Member Info for knot

One point to remember, 12 Dec 2025 Fidelity added around 4.9% to their position. The share price on the close of the 12th was 466.8p.

That position may have been triggered at the 400p level and the reason for the initial rally late last year that continued with one of the shorts possibly being forced to close out and curtailed from day trading. Move into the new year and positions changing extended to opportunistic momentum following with one short adding as their position possibly went close to being under water. The dip below 480p starts to look questionable as the pricing get's closer to where Fidelity plausibly finished adding to their position (but not the residual buying impact). Now that the current fall may well be nearing completion, the question is then do the shorts cover or sit on the position waiting for the FCA to roll out a unicorn with golilocks riding on it's back throwing freshly printed money away.

The other two aspects to watch is the 1 year pricing because in the next few days there is a near 100p difference from last years rollercoaster that may on spread trading. The second possiblility for next weel is a question around contracts rolling off and being closed out as they too expire and are not rolled. Maybe fun days ahead or not, but the rollercoaster will continue on to the same destination.

Remember to scream on the rise and scream on the fall, don't spill the popcorn....munch...munch...

Thought I would have a look at the trades for today to see what the volume was doing. The 5 day trend appears that someone may have been selling out some volume with a rough programatic sell trend possible. Closing out some short positions on Friday may have been the case, with a bit of uncertainty on Monday before gaining momentum again on Tuesday. The volumes towards the end of the day picked up a little (above afternoon tumbleweed levels) after the US open but volumes were already decreasing after 490p and buyback possibly occuring 486p on day trading volumes. The afternoon 14:38 incident of around 90 trades all going through on the same second at 485.2p maybe an oddity or a tested level that was never going to pass. Curiously there was also relatively little volume around 500p so maybe not much short dated option volume at that level with 494p-496p showing 37% of the volumes. 491-492p with the only other bump of volume (23%) with the rest spread out.

Whatever happens later this week and early next week will be quite interesting, if my assumption about what is going on is plausibly less than a dice throw. No updates from the shorts so they are either not day trading or holding to the required 0.1% difference in position reporting requirement. Either way they are maybe below 0.1% (150k) of the active traded volume since last week, hence possibly just being someone exiting a position in the new year and switching to something else, taking the gains from 2025.

Up, down, sideway, who knows, oh, more popcorn...munch...munch...

Not wanting to spoil the fun, can't really comment on NVIDIA with positive feedback. Sometimes the more subtle aspects can't quite compute above the noise. lol.

Oh, look, popcorn....munch...munch...

You may be arguing with an NVIDIA calculation....

Scream on the rise and scream on the popcorn...munch...munch....

"cant the FCA can require compensation to consumers if they have been treated unfairly, regardless of private law liability" - Under section 404 redress they have to be court alignend on what is deemed 'unfair' and the quantum of redress. The FCA can't be like the court of appeal and halucinate an unfair situation and then imagine the drgree of redress that is detached from economic reality.

"nartrowing the scope of the criteria for redress" - bringing it back within court alignment - which goes back to Clydesdale as to what court ruling(s) are applicable.

Another round of popcorn...munch...munch...

"only the “unfair relationship” claims remain" - Clydesdale derived the unfair relatioship by leaning on principles within Hopcraft and a different halucination over dividing the tri-party CCA agreement into four parties. Within the Hopcraft court of appeal case the judge in that instance ignored the fact that the Dealer is acting on behalf of the lender, so they can't 'bribe' thenselves. With that in mind, apply that to the judge in Clydesdale adding a new (fourth) party to the agreement. Until Clydesdale is ruled against it stands as law, however unsafe. That inclusion of the extra party into the commission halucination is a foundation that Clydesdale rests upon, is separate to Hopcraft and a very, very important matter of law to be clarified by the supreme court. Judges can't invent new parties to deals clearly defined under the CCA, nor can they ignore instances where there are actually only two effective parties (dealer=lender + borrower) as in the supreme court clarification in Hopcraft. That is how it ends up in the supreme court.

The above is what you may see the Supreme Court clarify (amongst the many other issues). The FCA can water all it want's but it will not change the legal position, which is the main issue that lenders should challenge and remember Barclays possibly strategically dropped the challenger against Clydesdale, potentially for this very reason.

To refresh those new to this, Barclays withdrew from a challenge to Clydesdale, potentially because they could challenge Cydesdale from within the redress process 'after' the FCA commit to leaning on Clydesdale for the redress scheme. Knowing Clydesdale is flawed, Barclays may not even need to proceed with the challenge because other lenders may take it forward for them. Either way, it ends up at the supreme court because it is an important matter of law the the court of appeal trampled on again, just as in Hopcraft.

More guesses, or not, who knows.. do your own research.

Late night popcorn....munch...munch...

I'm still researching and thinking about some of this because potentially a comparable position could be applied to Clydesdale being overturned, which get's the FCA out of a hole (and cancels the bulk of the redresss scheme, if not all of it). It is a non zero probability that the FCA could end up pulling a Hudini, lenders get thier capital back, the Treasury plugs a £3bn hole and voters act as the usual goldfish and distracted two weeks later with the latest clickbait shock and awe. CMC's get left with nothing and lots of cost with pending potential claims from the lenders (TMS vs Vanquis [2025] EWHC 1599 (KB) - CA-2025-001745 - TMS appeal refused 3 Dec 2025 - going to trial 2026) - this case also has implications for the FOS blindly accepting claims and requiring the fee to counter claim.

Clydesdale is going to be the key and always was - this is why I believe court is a matrix type inevitability.

My beliefs, hallucinations, guesses, etc. do your own research.

Blue pill, red pill or popcorn...munch...munch...

"Meanwhile the market will joyfully dick around with the share price between £4.50 and £5.50 for months and months." - The uncertainty window is closing and that matters more for the historic discount seen over the last few years, all the way down from the 1500p range, so I'd be surprised if it ended up back below 500p. Was quite happy picking up a few more in the low 400's and that was before a larger chunky buyer stepped in.

The whole proces going to the courts would provide a much higher degree of certainty for both short and long term, which will remove fear and uncertainty discount.

My guess, the FCA are pressured into acting early and end of Jan early Feb they will come out with minor adjustments and face a wall of legal challenges (both sides) as soon as they issue the final scheme. Government pressure pulls the court process forwards, which still ends up second half of 2026 for a resolution and the FCA being restructured (trimmed with a chainsaw) shortly after. Bye bye chief hallucinator. Zero chance the FCA will can the process without more humiliation in the courts, house of commons and house of lords.

The reason for this advance in timing - the next budget and that multi £bn hole the FCA created in the Treasury budget - which becomes a free win to the next party if there is an early election. Political home goal in the making.

Either way, happy to just sit back and watch the situation play out through 2026, maybe ending 2026 around 700-900p range. More of the same rollercoaster along the way ? Who know's indeed.

New year popcorn...munch...munch...

"no compensation where 0% interest rates" - that was a moment where I had to do a double take as to what they were saying. This to me just proved how economically inept the whole process is and why a court process is needed. If they have to spell out that zero interest rates mean no compensation then there is something very wrong with the whole process. You paid no interest, which makes the "of course you had an unfair finance agreement" argument completely illogical unless you have no clue about even the basics of finance.

The problem is that 0% obviously means no compensation, then non zero or 0.5% or 2% or 5% is the whatever level that makes sense of any perception as to what one side thinks is 'fair' ? This is on the principle that the finance agreement as a whole is what is being argued about in relation to fair and competition, comparable to the supreme court ruling that highlighted a similar massive hole in the argument. That 'fair' is dislocated from the concept of comparable business activity elsewhere in the economy and, oh, that annoying thing of global competition that is politically inconvenient when living in a bubble. Finance from anywhere other than the UK ? No, we just treat it as UK interest rates, for a car manufacturer that makes cars in USD or EUR. That's another argument to play out in court.

I'd be massively stunned if the lenders did not proceed to the courts because they would end up in the courts by neglecting in thier fiduciary duty to their shareholders, who may end up with a much bigger win than any car finance handouts. Lenders can't arbitrarily agree to hand out cash if it is not legally sound and the current hallucination of the FCA is certainly not legally sound in even the remotest sense. Clydesdale is the elephant in the room that needs addressing because it will otherwise return with avengance on the lenders. The other stompy of term duration is yet to appear and may well proceed in court to stop all over the FCA.

Done with my hallucination popcorn...munch...munch...

I have tried to keep focused or highlighting the various possibilities. The three current reporting threashold (above 0.5%) shorts are quite an interesting mix, with what would seem like one on long term hedge, do nothing and let the strategy unwind (Walleye). Another (Systematica) that had a positions and was day trading around it until the day trader lost a bunch of money and had the wings clipped. Then the Hong Kong new entry that jumped in at the highs after the supreme court ruling, thinking it was all a one way down hill after the euphoria of a big win, further encouraged by the drop after the FCA redress hallucination and seemingly looking like doubling down against the recent climb assisted by a much larger position addition by a different fund that is now seemingly settling by picking up shares.

There is more short volume than just the 3.3m of reported positions, although how big (or small) the iceberg is, nobody knows. My guess is 3.5-4m total and a portion of that is nervous.

That's my perception (or hallucination) as to what may be going on and is a slow day on day itteration of the same process running through.

The recent updated comments by chief hallucination team leader, only reinforces my perception that the FCA are locked in to a redress proposal that ends up in the courts. Again, this will be just another slow (with rolercoaster screams) process that ends up with the FCA backing down more than they propose (and costing tax payers even more money in wasted court time and legal costs). But, hey, liberals think money grows on trees and is free without any impact to anyone else.

There will be tweaks, in more ways than just the redress scheme.

Hallucinations, guesses and not enough eggnog.... do your own thing.

Seasons greetings type popcorn.... munch...munch....

"Got any thoughts about the final trade?"

SINT - Market maker trade - prompting grok to give the text...

Volume-weighted average price (VWAP) execution: Market makers often provide VWAP guarantees for larger orders, accumulating shares throughout the day and reporting the trade as a single entry at the calculated average price post-close. The precision to three decimal places (503.103p) is characteristic of such computations, especially if higher volume traded earlier in the session when prices were lower (e.g., near the day's low of 492.20p).

Late-reported trade from earlier in the day: Under MiFID II rules, SI trades must be reported promptly, but certain negotiated or large-in-scale trades can have deferred publication. If executed mid-day around 503p but reported after close, the timestamp reflects the execution time.

Derivative-related activity: It could stem from unwinding or hedging a derivative position (e.g., an equity swap, CFD, or option exercise), where the effective price is based on a benchmark like intraday average rather than the close. However, pure derivative settlements aren't typically reported as equity trades unless involving physical delivery.

Make of those three descriptions whatever you will... bullish / bearish.. someone buying steadily via VWAP, delaying traded volume reporting or derivatives (which have not been visible on other days). Who knows... maybe Santa does...

Merry popcorn....munch...munch....

"a fan of a return to dividends" - you do realise what the government have done with dividend tax in the last budget ? Yes 40p may raise the share price at some point in time, however that 40p is taken out the share price when the share is exdividend. Net result possibly no gain or a net decrease depending on the scenario. Buybacks have a compound effect on the share price over time, one of those impatient to patient transfer things. In the current situation and current government outlook I would in no way support dividends.

Just my view. Each to their own.

Buyback the popcorn...munch...munch...

2025-12-18T15:24:03Z - 480.8 - 36,502 - £175,501.62 - Off-book - SINT

Interesting SINT (market maker) trade today, where it was the largest single trade on the day with the auction at the end of the day also closing at the same level over an hour later. The post noon circa 10p rise on the back of around 4k shares spread over 30+ small trades as the market moved without the traded volumes. 91% of the days trades being below 500 shares (29% of volume). Maybe derivative inertia on daily moves capping the limit for the day, which may show through over time if the last months trend of a steady climb holds.

The FCA being on their 'review' phase for the consultation with the random christmas spinner as to the actual date they will return with a decision or next action. Here I recall the 'weeks' timeframe from the supreme court review turning into a weekend panic reaction statement, so a new years 'update' would be no surprise at all. Not quite sure how they are going to polish the train wreck they have created, oh well.

Seasonal popcorn...munch...munch...

Interesting that 11 Dec the FCA quietly backed off (confirmed it is not proceeding) a redress scheme for investment advisors that went under the radar in the mainstream media. This was a long standing issue with the FCA going back to 2023, comparable to motor finance of starting an issue with the aim of redress regardless of the reality encountered along the way. That is even with investment advisors still posting out letters for people to take part in the 'scheme'.

https://www.financialplanningtoday.co.uk/news/fca-scraps-plans-for-investment-adviser-redress

Google AI summary : "The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has not cancelled redress for investment advisors. Instead, it has recently confirmed it is not proceeding with a specific plan to create an additional, separate redress scheme for the sector, because it believes the Consumer Duty and existing rules achieve the desired outcomes of ensuring firms meet their liabilities."

Biases in the way that AI writes output seems sometimes quite comparable to what you may hear from a politician that does not want to admit to an answer in simplistic form and obsfucating the response in a barrage of irrelevant words.

Separately, still trying to see where that 5% appeared from or is yet to be delivered.... One holder aquires 5% and nobody notified a 5% or anything close decrease in holding, so there is a plausible new bullish imbalance. Hence todays 470p possible new line in the sand after 465p was slapped back in the afternoon.

Who knows, usual errors, guesses and whatever.

Popcorn consistency.... munch...munch....

In a certain way it is not that surprising that the bullish RNS may be resulting in a usual opportunistic flush of retail and short term holders. Will be intesting to see the point this reverses back out or if it is the slow months long climb that will show up. That 2% plus of shorts with over 3m shares to buy in is going to be interesting if they are speculative unhedged positions. I'm guessing some of you might have misunderstood my prior post.

Usual guessing of the weather. Do your own research.

Popcorn away... munch...munch....

"How have they managed to do it" - Have a look at BT when one holder appeared to have 25% of the shares, however they were not held absolute rather derivatives because they were not held outright as shares. That 25% ownership ended up backfiring because the derivative element was an overhang in the market and possibly why BT was bouncing off 100p. When the other buyer stepped in they actually bought the shares up, hence the rise. Context 1.

Centrica and CBG (2024) have both had experience of Bank of America showing holdings that appear and dissapear overnight (onshore / offshore regulatory reporting). The last time a reasonable chunk like this 'dissapeared' was around 15 April 2024 when Bank of America holdings went from 7% to 2% overnight at around 460p towards the end of numerous large increases and decreases in holding that possibly started after RLAM bought a chunk. Context 2.

Last context would be Royal London Asset Management when they picked up 5.3% on 16 Feb 2024 when the price was at the low (after falling from 800p) of 299p before then rallying to 500p by mid May, assisted with BoA jumping around with the shares as well. If the recent 5% follows this pattern there may be a longer bull rally just starting that may run for a bit as the 5% is covered and bought in.

Who knows ?

More errors, guesses, finger in the air and ah, whatever, do your own thing. Research, I know nothing.

My thing is popcorn... munch...munch...

Here is why they have an even bigger problem (can they dig the hole any deeper).

In the House of Lords hearing the FCA admitted that they had other priorities when they took over responsibilities way back when sanity ruled. That admission and statement effectively was an open confirmation that the FCA were or could have been aware and yet decided to sit on thier hands and do nothing. In that light they have zero legal ability to then turn around and apply section 32(b) excemption to a point of time that would have otherwise been within the original timeframe if they had chosen to act rather than do nothing. Because they knew at the time and yet did nothing for many years and even then still did nothing, that is something that is on the record and near impossible to deflect. That is if we make the assumption that there was or has actually been anything wrong in the past. Banning DCA's in my view is actually market interference beyond the role of the regulatory responsibilities of the FCA.

Chalk that up as item number (oh, I have lost count) on the list of reasons why redress will not survive a court challenge.

Maybe an error, or not, do your own research.

More popcorn, more popcorn...munch....munch....

I will repeat again, there is zero probability that the FCA can implement what they consulted on.

There are so many legal holes in the scheme, the FCA's own statements, the case the scheme rests on, etc.

£20bn, I will remember that when I need a laugh over the weekend.

Have a good weekend... get the popcorn in...munch...munch...

Well, the rollercoaster of the last month has been quite interesting and now two of the shorts that were looking like hero's are not looking as flash. 480p today obviously standing out as resistance with 36% of the volume in the 3p range touching 480p. Trades towards the close were at the 477-474p level and then the main auction cleared 467.6p (177k vol) on either proffit taking or an attempt to curtail the losses on short positions, although another larger volume followed at 472.6p (50k) and then again a little lower at 469.56 with 32k. Half as much traded after the initial close, which was interesting.

With the larger volumes, the distinct ramp up in the price and subsequent ascending triangle, someone may have been fighting a loosing battle with what may be a continuation of the longer term steady correction now that the flaws in the consultation are becoming rather obvious to everyone.

Who could have run today up ? My guess would be Walleye and the position they put on a year ago is rolling off, so it's just cosing out on expiry of the contract. Who knows ? Watch the short reports.

The 20% run up since the 24th Nov lows may well be getting painful for two of the recent shorts and there does not appear to be any more bearish rabbits the FCA can pull out of the hat any more. Plus, the treasury may want the £2bn hole filling, which is a very odd situation where the government can effectively raise £2bn by canning the redress scheme. That's in the context of people asking for the FCA to investigate Reeves at the same time. Strange times indeed and I do wonder what will happen.

Usual errors, guesses, do your own thing,

Now where was that popcorn....munch.....achoooo....munch...

As per what I said many weeks ago, the FCA caused a multi £bn hit to the treasury with one of those unintended consequences, which was actually quantified by the OBR at £2bn.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/dec/06/ministers-urged-to-close-2bn-tax-loophole-in-car-finance-scandal

Now, MP's are trying to double dip by claiming that compensation payments should be taxed like proffits, the logic of which is about as coherent as a fiduciary out of nowhere. More examples of the degree of economic illiteracy in the government that have zero idea on basic business acounting. Interesting the article has the counter argument that reducing the handouts actually costs taxpayers less. Who would have imagined the government and taxpayers benefitting from reducing what the FCA does ?

The Mail has a separate article, which contains negative commentry on the motor finance issue.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-15360415/zombie-economy-business-Labour-Cabinet.html

Black hole popcorn... munch...munch....