Member Info for knot

M007j : yes and yes.

Chid, your obviously conflicted and a good liar. I'm not quite sure what you think your trying to achieve with the way that your posting. If you think what I have posted with links to back up the facts constitutes an opinion that is no different from news feeds I wish I could share more to prove otherwise. You appear to be completely reluctant to read any facts that conflict with your repetative one track narative. Fair enough, your choice. I would say, if your not a CBG holder and have nothing factual to offer, your only making yourself look more and more irrational and lowering the value of anything you say.

As you say in your mind, bb's are for opinions and not facts, so my opinion of you is that your a liar with nothing constructive to offer and only want to watch the world burn.... Good luck with the timing, prove me wrong.

I salute the clouds for making it rain and love snow, thank you clouds. The clouds gave guidance to everyone on the weather 6 months ago, thank you clouds.

"I SALUTE AND THANK YOU!" - for what ? You have never owned CBG.

"send out important warning bells to private investors" - for real ? You have never played a game of spoof ? Talking your book (TRP) ?

Work out their P&L from the positioning after 25th Oct. Did they really make any proffits since then ?

If the SC case goes as I expect I would hope in one regard that CBG takes the opportunity to push a lot more of the cash back into the business for growth (postponing the higher dividend levels) while the market is still recovering and some participants exit. Growth beats dividends for shareholder returns in the long run, so that would be my preference. The prior dividend levels I would argue were getting close to unsustainable to have any decent level of business growth. Day traders will just want a dividend now, now, now, with 100% emotion on top.

"not a chance" - I guess you have read none of the court cases.

A long term B&H indeed with an interim rollercoaster ride for fun.

Just to make this clear, it is only the sub 50% that will be protected by the SC, not the excessive above 50% cases.

The worst case scenario's touted around the market are based on the sub 50% being owed. For CBG with the delcared commission (in the court case) of 3% they will in those instances have zero to payout.

If an engagement fee is involved (and declared or identified as such) a fiduciary is created and any undeclared commission constitutes a bribe. Just because a commission structure involves two calculations it does not make one of them an engagement fee by default. What is "commercially sensible" as per the implied meaning of the FCA rules will apply. i.e. if your charging above 50% commission, Plevin determined that above 50% was not comercially sensible.

If that is good or bad for your perspective on your company of choice share position (long or short) that is up to you to determine. Each company is different and each company has different exposure. All the companies involved are not the same. At the moment CBG is a small football and possibly easy to kick around, even if it may have nothing to pay in a lot of cases.

The SC will side more in line with the Barclays ruling and enforce the Plevin 50%, which I'm stunned was ignored for some vehicle financing. I guess some companies were just ignorant to the Plevin PPI case or just too greedy to think it applied to them, so I'm 100% certain their will be some payouts.

The CoA broadening of how a fiduciary is defined is flawed and without the fiduciary their is no secret, no bribe and no recourse to the sub 50% Plevin commission. The guidelines that the FCA rules provided (an interpretation, extension and guideline of law) very explicitly the allowance of a secret commission if it is commercially sensible. The CoA point blank said that the FCA was wrong and the law under the CoA ruling does not allow for any undisclosed commission. So the CoA ruling is even contradicting the FCA's rules (law guidance) and it makes for retrospectively fining people for speeding on a road when the speed limit changes.

The SC ruling has to reverse the very wide criteria for the creation of a fiduciary as it breaks a lot of the finance world, contradicts a lot of earlier legal cases, makes the FCA look totally incompetent and is massively detrimental to the UK. The court has a role of guiding and enforcing the law, not turning off on a tangent and taking thier own path contradicting the House of Lords.

I do wonder, however (put's on his tin foil hat), that an ideal strategy would be for the CoA to purposefully make the goose hiss a lot only for the SC to make the situation appear a lot better and then goose does not hiss when plucked (takes tin foil hat off).

Separately, in some ways the markets always need a Chid to help challenge and draw out convictions in the market. We are all entitled to an opinion, otherwise democracy dies. Facts overrule emotions. Filtering out opinions narrows your perspective on that window of democracy, however emitionally triggering those opinions may be. Democracy is rarely logical and almost always emotional. This also sums up part of the way the market behaves.

Re : "price action over the next few weeks"

First off.... everyone take thier emotions out of trading, rule no 1. Emotions cause mistakes.

As per an earlier post I think that CBG is now very oversold relative to the Barclays ruling, let alone the CoA ruling. What is even more convincing now is that in the Barclays ruling part of the rationale for the commmission was to discount the car price to make the money on the loan commission. This is fundamentally the complete opposite rational the judge in the CoA case, where they claim that the car sale price forms part of the engagement fee. The engagement fee for a fiduciary can be quite critical as can be part a main element of the binding and forming of responsibility a fiducuiary owes. In the Barclays case the implication in the ruling was that this fee could in effect be be negative, which makes the CoA declared fiduciary the funder of thier own engagement fee, which is completely illogical. This is one example of the flawed logic within the CoA case that conflicts with other legal (and earlier) rulings, which made me go all in. The other aspect is that the role of the courts is to define the laws made by the government and not, for example, change what the House of Lords declared within a particular case of a commission in relation to a fiduciary to be the exact opposite.

As time passes and more of the real details of the case are looked at, some growing opposite side to the shorts will take on positions, however if you were in that position would you make it open. Sun Tsu - "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."

Looking back at Centrica (and part of the 25% BT holder) a very few companies can hold verty large positions in swaps, which depending on how and where they are held can be hidden from the disclosure requirement. How these swaps impact the share price is in part a bluff call as to the perception if the holder has the capital to execute the swap agreement on the date(s). The BT case was a bluff call, pushing the price down to £1, because in the situation the holder could not finance the whole of the 25% with unleveraged capital withiout significant costs involved (and risk). The case in Centrica was that the over 10% holding just dissapeared one day (moved offshore) and then a massive 2 year bull run then occured as those positions were called and delivered. Qatar holdings liquidated in Barclays over months in programatic selling.

In summary - short term positioning (timing the market) without massive volatility (improved transparency of actions) is near on impossible because your more exposed to individual actors. Also, unless you trade larger volumes you have no idea of market depth. However I believe that CBG will drift upwards (relative to market) ahead of the SC hearing as more people see the CoA ruling for what it is... flawed. Either that or the SC ruling is going to see an absolutely epic short squeeze.

I have 0.61%, so not quite a day trader.

Stop talking BS.

Wow, a pump and dump cross post, followed by, Chid with another psychological based posting strategy offering nothing but irrational fear. Yes, if I was one of those shorts I would be looking to close out some or all of my position ahead of the SC hearing. Please, please go and read them as you obviously have not. Read the Barclays case as well. The current CBG price is massively discounted against the Barclays ruling. The CoA ruling that was "unarguable" is no such thing, as per the pending SC hearing in April. Please post something based on actual facts and not BS.

With the new year it looks like their will be a lack of news that is directly related to CBG in relation to the court case. With the lack of news as such and the now lack of forced index sellers I would expect the shares to move steadily upwards, partly due to options decay and possibly also partly due to decreased volatility also impacting the options. This is a time, where completely external random events (Trump, Iran, China, etc.) may well drive the markets as a whole, separately from the perception of fundamentals. For CBG it may tend to decorrelate from the market as a whole, being at such a discount it may be seen in the interim as a better hedge in a bearish overall pattern and hence outperform on a relative basis. Either way, choppy waters ahead of the SC, ride the waves up and down in the interim.

Yeah, very short, it's Saturday, lol... :-)

From the volumes and the way the auction cleared at a dislocation from the last trade it appeared to be a lot of sale volume going through with (presuming some of the shorts) knowing this, due to the last day before the FTSE index changes occured, the last forced flush. Setting the bids in the auction a lot lower, but not too much lower as it would appear absolute outright manipulation that would be very, very easy to prove. Monday in my mind will be interesting, in part because of the lower holiday week liquidity as this may provide the last attempt for a short push down. The lack of liquidity may well provide the last opportunity. The complete lack of any forced selling volumes will be even more interesting. Into the new year, I'm expecting a steady climb towards the SC ruling in April. Exit plan is 800 in 3-5 years.

Well, 16:29:55 last trade was at 227.... then the 16:35 auction was with a massive 3.8m volume (£8.5m) at 223, followed by another 1.1m (£2.4m) which, if the 222 support earlier in the day, the earlier in the week drop down after the Barclays ruling, was indicative of then a portion of the shorts has closed out. In total 4.9m (£10.9m / 3.16%) settled after the close.

My guess for today would be an interesting rally in the last 30 minutes. Intraday shorts closing, risk off for the weekend, some of the larger shorts closing some more of their positions. Might have just seen around 222 as the level that shorts are closing.. comparable to earlier in the week.

Also last day before index changes.....

Marshall were possibly the buyers earlier today at 8:30 and they may appear to be closing out on drop below 230p, so may be in the zone where the shorts are now providing price support around 230p.

The Dec 2025 news helps as it allows time to fully filter out the claims, I would have been more concerned if they had not extended the deadline. Not quite sure WHY (just for fun caps) you think it's detrimental. Rushing payouts would have also conflicted with the court case timings, potentially resulting in a bigger mess.

"FCA and HMG work in a symbiotic relationship." - I nearly fell of my chair laughing. See the bound and interest rates today..... thats the precursor to this governments Truss moment, helped along by the FCA, against the government. It's not the payouts or the public that matter at this points it's the financing the wider market provides, which is where if you decide to punish them to the tune of £100bn it is going to cost the government way more.

Next election, Labour are out. Coalition of Reform and Conservatives. Proportional representation the deal. Thing longer and wider.

And just looking at the short positions, Marshal reduced by 0.1% yesterday. They could have been the buyers at the 10am drop.... if they were the update tommorrow would show no change as the price move today is too small.. will see on tommorrows data.

If the shorts were closing I would have expected the price to be moving a lot more or the nature of the trading against moves to change. At the moment I don't see any evidence as such and it's just a slow drift up rather than closing out. That would be my guess. Might only be 1p per day or less, but that would fit with option hedging in one sense. Bigger volatility ends up with the price getting knocked around a bit more and creates more noise that masks the underlying longer term moves/trends. Patience.

The very last one.... the monetary award [272] covered only the commision that was related to the interest rate plus 8% per year. The head office fixed 2% was not included in the award calculation.

The 3% CBG commission would equally be excluded under this ruling, which is very important to note.

So, dissapointed games will be attempted until April but very bullish long term.

[212] "The unfairness, he explained at [262], lay in the discretionary commission arrangement, not the “head office” commission fixed at 2 per cent of the amount borrowed. The provision in the brokerage agreement for the head office commission was not part of the unfair treatment of Ms Lewis."

That should be read in the context of the 3% commission rate that CBG quotes.

Hopcraft £183.26 commission at 3% of the vehicle price - not the interest amount - this is critical to note that the commission 3% does not appear to be based on the interest value in any way (see 29 in the Hocraft ruling). This removes CONC 4.5.2G that is commented on in the Barclays case where [234] “could include where the commission rate as a percentage of the amount of credit varies according to the interest rate charged to the customer.”

In terms of trying to defend the full Barclays ruling as such, it's difficult when for example [270] “any commission received under the discretionary arrangement increased the interest rate”

The question that I would raise at this point though would be the incentive for the dealer would then be to sell as many cars as possible by dropping the interest rate to a minimum or zero if they could, however the dealership may have had an agreement to attain an average interest rate as part of the financing agreement as a whole as in the Barclays case of an average expectation - but the commission for CBG was not tied to the interest rate.

The commission in the barclays case is £1,326.60 variable tied to the interest and £266.66 fixed 2% head office. The 2% fixed fee is not apparently under question or explicit challenge and forms part of the "commercialy sensible" context.

CONC 4.5.3R takes on a different light when the commission is deemed "commercially sensible" and not unfair [212] and further errodes the fiduciary elevation magic along with the resulting "secret" headline grabbing mania.

I'm otherwise struggling to see how the arguments in the Barclays ruling in the context of the Hopcraft case is anything but supportive of the Supreme Court appeal being positive relative to the current perceptions of doom and gloom for CBG's level of payouts. Especially with an argument that [271] "if brokers generally did not receive commission that would inevitably increase prices" when that price supposedly included an engagement fee to create a fiduciary obligation..... oh, hang on, that fee was implied as being nagative in the Barclays case..... so, the fiduciary role is paid for... by the fiduciary.... which makes the fiduciary his own client....