout "Follow Me". The intervention as such may well be just a political opportunity because they know the ruling has severe problems and dont really need to intervene in the case. They come out on the right side, or is that the left.

Could well just be simple opportunistic politics with no popcorn involved... hmmm... boaring.... munch, munch..

No change on the short positions.

The Supreme Court ruling is critical, otherwise the CoA decision stands (as it does at the moment - it's the current state of law). The most vulnerable aspect is the fiduciary and without that the CoA case turns very gentle to toothless.

Legislation could be passed to clearly time bar claims (which the FCA broke and is potentially a breach of legal bounds arbitrarily extending the law on time bar) by expanding the current deffinition and clipping the wings of the FCA. The FCA could also be guided by another choice CEO sacking to remove the 2026 redress scheme path. There are ways and means of doing a lot to hinder, slow down or negate any adverse SC ruling. Legislation would be a last resort and they would have until the end of 2025 to pass whatever is required, courtesy of the the FCA extended timelines....

I can't really see the SC upholding the fiduciary due to the flaws, holes, breakages, unintended consequences and the basic fact that is no longer in the interest of the people nor the government. I have no idea as to how the CoA thought what they did was correct. I'm very tempted to go and watch the case in April. I could alternatively revert to some magic popcorn and hallucinate some other scenario's.... wooooo..... popcorn...

There are only a few reasons, my favourate being that he is a trainee NGO operative, sponsored by [you choice of evil empire]. I am trying really hard {deleted several drafts} not to fall into behaving like I was back at school, 10yrs old again having fun with pointless banter and making up words, scenario's or imaginary parts of the Government.

{deleted}

{deleted}

In relation to the court ruling, whatever is decided only Parliament (via legislation) can change whatever the Supreme Court rules (no imaginary claim company counter case against a figment of an imaginary court process), which if Labour want to change the outcome it will include either one or two U-turns (having already made one). Very, very simple outcome is the SC rules against the creation of the imaginary fiduciary that broke many legal principles by relying, in part, on 'hidden in plain sight' nonsense. The bribery and secrets dissapear and the claims drop by 80-90%, reverting back to a PPI type level of 50% excess redress. {deleted}.

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

When I see people selling out short term and trying to short the market day trading, where the principle buyers are long term short covering how would you describe them ? Maybe fools was the wrong word and rather they just lack insight and understanding as to some basic principles as to how the market works ?

If you think I am posting "utter nonsense", that's up to you, I was trying to be helpful, good look with your learning.

Found the popcorn, munch, munch...

I wonder if someone has seen Allo Allo, so, "I shall say this only once." As directed, looking at all the recent history for the words in caps that are intended to draw my attention. Just the regular words, not BBC, DCA, etc.. For some strange reason nothing to do with CBG or LLOY came to mind, rather Sigmund Freud's Id and Ego..Or maybe an episode of Allo, Allo...... I'm not quite getting it so I must be one of the thicky's.

21 Jan : FACT WELL NEVER SEE IF

21 Jan : STILL

21 Jan : AND KNOW WELL IF BECAUSE IF

21 Jan : STILL

21 Jan : STILL NEVER IF YOU

23 Jan : IF

23 Jan : IF ONCE

24 Jan : WHY IMAGINE SHOULD HOPE

24 Jan : IF IF BECAUSE

24 Jan : IF MORE

24 Jan : IF IF DIDN'T MORE IS NO WHY

24 Jan : ARE APPARENTLY OR

Ho Hum, forgot where I put the popcorn....

Rationally, the shorts have backed off and are continuing to reduce the short in the market. No, they don't have inside information, wispers or insight that Reeves is going to reverse course or whatever. Ludicrous nonsense.

MW reduced below 0.5% yesterday (Thu) and is now below the 0.5% threashold for reporting.

Walleye - have not looked at them in detail yet to try and identify the 21 Jan change rationale.

Looking at the reporting position history for Caius a potential pattern may be in play. The end of the second full week each month they may have a contract function, which they may be delta hedging before expiry. Not sure about the structure, or expiry, however the timing can be proven on the next change. The last three increments have all been at the same point in the month. Time will tell if the position changes again on the 13/14 Feb. If the position increases on these dates it will be in relation to a contract with an expiry that the short position is being added for delivery. Delivery could then be aligned with these same dates - end of the second full week. I have seen and dealt with contracts that stipulated start dates like the first Tuesday in the month, so I'm not completely imagining this as a rationale. The incremental timing with Qube may well have been pure coincidence that I misread.

Is this an indication to buy or sell in the market ? That's for you to decide.... or just complain about and make stories up with a vivid imagination. No random caps just make you appear unstable and have caps lock version of turrets.

Back to the popcorn and reading quite amusing comments.... munch, munch...

"i Understand that Reeves can alter or quash the S.C decision" - completely wrong, the Treasury has submitted and intervention, which is an opportunity in court to present evidence or an opinion to which the judges may consider relevant or not.

What is it with the random caps ?

Stumpy, I'm not quite sure what you think my motivations are. My posts have no hidden agenda or rational for day trading, etc. I'm quite often misunderstood and under estimated. I had a builder to the house one day, he turned up and sat outside waiting, I went round and he ignored me, so I said "Hello". He responded with "Hi, are you waiting for the site foreman ?", "Err.... no.", "You a labourer ?", "No it's my house". I thought that was quite funny and got on well with the builder.

The way you explain your trading you would appear to be completely ignoring the spread between the bid and offer and if your also dealing with shares and not CFD's, for example, your also forgetting about that 0.5% stamp duty that within 10 trades becomes 5%. Your explanations sound very much risk averse and you seem to have the right idea of a type of hedging approach, although you need to look at the finances and risk / return properly. Have a look at the bid and offer spreads for your last 20 trades and work out what the market took from you by getting in and out, compared to your return and I would guess that Mr Market is taking around 40% of your gains. That impacts your risk return perception significantly, or it should. That is why a lot of traders that don't have direct access to placing bids and offers don't tend to day trade. Retail traders tend to misunderstand the market a lot.

If I had ulterior motives to try and persuade you to buy ot sell or whatever you think I'm trying to do I would have just responded with an abusive obtuse remark with comments that I know are factually a lie. I don't think anyone benefits in that process and we all loose long term.

I have no real agenda as to what you do, there are nearly 8bn people in the world, we all do and don't matter, it's up to you. I'll go back to my popcorn....

Don't be so quick with pineapple head. I'm all for the price being pushed back to 200p so I can buy even more than I have at the moment. Don't object to people pushing the price down to a bargain. If fools want to sell out, go for it. I'm stunned at the short term views that people have, they seem to be completely blind or just opportunistic chancers with hot air. Either way, short term up, down, sideways, who cares. Longer term you can't stop the tide. Popcorn time, munch, munch....

Regarding the court case and interventions

These are the court cases involved, timing and details of who is involved in each :

https://supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2024-0157 - Close Brothers

https://supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2024-0158 - FirstRand Bank - Johnson

https://supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2024-0159 - FirstRand Bank - Wrench

This is the intervention aspect

https://supremecourt.uk/how-to-appeal/rules#part-4-commencement-and-preparation-of-appeal

Section 24 relating to Interventions after an appeal is granted

This covers the procedures and descriptions of the stages involved for all parties

https://supremecourt.uk/how-to-appeal/practice-directions

If you visit the court you can request to see documents that have been filed with the court in relation to the case. This is how the media gets the quotes from the documents, no secret smoke filled rooms with wispers. The site is new this year and I'm not sure if and what documents (issues and facts) will be available before the trial on the public site. The case may be live streamed, otherwise turn up and sit in as a member of the public.

All of the interventions have been on the side of the appelants (Close and FirstRand). Strangely, or not, nobody is intervening to supporting the respondents (Hopcraft, Johnson, Wrench) right to a free windfall.

Read all the pages to get a full factual basis as to how the case will proceed, timing, etc. Bit late for popcorn, goodnight...

Ths lyrics "there may be trouble ahead" from Let's Face the Music and Dance for some reason comes to mind.... maybe it's all the popcorn....

Marshal reduced and now at 0.85%

Millenium reduced a little to 0.48%

Caius - strangely (or not) no reported change, which to me is looking interesting. I can't really post what I think at the moment because I'm not quite sure how Caius would respond. I find it difficult to believe they have not changed their position by at least 0.1% since the 17th.

Can you offer me volume at £2.50 at tommorrows close please, I'll give you a 5p premium against your original price.....

Educated guess..... Spoofing is sort of where you place a huge volume on the bid or offer and then cancel it before the trade executes. The system used to be that say the offer was hit, the confirmation process would then confirm the offer as valid before the trade executes (all within milliseconds). Programatically there used to be a way that the offer or bid could be withdrawn in that process, which was abused some years ago that lead to the prosecutions and making it known its not acceptable.

Effectively you create the illusion of volume, but don't actually allow the volume to be taken. Yes, it's a no no and you can be in trouble for it. Without being in the market and seeing the bid and offer stack from the retail side it's near on impossible to detect. From a retail perspective it is also irrelevant because you don't have visibility of the volumes, it's more a direct participant to direct participant strategy (or was).... munch, munch....

Advfn showing more buy than sells. - being offered down, i.e. likely the remaining prisoner is trying to push down to see who they can flush out, relying on short term proffit takers and day trading flush. Strategy is you place offers in the market and some bid volume, but not much. The offers cap any rise and then the bids are picking up the sellers. As a market participant you get to place bid and offers, while as a retail or non direct participant you can only hit the offer to buy or hit the bid to sell. Direct market participants can sell by offering and buy through placing bids. They are the other side as to what retail may be doing. This is where if you have a net vloume selling market (short term proffit takers) you can push down and pickup the volume by being on the bid side. Push down more it makes the nervous proffit takers capitulate and sell out to keep hold of those quick gains.... while missing out longer term...

Just a thought as to what may be going on..... back to the popcorn.....

I do wonder..... munch, munch....

So, with one of the shorts having exited, helping CBG rally 20% in the process one of the remaining prisoners (see earlier posts) is possibly facing a bigger dilema. They could have sat back, waiting for the rally to top off before trying to push down again for a curious exit strategy of hunt the forced seller who is now akin to a dodo.

The 303 to 311 move on around 29k of volume at 8:25 looked interesting becasue it then took quite a few minutes to gently push down before some other 18/40k chunks hit, so my sense is that they market may pull back in the first part of the day, however the afternoon will return positive. The level of uncertainty for CBG has fundamentally changed.

It must be remembered that the CoA ruling is entirely based on the creation of a fiduciary in a manner that relies on a fundamental breaking of contract law, which dates back to 1934 (earlier posts). The whole secret aspect is the emotional trigger news headlines, which are based on the fiduciary and the CoA ruling also implies that the Bribery Act 2010 comes into play (curiously not mentioned yet). That is just one of the many holes in the ruling. Removing just the fiduciary aspect of the ruling drops the claims by 80% or more, so go figure, while I reach for some more popcorn....

I really like the name.... top marks..

The dividends at this point are a sort of irrelevance because they will not be the driver of the price at this moment in time. Unlikely they will move the price to make a difference in the next 7 months. Reason is that after the half year results (no dividend) the court case will rule and that will give some perspective on the payouts, however the bigger aspect will be the FCA's decision to officially abandon the 2026 scheme. CBG will likely not declare any dividend at the final results, unless the FCA decides, which with the kryptonite twins (Starmer / Reeves) I think they will bail on trying for a 2026 scheme, much to the displeasure of the ambulance chasing crew. This will be when the final rally in the shares will start and far eclipse any perspective of a nominal dividend. Think about it, one days gain in the market at the moment is likely to eclipse a dividend.... If you can, hold, sit, buy some popcorn and watch the shares climb....

The curious case is that they may have closed some out or increased if they tried to push down yesterday and maybe now in such a position they are facing a multi £m loss. In those positions people may do desprate things or they may have been halted from trading if the trader(s) were fired and they are now wondering what to do with the position. Qube helped run up the shares by 20% in one day and Caius had a larger position than Qube. They may now be very suseptable to being squeezed out and another 20% jump on the cards, which is even worse for them than they may realise because it may trigger increased index trackers to create a backwind to the buying. Setting the stage for FTSE 250 re-entry on the next review.... And with that I'm wondering about my supply of popcorn, damn, this is getting interesting..... :-)