Member Info for LIBERTY2

I'll genuinely be staggered at their incompetence as a consumer rights group if they go through with a formal challenge.

Consumer Voice is a tuppence ha'penny organisation, with £3,000 in the bank at last accounts. Courmacs have absolutely done a number on them to get them to front this. Ask the question, why would Courmacs not just challenge it themselves? They need the publicity to run far and wide that 'consumers are losing out under the scheme' to push as many people their way as possible - simple as that. Its simply a CMC smear campaign to publicially undermime the scheme on a consumer level.

Courmacs have no interest in consumers getting more from within the scheme - they benefit from nothing if under this scenario. They need the scheme to either fail, or for enough people to doubt it to fill their own book and recover their costs.

I do laugh.

''Forgive the motoring pun, but could an appeal in this form actually back fire on them?''

Yes. They could effectively take the cost, as well as more significantly the bad PR away from the lenders challenging this in court, and instead the Consumer Voice take it forward under some liberal asylum campaign, get laughed out of court, diminish consumer payouts in the process when the JR reviews all aspects of the scheme, and leave the lenders in the clear having done nothing but sat there.

Look forward to this show.

Also to clarify a previous point - I do not believe the FCA have followed Johnson when finding unfairness, by any means - they've ignored it entirely, in favour of consumer compensation. I am simply quoting what the Consumer Voice have stated for their reason to challenge.

Now this is funny.

https://www.lse.co.uk/news/CBG/city-watchdog-faces-legal-action-over-car-finance-redress-scheme-a5sy9ieuzemj7la.html

So, you have Consumer Voice, backed by Courmac Legal (the octopus who have their tentacle up Bobby Deans rear), threatening to take the FCA to JR for I quote ''It said the FCA had chosen to apply the Supreme Court's judgment in Johnson v FirstRand as a benchmark for cases which receive full commission redress, but in doing so had excluded the "vast majority" of consumer complaints from receiving such redress.''

This took me a minute of head-shaking to clarify to myself... Consumer Voice are stating that because the FCA followed the SC ruling in Johnson (current legal precedent), this unfairly excludes consumers from compensation, who by definition would not be found to have been treated unfairly in court and owed zero compensation. What? So they've decided the best thing to do is to take the case to court, because they think the FCA are currently following the legal precedent, and this is unfair...? Yes still scratching my head on how they expect this to turn out.

I can only assume the liberal numpties who work the likes of Consumer Voice have been well and truly mentally baffled by Courmacs, who only win in this scenario if there is no FCA scheme whatsoever. Under which case, the vast majority of the current eligible claims under the FCA scheme, would be thrown out when taken to a court by CMCs. Sure, they would still get their share of the small amount which do succeed, which I guess is their angle, better something rather than nothing.

Do the Consumer Voice know what they are doing here? Rhetorical question - I know the answer.

Hilarious.

Good to hear SG. Everyday is a lesson. The day we stop learning, will be a bad one.

DD - we're all victims to our minds in some way. If you are lucky, its the greatest tool you have, but can also be the biggest hinderance - strange thing, that relationship doesn't apply to many things in life. I believe the best you can hope for is to utilise its good parts, and be very aware of its bad ones. Atleast then you can do something with those type of unuseful emotions when they arise when you understand them, especially in the context of investing.

Lets see what the next few weeks bring.

Have a good weekend folks.

Question is SG; are you going to take some of your money off the table now we are back at the c.£5 level you were wishing for a few weeks ago whilst talking of lessons learnt. Or does the wonders of human psychology put that feeling firmly aside now its back on the high of a rising SP, and waits for the next dip to start the regret cycle over again.

Interested in how peoples minds work throughout these phases - no judgement whatsoever, just conversation and intrigue.

Not much going on across the news feed at present. Santander expected to raise provisions from their current c£400m. Market share would suggest something like £800m plus. Potentially another UK exit alongside Firstrand, as they have threatend previously.

Saw commentary from Benjamin Toms of RBC stating that 'having seen the final rules of the FCA scheme, we consider it unlikely the High Court will accept a challenge' from one of the interested parties, if one is indeed raised. Interesting - wondering what they are seeing in the scheme which would align with this suggestion. 2007-2014 seems easy pickings, to my layman eye. Either way, short term noise at this point. CBG can start to look past this over the next few months.

Aside from that; pretty much as expected now we have some clarity from FCA, CBG on provision, easing tensions abroad, bull market continuation and the versatile short-hedge of CBG against the market starts to unwind, cutting the artificial anchor-chain which has dragged for many months.

All the best.

Just an FYI - the annual buyback resolution allows a maximum purchase of 10%, 15m shares approx.

At todays MC, c£60m. Easily absorbed by forward earnings if it was announced at year end without affecting current CET1.

At current share price, in my view, a buyback is by far in a way the best value for shareholders. Sure, dividends make sense at £8, £10 etc, but for management to be able to take 10% out of the float for £60-£80m, easy maths. The sentiment will be what ultimately meaningfully moves the SP up on a more permanent basis.

I should note - as ive long held, buyback / dividends will be 2027, as far as my investment case at least. I’ll be pleasently surprised if they are this year, happy to be proven wrong and would like to see these SP levels capitalised upon for a buyback.

I just see too many unknowns for a conservative management team still, less than there was a week ago, but still exist. Also, significant restructuring on-going at a cost of £30-40m, to be quickly offset by lower overheads yes, but still a cost for the period. Obviously FCA scheme dynamics once live, potential external litigation etc. Not to mention the geopolitical landscape which is a consideration for any banking organisation for potential future stresses in the short-mid term.

I would however think they are more conscious of SP at this point with the recent short circus - perhaps this proves an incentive to introduce a token at year end 2026 to try and shake that narrative out of the market. Good to see the, albeit modest, insider buys.

I’ll also say; in my view, this is the cheapest CBG have been since I first invested in Nov 2024. When I bought my major block at c£2.20, there was huge unknowns, CoA ruling was live, no appeal for SC had been granted, £44bn compensation was being banded around, unknown FCA scheme, potential existential threat to the bank. I consider today at £4 odd to be a far cheaper buy when factoring for risk and unknowns vs knowns, have added accordingly.

Interesting to see what will be the major catalyst to move this SP rightfully north at some point in the future.

To illustrate my previous post, perhaps the FCA woll send the shorters a link; see graph showing provision updates (note - its actually inaccurate, but gives the point). The Firstrand increase was from £250m to £750m, graph incorrect. Santander upped from £295m to £461m in Feb, perfectly aligned to CBG increase albeit much later. Secure Trust upped from £5m to £21m. Could be other updates in the manufacturer lenders, I don’t follow them as closely.

https://www.cityam.com/close-brothers-and-first-rand-look-to-park-motor-finance-row/

Zero credibility in the literature they put out from the short factory.

The shorters are back, who’d have thought. Yawn.

Brief overview to poke some easy holes in their nonsense:

- this rhetoric they have about CBG being an outlier for upping their £165m provision to £300m following consultation in October. Its garbage. Lloyds upped by £800m to £1.95bn, Barclays upped from around £90m to approx £300m (from memory), Vanquis from something like £6m to £15m (from memory), and all of the rest too Santander etc…. They are peddling crap to fit their incoherent bias. Basically - the lenders believed pre-consultation that the FCA would follow the SC ruling - they didn’t, so provisions were upped across the board, simple. CBG upped theres in a consistent fashion.

- CBG are purely involved in the pre-owned vehicle loan market. Obviously they are going to be at the low end of the ‘averages’ used by the FCA for purchase amounts when in a pool of all lenders who are financing everything from £5k to £500k cars through main agents selling brand new vehicles and a whole chunk of brand new mid range cars at £40k, £60k, £80k plus. This will naturally and correctly affect the commission levels, based on loan sizes and percentages of comms paid to dealers. Why wouldn’t it correlate to 40% less than the average figure the FCA used? Their lack of acceptance of this is puzzling.

- Interesting how their wording has shifted around CBG DCA exposure from being ‘the absolute outlier’ in the market to ‘one of the highest’. Hmm. Still relying on that incomplete, consumer provided ‘thisismoney’ survey from 2024 - real pros.

- On the probability weighted scenario; why could the FCA consultation proposal scheme not be the middle case which CBG used for their PWS in October? With potential lighter costs, and higher costs shouldering the middle number of £294m making up the PWS spectrum, for FCA going harder or softer than the proposal, which was absolutely a potential. It would appear management did provision for the scheme on a ‘likely to be implemented basis’, as did Lloyds it seems. They appear to not be able to accept this scenario either. Strange.

It would have been easy for CBG to provision another £100m today, they didn’t.

Their ‘research’ and literature has been comical from the get-go. Using CET1 figures from nearly 12 months ago, £150m under-reporting, alongside building this warped picture of CBG being some outlier in their reporting or practices - they simply haven’t been and thats easily defendable with public data, some of which detailed above.

Interesting dynamic from so called pros, its clear to see the panic as its moved away from under them. Their emotions appear akin to a PI as the paper profits wash away.

They have provided some amusing bedtime reading though.

Anyways, onwards.

£320m total provision confirmed.

Perfect play and timing by management, again, for the impatient on here.

Laughing all the way to the bank whilst milking the Tuscan goats this morning.

All the best amigos.

CBG provision announcement, or lack of - they’ve had four working days since FCA release, hardly a lifetime.

Do remember, with recent flagrant remarks aimed at CBG for their provisions from Viceroy, PwC are most certainly going to be crossing the Ts and dotting the Is on anything that gets released at this point to safeguard their own reputation - its them as auditor who have been accused too. If you think one of the big 4 are working bank holidays, you don’t know UK professional service firms.

Coincidentally, what a day it would be if they chose to release a better than estimated provision today, with an Iran ceasefire agreed in the background… £300-£400m and this is set to fly.

Motonovo provision - quoting from two thisismoney surveys plus public data; Motonovo has a market share of around 6.5% / 7% on a historic basis and were the most aggressive user of DCA as per survey. On bare market share of the scheme you could expect a provision of around £600m. Plus aggressive business practice premium of 25%, as per their figures, brings us to £750m. As I’ve stated previously - I have had experience with Motonovo and CBG for 15+ years through a direct personal holding in a motor-dealer. Motonovo are by far in the way the most aggressive commission payer, won a lot of business that way over the years.

So my previous post detailing CBG exposure for market share / business practices may look accurate in relation to Motonovo and Lloyds recent updates. But WHO KNOWS. Not me.

Fitch - ‘Proportionately higher cost than peers, given its motor finance concentration’ - this is not a statement related to provisions per the scheme, its stating 20% of CBG is motor finance so as a proportion of total business exposure it is higher than peers, as we know.

All the best amigos.

Ex-regulator come KC states FCA acting ultra-vires, scheme ‘may be found’ illegal. Interesting weeks ahead. What comes first - CBG / other lenders provision statements, or intentions to legally challenge.

https://www.thetimes.com/business/companies-markets/article/john-swift-regulator-car-finance-compensation-fca-lawful-k23npg7xt

*enjoy the weekend

Well. Brief analysis of the scheme from my POV, better late than never:

- proposed redress costs are marginally higher than they were during consultation, when accounting for the lower take-up percentage the FCA have decided to use to move the numbers (75% vs 85%). May be more or less in reality - PPI was around 55% take up rate I believe.

- Operational costs are lower, but this was always going to be heavily lender specific based on operational efficiencies etc - I was factoring CBG to have a relatively low cost due to heavy AI adoption to deal with claim data on mass.

- 70% chance this will go to court I would finger in the air at - which the FCA also acknowledges by offering 2007-2014 as the sacrificial lamb and splitting the scheme in two? What on earth.

Its not particularly a win in my view at this point in time, its more so as proposed previously, with some clearer caveats for dismissal of agreements when finding fairness. The 2007-2014 split scheme is the big one and indicative of realities to come - but the banks will have to provision for the scheme as it stands today ready to get paying in a couple of months.

The markets priced approx £600m over-hanging cost for CBG largely since the SC ruling, when looking at the SP range. So additional £300m on top of current provision. Will find out in the next few days if a relief rally ensues due to the market being over-pessimistic or if the market has it priced correctly - which if so, will bring short term volatility but likely even out around current SP. Was expecting an RNS today - forgetting it was bank hols in the UK.

It largely comes down to the fact of how optimistic or conservative management have been with their ‘probability weighted scenarios’. Did they believe the FCA would adhere to legal precedent somewhere between consultation proposal and final scheme and are currently sitting light. Or did they take the October proposal as ‘likely to be implemented’ and provisioned accordingly.

On a bare market share level they have it right at £300m (£260-£300m). Past this point it is down to lender behaviour throughout the 14 years. Using the same ‘thisismoney’ survey as the shorters used, CBG looks like a marginally higher than average DCA user across a section of their banking peers (not incl captive lenders). So I would correlate this to perhaps 30% give or take higher provision than market share alone, £400m approx.

Their provision broadly stands with Lloyds in terms of calculations for market share, and Lloyds were slightly under CBG DCA exposure on that survey.

All just stabs in the dark with patchy consumer provided data - only CBG know this.

What is known as far as im concerned is that this will run for another 12-18 months before conclusions can start be drawn on companies balance sheets in my view, so for those with a short term holding, don’t expect a quick turn. However, the scheme does stand as somewhat of a line in the sand.

Enjoy the we

Https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/regulators-taskforce-crack-down-poor-practice-motor-finance-claims

As has been the scene for 12+ months now, the CMC business model is being run-out of town.

You can expect them to fight tooth and nail on this scheme and the dynamics surrounding it, as the moving parts in play here have the ability to shape their entire business model going forward.

They have spent millions in the run up to this believing in a mass claim setup, creaming their 30% off the top, when in reality its moving rapidly in a different direction, whilst also finding themselves deeply in regulators and govs crosshairs as anti-growth / unethical entities.

A bad time to be in the CMC funding market I believe we will find.

One to watch for future of the CMC market in general / group claims for motor finance outside of a potential scheme:

Court of Appeal Hearing (April 2026): A high-profile appeal, Angel v Black Horse Ltd (or linked cases), is listed for 22–23 April 2026

Purpose of the Appeal: Black Horse and other lenders are seeking to overturn a previous High Court ruling that allowed thousands of consumers (over 5,800 in the Angel case) to be grouped together in single "omnibus" claim forms. Lenders are arguing that these claims should be severed into individual actions.

Legal Context: The 2025 High Court decision by Mr Justice Ritchie allowed these grouped claims, ruling they were convenient for management and improved access to justice, overturning a 2023 decision that required individual claims.

Scheme announcement on Monday.

https://www.fca.org.uk/news/statements/timing-fca-motor-finance-announcement

To add to that -

On the Viceroy report and their conclusion of 90%+ DCA for CBG - they have heavily relied upon Firstrand Motonovos figures to assume this by drawing corrolation with their ML survey results and a piece of text they published with reference to their provision. This is so flawed its not worth talking about.

They have also stated CBG / Motonovo ML survey results ‘were almost identical’. This is also criminally flawed. They were around 20% difference between CBG / Motonovo confirmed DCA exposure. Pro-rata this would equate to 70% DCA for CBG, 90% Motonovo. Very material, once again…

Absolute clowns.

Catching up after a few days off-grid - hope you are all well.

Did you all catch the FCA / FOS planned reforms? Very interesting points, to name a couple -

removes the assumption of unfairness when firms were following FCA rules at the time (massive for DCA in the redress scheme context).

10 year time limit on complaints (big).

This is the FCA / FOS proposing these changes following the Treasury review for legislation expected this year - how on earth are they going to implement conflicting alternatives in a redress scheme this month? Cant see it.

https://www.am-online.com/news/fca-and-fos-reforms-aim-to-bring-clarity-to-finance-redress-scheme?utm_campaign=21_03_2026_AM_weekly_newsletter&utm_content=AM%20-%20Newsletter%20-%20Weekly&utm_term=FCA%20and%20FOS%20reforms%20aim%20to%20bring%20clarity%20to%20finance%20redress%20scheme&utm_medium=email&utm_source=adestra&gutid=429414

Viceroy report - had a more detailed read through. Genuinely, what a heap of she-height.

Firstly, the CET1 figure they used is FQ3 2025 of 12.9%. Obvious why they didn’t wait until H1 results the day after they publised - they would have had to use an honest number such as the 14.3% which was reported. This throws their figures out by around £150m in CBG favour. Rather material…

The report is riddled with grammatical errors, source naming errors, poorly written in general.

How on earth they got the 90+ % DCA exposure for CBG from that Martin Lewis survey I honestly don’t know. The survey showed around 65% confirmed as DCA, which was broadly in line with the mid-range of other lenders when checked on the ML site. They’ve divided two percentages together, around 60 each (no idea what one of them refers to) and come up with a percent of 90 odd - I will let somebody educate me here? Until then I will stick with the notion its absolute nonsense.

Given that the report is riddled with errors, biased out-dated headline fundamental figures which actively mislead to fit their bias and has ultimately knocked a SP of a ftse250 bank for a conservative 15%, I would suggest CBG would have grounds to pursue once time allows.

This is of course on the basis the headline premise of the report is not found to be factual in a few weeks - who knows…

Back to the Tuscan off-grid farm for a few more weeks. Got to tell you, goats, chopping wood and planting potatoes is simpler than all this hoo-har. The only reason our hosts knew there was war in Iran was their diesel price had gone up…

All the best amigos.