Member Info for knot

For CBG I think it was 3% of the finance cost.

The fundamental flaw in the ruling is that they say the proffit is included in the car price and the finance is then carried out by a separate role, but this separate role is supposed to be independent of the case, however their payment is in theory in the sale, Othewrwise there is then the expectation that the broker is arranging the finance for free, which the Plevi rulin clearly stated was not an expectation. This may well be Two Tier Keer strikes again especially as the FCA are now trying to interfere with the Supreme Court by pushing them to make decisions. So much for our independent judiciary.

Watch.... Patience.... Information spreads slowly.

At this point I'm all in and now just going to sit back and watch as I know this will turn.

Reves needs the banks and pensions funds to get her plan to work on bringing more investment (pension fund money) into UK assets... how is that going to work if they are all being targeted by the FOS and FCA for new fiduciary breaches..... Today might see a tussle of shorts learning the news the hard way.

Short covering panic in.... 3.....2.....1....

Chancellor considers overhaul as lenders face potential multi billion pound bill for alleged mis-selling of car finance

Chancellor Rachel Reeves will on Thursday call for an overhaul of the UK system for consumer redress in the financial services sector, as lenders brace for a potential multibillion pound bill for alleged mis-selling of car finance.

https://www.ft.com/content/8022fa8e-00dc-480f-b69a-42ca7072c50e

Separate one, given the high turnover of car loans (sub 4 years) and the current estimates for people claiming refunds, etc. How many of those refunds will actually get structured into some kind of new finance deal on thier next vehicle....

"Time frame will make little difference" - it completely changes the whole situation.

The whole market is about time. If you assume they hold the whole 640m as debt and dont pay any of it off at all, then yes 51m a year (at a 8% penalty rate). They reported over 200m proffit three years ago and over 100m last year. That's without paying any of of the debt with thier existing capital build or current reserves.

640m would be manageable just to leave on the books as an ongoing overhead as a worst case. More so when you consider they have a Nov 2023 bond that pays over 11%.

In terms of the rights question, they are constrained to 100m shares (AGM Resolution 16) which would give existing holders a resulting 0.6 position (150m current, max 100m new) if not taken up and based on current mkt cap raise a ballpark of 300m - that would be on top of the existing 400m plan and adding to the overall capital of over £1bn. Possibly approaching £2bn of cap. That makes a rights way less likely unless the payouts end up in the £1bn+ range, which even the RBC bears dont see.

They don't need to do a rights, everyone seems to be thinking all this is happening in the next few days/weeks. Panic !!! The FCA will take months to figure out what to do, 2026 for a scheme or even 2027 with more court challenges to go. The current move is just a squeeze out of the 250 index opportunity. Flip back in on the review after. Barclays judicial review of the ombudsman may upend the whole process completely and halt all the time barred claims for starters.

I'm more curious about the next set of cases where people use the justification ot the "small print" being a "secret" that they just default on any contract claiming this ruling as a basis for being an "unsophisticated" individual and therefor unable to understand all the clauses. Contract, what contract ?

The tail end of today is just a leveraged follow of the 250 index as a whole, today has seen very little direction that is not just a leveraged play of the 250 index.

They have already stated how they are funding the current contingency and already have provisions in excess of the additional capital build, even more if factoring in convertible bonds. To define an official provision would require the FCA to define a scheme or for very explicit certainty to exist. If the existing ruling was enough to define a provision all of the banks would be legally required to make a provision. The problem is that the CoA ruling will be challenged in more cases yet to come because it is not very well defined as to the creation or assumption of a fiduciary because of the implied boundary and scenario.

Even with the uncertainty a PE prediction of sub 1 requires drugs.

Nothing really as the only option was the Supreme Court. Your hardly going to pass a judgement and then turn around and say woops I made a mistake. The basis on which thier ruling exists is not the "secret" it is the creaton of the fiduciary. Everyone is focused on the "secret" implications and missing the real main aspect to the case.

My point exactly.

"It would take more than that to buy them out" - that is effectively saying the market price is already below the buyout floor. Or is an alternative rational to follow up and explain a fraudian slip. Oh, forgot, your selling.

My guestimate is that the compensation payments would have to be in the order of 800 in order to make the company unattractive for a buyout. The likely contenders would be merging with a larger finance provider, which at sub 0.3bn is pretty much any of them. The optimisation could then add in the costs for the scheme, capital scheduling, etc. The FCA I would have thought has a vested interest in not pushing any larger companies under with excessive handouts, especially in cases where the customer can turn up with paperwork, which the company, nor the FCA can validate (7 year retention rules).

Think of the scenario where the market cap drops to less than the projected earnings for this year ? What does that say about a functioning market overall ? Good advertisement for UK Inc or an advertisement for a pending basket case of a country.

Some of the larger (top 25) holders will buy in to support CBG rather than allow a full liquidation as they can book the cashflow delay over 10 years. Unless the FCA and the SC have a vested interest in making motor costs a lot more expensive, rational heads will prevail.

Not meaning those investing and asking questions (later than they should be, much like retrospectively asking about the commission) - more the posts along the lines of this one is going to zero, etc. Just to make it neutral on politically correct, non inflamatory, balanced, touchy feely group hug style. No, not touchy feely in the wrong way either. Ah, ffs..

Noferkinamesleft - no, not an investment newbie, yes a bit stunned at the comments. It's near impossible sometimes to identify the half truths from the spoof kings from the honest posts. Fortunately the village idiots make themselves known quite easily.

Good luck timing the market.

The full FT article (not listed below) is quite an interesting read, more balanced than the post below, which is cut at an interesting point before the balanced half. No I can't post it.

Extended warranties for example, sold with hidden commissions / bonuses if you sell one... Motor is just the proverbial canary in the mine. Courts to be flooded with no win no fee claims for everything.

Share dealing. You buy a volume of shares and you see the executed price is above the offer. So, assuming the first offer did not have enough volume, the rest of the offer stack started to be taken averaging the price up. Then after execution, the offer price is still there, same figure..... who took the secret margin / commission ? This is the exact same principle. Broker with fiduciary obligation and the new need to explicitly declare hidden margins and commissions with agreement....

Was the offer really renewed in an instant after execution, in which case it's a form of price manipulation or false advertising. Buy the first apple for 1p the rest are £1 each, but you won't know that until you try and buy 2 or more apples. Oh, by the way you have a few seconds to decide on what to do - pressured sales aspect comes into play.

Can you see this happening in the market if the ruling stands or the implication ?