Member Info for knot

Well, 430p broke 73% of todays volume was in a tight 434-437 (3p) range helped along by the US bounce. 90% of the trades (27% of volume) were below 300 shares with 1k plus trades 48% of the volume. End of day auction light volume compared to prior trends. CBG decorrelated with the main banks again and on a 5 day basis now lagging and 1 month basis around 13% off, which is an indication as to how far the elastic has been stretched with the bearish route. Last three days looking like a revaluation upwards on the open with bearish sells or shorts selling down to try and exit against the end of day index. Moving further up may well stress one short position out so would not be surprised if another short term flush is attempted to try and find sellers for the shorts to close out against. I do wonder if the clock has started ticking louder for the existing shorts given the progressively louder statements around the consultation. Which of the shorts will bail first ?

Usual guesses, errors, etc. do your own thing.

Another interesting week ahead... popcorn...munch...munch...

Under Clydesdale they used bribery (secret fact) to apply section 32 exemption that would otherwise timebar claims. Slight issue with that since the Supreme Court sort of pointed out that if you want to rest on Section 56 to make lenders liable then the dealer can't bribe himself. Hillarious and scary the Court of Appeal clearly did not actually understand what they made as a ruling. There are other aspects to it, but that's as I understand it. The judge separately decided that in a singlular CCA transaction that is under section 56 with three parties involved actually required additional disclosure for a commission that a fourth party to the deal is percieved (but not legally defined) as entitled to a commission. That fourth party non disclosure of imagination was then a secret undisclosed commission fact and you can apply section 32 time bar exemption to it, so long as you have a really good imagination.

What do I know, I'm just a nobody, with my own errors, guesses, different imagination and supplemental terms on page 45, annex 4, chapter 32

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

“liabilities back to 2007 exist, no matter what” - According to Clydesdale. The FCA may well be only following the (ironically the letter of the law) law and are possibly (trapped and can't change otherwise) framing their way out because when Clydesdale is broken in a legal challenge the FCA just turn around and say, we were just following the laws set in court. That's how the FCA are possibly setting the stage in my view. The process needs the courts to challenge Clydesdale becuase the ruling has implications beyond motor finance and it will end up a legacy liability for the lenders in the future. It could arguably be irresponsible for the lenders not to challenge the ruling.

That said I believe that some of the interpretation by the FCA may well be fundamentally flawed (e.g. applying 2023 Consumer Duty retrospectively is stunningly questionable). That's separate to the question of resting on Clydesdale with the potentially clear conflicts provided in the Supreme Court ruling that undermine Clydesdale.

The LSE article from Liberty2 is interesting because it's framing from a motor firm and not a lender.

"FCA requires secondary legislation" - Tactful way of saying the FCA have no current legal grounds, i.e. not in 404 alignment. for 2007-2014

FCA "paused, under our powers, for nearly two years" - Something yet to research fully, implications where the FCA can't suspend the limitations act and yet paused consumer claims that since expired and are not applicable for a redress scheme.... hmmm.... FCA misleading consumers, that would be an event to sit in on.

Still rersearching some other aspects to see if there are any other issues for the lenders or the regulator. I'm just an average person, what do I know, you can piece it together as well, think, do your own research, check, please, prove me wrong. What am I missing ? Where are the gaps ?

My guesses, errors, beliefs and more conditions within annex 332, page 22, section 188.24.3.

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

The media may or may not be aware of any of this and it's toxic for Labour because the FCA are about to have a severe reputational issue.

Please read as this is quite key and very critical. After reading the cases numerous times and avoiding going through the redress consultation beyond the first few pages of 95 questions of distraction and misdirection, this is specifically why the consultation process will be ruled invalid and or the redress scheme ruled unlawful almost in entirity. This is just the list of critical facts / flaws.

1. Starting with the recent relative media spotlight, 5.16 in the redress consultation "In line with our guidance on vulnerability and the requirements in the Consumer Duty" - that is the 2023 Consumer Duty applied retrospectively into the redesss scheme back to 2007.

2. Limitations Act 1980 Section 32 requires a 'fact' that has been 'deliberately concealed'. Canada Square helped define that it must be a fact relevant to provide a right of action and concealed in a manner to not allow the discover of the relevant fact. Under the 35%/10% tick box the existence of the fact is blatantly disclosed (ignore the FCA applying the Johnson (proof at 320, 329, 336) case documentation errors to reinterpret that as to applying to every disclosure of existence). The size of the commission as in Medstead does not even need to be disclosed, separate to the fact that CONC 4.5.3R required the existence and CONC 4.5.4R required the disclosure if asked by the consumer. This time bars the arbitrary 35%/10% tick box and some of the other instances, even some of the commercial ties. It's also to do with the 'fact' and it's bearing on how it is needed for unfair under the CCA.

3. Hopcraft Supreme Court ruling [249] “as well as in his actual capacity” which was the whole crux of the case, basically you can't bribe yourself. The dealer is acting as both the dealer and lender, one and the same person within the CCA section 56. Within a DCA the dealers is changing the interest rate as both the dealer and lender, there is no equivalent division, they are the same person. Clydesdale is flawed.

4. Hopcraft Supreme Court ruling [161] "There is nothing inherently objectionable about paying commission, or about seeking to influence people’s behaviour by giving them benefits of one kind or another." - does that need any additional clarity ? "of one kind or another"

[disclaimer on second post]

5. Hopcraft Supreme Court ruling [280] "In our view the dealer remains a separate player in the negotiation from start to finish, free to pursue its own interests at arm’s length from the interests of the customer, subject only to the usual common law constraints (eg against misrepresentation), and to such regulatory constraints as may from time to time be imposed." - does that need any additional clarity ?

6. Clydesdale ruling [198] "CONC 4.5.3R applies separately to disclosure of the existence of both kinds. The broker must adequately disclose the existence of both kinds." - That would be the singular commission payment in the single transaction that under the CCA does not involve multiple separarte commissions to an additional party to a section 56 tri-party agreement which does not exist anywhere in law. Tri-party agreement, customer, dealer, lender. Commission is a single sum as part of that as defined under the CCA, no multiple commissions.

7. Hopcraft Supreme Court ruling [322] - CONC 2.3.2R - Agreed by all parties that disclosure of the commission was not required. Also see [320] "the mere fact that there has been no disclosure of the commission, or only partial disclosure, will not necessarily suffice of itself to make the relationship between lender and customer unfair for the purposes of the CCA" - This also has Limitation Act 1980 Section 32 implications.

8. Hopcraft Supreme Court ruling [326] - "He was, at least, in a position to compare the cost of the finance agreement offered to him with other options available on the market." - This partly destroys the link to Plevin secrecy and the 'deliberately concealed' 'fact' in the limitations act.

9. Hopcraft Supreme Court ruling [326] - commercial tie on it's own is not sufficient for an unfair relationship under the CCA, it is one of the relevant factors (Limitations Act Section 32 applicable) because the commission size could still be fair. Tick box issue.

I'll stop at those, because together they collapse Clydesdale and without Clydesdale the redress scheme has 'slight' / massive issues. This is just part of the list. Basically the FCA proposed a scheme that is very, very clearly nowhere near in alignment with Section 404. There are a whole host of secondary implications from the pending fallout.

Usual disclaimer this is my belief, errors, guesses and halluciantions included, do your own homework and check this. Please, please prove me wrong.

Get the popcorn ready for Monday.... munch...munch...

"to apply another, retrospectively" = Redress Consultation 5.16 : Applying the 2023 Consumer Duty retrospectively, all the way back to 2007, when even the relevant OFT rules not exist, nor even the 2008 definition of an average consumer, nor the FCA CONC rules, etc, etc..

FCA are doomed...... up a creek without a paddel and no boat. The shorts are so ........ed.

Popcorn at the ready....munch....munch...

From todays trades, 23% of the traded volume was 428-430 and then 44% traded 423-425. Rough guess, someones was buying on the bid in the afternoon with a level they feel comfortable with around 423. Auction was 0.8p higher than last trades at 423.8p with volume at 99k. Prior auctions : Tue 190k, Wed 294k. Only 52k traded between 11am and 2:30pm over the bounce and drop to 423. Interestingly 12:20:27 a burst of 15 automated trades (total volume 5,859) between 429p and 426.6p and then 200 at 425p traded 7 seconds later. That looked like a number of small bid volumes in the stack taken out if the reported timing is correct, liquidity light enough to (seemingly) move the market 1% (temporarily) with only 6k in volume for a nice rollercaster feel. 430 might be a sensitive price level for a recent short addition around 30 Oct, which could be Actus or anyone else. That could make for a 6p range for tomorrows games, knocking on the 430 door.

More guesses, errors, disclaimer, etc. see terms page 21 small print uner the small print in side note 4.

Another bite of the popcorn... munch...munch...

Tab at the top 'trades', has not history and is useful to see the near term bid and offer level if they are being reported from a market that represents the traded market. Remember, every buyer has a seller. The sites tend to allocate the instigator as to the behaviour - i.e. the one who lifts an offer (buys) or hits a bid (sell) the one who decides to act.

The problem arrises when someone wants to sell and then just offers a lower price and those buying with the reduced price indicate its a buy when the instigator is the one that is offering the market down to bring buyers out. Works the other way around as well, bidding the market up where people are selling to you and the trades are sells but your actually trying to buy volume on the bid.

That's why buy and sell is a bit of a red herring in the market because you always have a buyer and seller. You never know who is really the instigator unless you look as to what happened with the price movement and it is the movement that then tells you if there is a buy or sell motivator.

Alternatively, have a cup of tea, crach the teabag open and then read the leaves as it may well be just as accurate. Transparency is on par with a reasonable foggy day.

As for today's tealeaves, the 422/423 support held, which may have just been the shorter up at 429 was buying back in or someone picking up volume from a slow liquidation (seller) that is offloading 10-30k per day, who knows. Keeping a watch on the days trades and volumes.

Lots of guesses, must be lots of errors and I have no idea, so go figure.

Back to the doc, spreadsheet and popcorn.... munch...munch...

Only around 15% higher number of trades as at 15:10. Number of traded picked up at 14:10 compared to the 5th. Support around 422/423. Volumes were lower until the 45,000 trade 14:58 that interestingly went through at the mid price (assuming the bid and offer shown on this sites trade summary is actual).

Watching for the short fight with the popcorn.... munch...munch....

Liberty2 - nice summary, pointed.

I will keep repeating, a court challenge is guaranteed unless the redress proposal is reduced by a degree that would undermine the FCA's credibility, so the FCA are locked into a court route. On that basis they will not cut the redress proposal back as far because they may well be expecting to loose in court so why take the reputational hit before the court (shifing blame to the courts for the changing legal landscape). Politics at it's worst.

I'm quite confident that the 35%/10% tick box are time barred and have the specific rulings and quotes to back that up in an appeal. Lots of the DCA claims will fail because the end commission rate is not unfair and the dealer has his own commercial interest which runs against the CoA lean that gave discressionary commissions the question around duty and that became a duty to which entitiy question. Decreasing interest rate DCA's also pose a particular problem for the imagination of the liberal court judges and the FCA. Clydesdale wandered down that route, the FCA happily followed and here we are.

Yes, the FCA are in a pickle, possibly facing other issues they are yet to realise. Claims from the claims companies, attacked from all sides. The FCA buying time hits the claims companies with the clock ticking and claims getting time barred each day.

More guesses, errors, etc. do your own thing, research, read, challenge, etc.

The madness of charts and popcorn.... munch... munch...

Missed the gap, was asleep, litterally, I'm watching and working for the moment, mainly working out the details for an appeal, where I believe with 90% confidence all condition 2 claims are time barred already and moving 2019 on. Slight issue for the FCA and FOS because the CMC's may be looking to seek damages from the FCA due to the increasing time bar losses. The FCA delaying the redress process works two ways and the clock does not stop because of the FCA. That may represent around £1.5bn less in claims. DCA and Tie separate update later.

Filling out the consultation may still be needed to specifically frame the appeal in a different way as well to introduce an angle on the consultation and what the FCA have done.

I'll call today the last 410 low, tides turned. My guestimate.

More guesses, errors, fingers in the air and some more serious possibilities.

Late breakfast popcorn.... munch.... munch....

Realistically, I don't think feedback will have any significant effect, if any at all. Nikhill opting to bury critcial responses with a flood of opinions. Consultation reposnses will be 99% unfounded opinion replying to the purposefully framed consultation questions and not the actual principles of legality. I believe the FCA are in a trap and they are going to court because the issue is all about the limitations act and the half secret inadequately disclosed deliberately concealed fact of how a figure was derived at and not the actual figure (which was fair). I would not be surprised if the FCA roll out a final redress scheme well before christmas. For those that watched Blue Peter, here's one I prepared earlier, look at all those consultation responses, look over there not here.

If someone can post an update after the Lewis and Nikhill comedy club as to how many instances of time related words occur I would be quite interested. I think a fraudian splip or two may show through or it just turns into another narrative control back slapping moment for an aligned heavily vested interest pair.

Meanwhile, watching for a short vs short book fight...

More guesses, errors, beliefs, conspiracy theories, see section 533 page 404 for more info.

Rollercoaster ahead, don't spill the popcorn... munch... munch...

Not sure if this House of Lords report (13 June 2025) received as much attention as what it should have done. This is the same committee as a few weeks back.

Summary page 3 : "However, the secondary objective envisages more than just the growth of the financial services sector. It contains an explicit directive for the FCA and PRA to facilitate growth in the wider economy. We are not convinced that the link between financial services regulation and growth in the wider economy has yet been sufficiently understood or rigorously evidenced." - i.e. are the FCA still ignoring growth.....

[166] “When it comes to overseas capital flowing into the UK, there is something that we could do. Overseas investors, who I talk to regularly, perceive a significant risk premium from regulatory retrospection in the UK, and we need to deal with that. We need to remove the perception, and indeed the reality, of retrospection that goes on where rules change retrospectively.”

[167] "If the UK redress framework does not operate effectively or is seen to be hampering a stable and predictable trading environment, this can potentially affect the FCA’s primary objectives of consumer protection, market integrity and competition, as well as the FCA’s secondary objective to facilitate the international competitiveness of the UK economy in the medium to long term."

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld5901/ldselect/ldfsrc/133/133.pdf

148 pages if you can read it all... the Box 1 Summary on page 7 is quite pointed and the conclusions from page 8 are worth a read. Point 4 and the weekend post SC ruling conference to select market analysts by the FCA as an example of outside their core responsibility. In that instance it was arguably pure narrative control. Point 6 - FCA staff with no commercial business experience. Point 22 - FCA staff not knwing what they are doing. Point 32 - market discount for UK banks. 33-34 - Redress curtailment. 45 - The conflict between the PRA responsibility to increase lending and the FCA curtailing lending, regulator vs regulator. "54. The Committee is concerned by the chronically low levels of financial literacy and numeracy skills in the UK adult population," - I wonder what the lessons were instead of maths...

Gap close Wednesday or this afternoon ?

More errors, commedy, guesses, yada, yada, yawn...

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

Budget for growth - let's give a few customers a windfall from over a decade ago they had no issue with and then complain as to wht £100bn in lending dissapears from the market (rate increase on lending harming growth).

In relation to the "Similarly, in cases of fully secret commissions (as in Hopcraft), the total non-disclosure was treated as deliberate concealment, potentially constituting a bribe at common law or in equity. " - That's a false start because in Hopcraft the CONC rules at the time very clearly allowed non disclosure for small commissions. They can't seek deliberate concealment when the very rules stated the commission could be concealed, as was the case for insurance and lots of other commissions. The deliberate concealment angle is a second attempt at the half secret route to the effects of bribery and we all know where that ended up.

The question the FCA are plausibly trying to argue is that the customer may have known (could have asked for the number) of a £500 commission, but the FCA argument is that how that commission is calculated was deliberate concealment. That's problematic for other industries because if the workings of a commission of proffit are deemed secret and must be disclosed then that will kill foreign investment in the UK and new businesses have the chilling effect of tyring to operate transparently with no economic commercial business secrets. That's maybe an extreme interpretation but an attempt to make a point, it's not just about motor, this still has much wider implaciations to other markets, they just don't realise it yet.

Liberty : "based on estimates produced by the regulator in 2019." - I missed that one, yes, I don't think they realise what they are saying in relation to the legal implications.

In the meantime I'm waiting for a short on short battle to start when they realise the prisoners dilema.

Martin the wise one up for brinery as well (under the prior court of appeal ruling) - might be interesting for any fraudian slips around time....

More guesses, esimates from 2019, errors, herracy, witch trials, disclaimer not on page 4542, see annex G43 to complain, section 553.

Watching as the show gets interesting with the popcorn....munch...munch...

It's more disconcerting that a group of MP's appear to have no regard for the rule of law and view abject socialism as a just cause. Comrades in Russia will be laughing and applauding. Economically inept understanding on the impact of taking CET1 out of banks on future lending capability and cost to the economy as a whole. Impact on pensions due to lower dividends, those pensions Reeves wants to invest in the UK (with fewer dividends to actually invest). If MP's are promoting the rule of law does not apply, what does that tell everyone ? Either it say to everyone the law applies politically and not blind justice or that MP's are ignorant of the law ?

"overly complex calculations" - far more complex than the original commission calculation and the consumer is expected to understand it in working out if their own redresss figure is correct and fair ? Good luck with statistical distributions, polynomial approximations and ignoring actual lending rates at the time. The Guardian seems to be like the BBC for actual facts and worthy news ? Peak hysteria.

If government made popcorn we would have half corn... mun... gone.

Previous message clipped short... and we used to complain at school when asked to write x number of words.

The short vs short activity may well get interesting if one of them then tries to close another one out (limit breach) by running the market up. Low liquidity and lack of sellers, just as much a lack of buyers. Would not surprise me because if you only trade one side all the time, your not trading and missing opportunities. For one of the shorts to switch to a long position to flush another out, that would be just trading. Smoke, yes, very likely, just not from where you think it might be.

Usual disclaimer for the prior post. Just my guesses, errors, etc. do your own homework, etc.

Growing some popcorn.... munch... munch...

Smoke without fire may well be seen at the FCA. The share price pattern is only since the redress anoucement and the constraint around what lenders can actively state in relation to a consultation where they don't know if the FCA are going to go all growth, Bluecrest type fold or stick to the court path. We are just back in uncertain territory and I could image some holders bought in on the back of the Supreme Court ruling and the FCA making new imaginations of the law like the Court of Appeal would errode confidence (growth) of international investors and on that point :

"The Treasury appoints the FCA board and can issue recommendations under FSMA section 1JA if public interest is at stake."

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/8/section/1JA

The last recommendation filed 14 Nov 2024 by the person from the back office

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/recommendations-for-the-financial-conduct-authority-november-2024/recommendations-for-the-financial-conduct-authority-html

The FCA response - bear in mind the timing of this response relative to the court of appeal decision on bribery

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/recommendations-for-the-financial-conduct-authority-november-2024/response-from-the-financial-conduct-authority

Well worth a read and then contemplate the current implications and impact on the financial markets as to the proposed redresss scheme, which will reduce lending by around £110bn (erosion of CET1 in a consumer windfall) and consider the Treasury letter contained the word 'growth' 24 times and the FCA response only 11 times. The treasury letter containing financial with 27 being the only more prominant word used.

FCA - Oh, the irony : "We are retiring more than 100 pages of outdated guidance and giving firms more flexibility in disclosure rules to tailor communications to customers’ needs and preferences."

Read together I still get the impression that the FCA are making a big mistake.

"the government’s top priority is to promote its growth and international competitiveness" - I would suggest with very little risk of a contradiction, that the redress scheme has had the complete oposite effect for UK PLC. Prove me wrong, suggest how it improves the reputation of the UK and growth with a retrospective changing sands type regulatory environment.

Gap watch ricochet week ? If an institutional seller is offloading 50k shares a day, since the consultation launch they would have offloaded around 0.5% (ignoring the effect of any buyers). Citedel exited (bought) 0.1% on Thursday / Friday (only 3 reported shorts now). Would shorts be closing out around 420p if they sensed fire ? Citadel may have bought back in because ActusRay shorted the day before so they may be trading against the ActusRay book and not against the CBG level. To me confirms just day trading around low liquidity and uncertainty, so I'll likely align with Citadel and run against ActusRay if they try for a gap close.

More errors, gue

Can you post it again I could not understand the first two because they lacked any sound economic analysis of anything, any reference to anything factual nor coherent economically as to the financial flow impact to the Treasury nor anything other than an ongoing opinion which has been analysed by Grok as :

"There is no definitive way to prove Chid is an AI bot based on public data alone, as similar patterns could stem from a dedicated human troll or ideologue. However, the combination of high post volume (1,481+), unwavering negativity without positives, repetitive style, lack of personal investment interest, and superficial financial depth strongly matches bot-like behavior designed to spread discontent."

I will watch, yawn.

Wheres the popcorn.... munch... munch...

Biased lazy reporting.

It's a complete misquote of the rate being the Bank of England rate plus 1%, calculated by the FCA on the total of the redress to average out at around 2%. That BoE plus 1% is more than the typical interest rate paid on any deposit or savings account over the same timeframe as a whole. The claims companies conveniently miss out the fact of effective zero interest rates for a number of years and the element of BoE lending at rates at 0.5% 2009 to 2017. 10 year government bond yield below 2% between 2016 and 2022.

The prior 8% rate implied that even a small £100 commission in 2007 compounded at 8% would end up at bonus £370 today, far in excess of inflation which also according to the government and BoE has an inflation target rate of 2% and was below target for a number of years. The CCA may have a slight issue with 8% compounded on top of a harm figure that is completely detached from the supreme court.

Hyper reported popcorn... munch... munch....

"Sorry people I have no clue what happened to the capital letters in my last post"

The posts are filtered for swear words and alike. When the post contains an offfensive word (woke checklist) the word is removed or **** out and the post ends up all with lower case as a result. Nanny filter, which unfortunately is not a caps lock syndrome poster filter.

Capital doing very nicely and have been adding with the current long term opportunity.

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