Member Info for LIBERTY2

The notion has crossed my mind. My only hope as a Nvidia shareholder would be that their model would have a greater grasp of the English language.

More nonsense.

He didn’t ‘purchase’ shares. He sold a few shares in a taxed account and repurchased the shares in an ISA wrapper. ‘Bed and ISA’. Zero sentiment to be derived from this.

Just another holding period for CBG as has been said several times. The festive period perhaps saw lower trading volatility from the short II market which allowed the more sincere SP to ascend in that space. I do hold that CBG is being used as a utility here, as the sensible short bet against the banking sector due to lack of dividend and general exposure to the scheme.

Once the festive downtime passed, back to the business of a normal functioning market now and the SP will fluctuate accordingly in the vacuum of any material information such as the FCA scheme. Who cares, unless you were planning on selling at £5.50, it shouldn’t mean anything to you. Not that I expect this comment will change anything in the psyches.

Short term is noise, long term is reality.

Lucky to be enjoying the Med sun for the next few months - will check in upon some news worthy info.

All the best folks.

Declared shorts*

Blackrock added 0.03% taking them over the reportable. Systematica reduced by 0.1%. Both reported 2nd Jan. A net reduction in short positions, from the available information.

There will be a decent quantity of short under the 0.5% reportable at any given time. If you’re interested in short positions I would be factoring for a number of 3 to 4% currently, finger in the air, if this is material information to you.

Theres more to the dynamics of this than the investigation itself.

Timing - why the 2nd of Jan in this festive down period? Literally kicking the door in on the industry to start the year off. This will not be unique to one company, it will run into practices across the industry. Pretty similar to the FCA starting the motor redress investigation for lenders a few years ago, look how that spans out for those affected.

To me, its a heavy shot across the bow to the CMC market. Back-off, don’t challenge us on this scheme or we will bankrupt you.

Theres also been several anti-CMC moves in 2025 from the FCA, FOS, Gov and more to come through legislation in 2026.

A weakened CMC market going forward is positive for all.

Pro-lender however you wrap it up from my perspective.

Interesting indeed, and just the start. Not a welcome start to 2026 for the CMC industry.

https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/fca-opens-investigation-claims-management-company

Yep theres been some public softening of their stance in the past few weeks, from the FT Banking Summit earlier in the month and also at the Treasury Select Comm hearing. Although at this point to remain as objective as possible from a heavily invested bias I am balancing this with the two-sided coin and general dynamics in play.

To me its a question of how far the lenders desired ‘line in the sand’ is from the FCAs warped reality. Are the banks setting their sights on a scheme 10% the size of proposed based on their legal position, or are they content with one which is 70% of to put it in the rear view mirror, for example.

If the FCA feel a legal challenge is an absolute inevitability based on the lenders submissions during Consultation, you may well end up with a final scheme which is more consumer leaning than the proposed one. Bear in mind, some of the 1,000 responses which the FCA are considering are consumer groups, CMC etc who are pushing for lowered catchment percentages from 35% to 20%, full opt-out scheme as opposed to only applied to currently logged claims etc.

The FCA may well take the pro-consumer stance knowing its going legal regardless, if they are unwilling to back off enough to appease the lenders. At least this way they can say ‘we tried’ next time Nikhils on the Martin Lewis show and blame it on the ‘pro-bank’ courts when its over-turned.

Alternatively, there may well be immense pressure on the FCA from pro-growth Treasury behind the scenes. They may well bend entirely to the banks proposals if they have been hammered with legal precedent from the banks over the past three months. Which would leave the consumer side lining up to challenge the scheme through CMCs, who in my view have a limited chance of success on-mass legally based on the current legal landscape.

These possibilities are what will move the market short-term in ways which are not yet predictable. The FCA has shown it cannot be relied upon for following a logical route, so it would be misplaced faith to fully expect them to.

Note - ‘short-term’. The actual conclusion of all this is more clear than the short term dynamics, as is often the case. Short term noise, long term reality.

‘Just when you thought it was over’

If the FCA implement a scheme which resembles anything like they have proposed, you’re going to see plenty more short-changes than 0.09% in the near-term whilst volatility, noise, and the legal route plays out.

Far from over yet if you’re ‘short watching’.

Happy NY for when it arrives folks - curtains opening on 26.

On that basis your thinking implies that every time a sell order is processed, you assume somebody is acting on information you don’t know?

Does the same sceptical train of thought stretch past the sellers circumstances, and instead views the buyers motivation, who by default must also exist in the transaction. Does the willingness of said buyer to purchase those shares not suggest to you that at least half of the parties in that transaction share your thesis that the shares are worth more?

Question of relativity but 44,000 shares is not a lot. Especially at II level, which after hours transactions account for. 0.03% of float, its pocket money for any fund. Trimming a position, profit taking after a 30% rise, whatever.

You’re over-analysing an immaterial trade. People sell and people buy every day, all day, for many reasons. Without that basic system of liquidity, shares are worthless.

Not much to think about it; a market participant with direct access offered a block of 44,000 shares after the closing auction, another participant agreed to buy them at £5.03. Executed around the mid-point for the days range. Closing price officially £5.16.

Good few days trading. Perhaps this is the more ‘authentic’ price level surfacing whilst the daily shorting CBG against the market is not as prevalent on the trading desks during the festive period.

Not a surprise to see £5 again by any means, but nice to see non the less.

Interesting development from Fidelity.

Between FIL Investment Advisors (UK based) and Fidelity Management and Research (US based), they now own around 14% of the company, if the shareholding is indeed simple and transparent.

Potentially building a position for board level influence.

For those that missed it, Rathi was back in the room with the ill-informed MPs on Tuesday. Again to note - this is the Treasury Select Committee, not to be confused with the Financial Services Regulation Committee.

Only a brief time spent on the motor finance matter, nothing much of note discussed, just Bobby 'Courmacs' Dean making sure the CMC's are represented. Strange position for a Liberal man of the people who wants his constituents to receive undiluted payouts - will leave my train of thought there.

https://committees.parliament.uk/event/25901/formal-meeting-oral-evidence-session/

So we are now back in the wait phase. Its possible the FCA pull an early notification of a scheme as has been noted, they have prior form, however looking at the dynamics I would suggest they would want to give the lenders as little time as possible to launch a legal challenge, if it comes to that. They have set the deadline for answering pending claims to the 31st of May, and promised a scheme by Feb / March. I don't know what advantage their would be to the FCA of allowing more time for the lenders to prepare for a challenge by proposing the scheme earlier in this event. However, if the past 12 months have shown anything, the FCA does not follow logic. There will be a lot of levers being pulled in all directions behind the scenes at this point, its just a matter of which one causes an unpredicatable action.

As always, who knows, only time will tell.

Merry Christmas folks.

Https://www.fca.org.uk/news/statements/investigation-wh-smith-plc

News interest and sector commentary uptick as to coincide with the closing date of the Consultation period today.

Another illuminating expert legal view on the issues the FCA faces below, in brief:

https://www.shlegal.com/insights/the-fca-s-proposed-motor-finance-redress-scheme/

A satisfying review of how the changing landscape in the past 12 months has decimated the amublance chaser sector - great to see:

https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/associate-news/fca-motor-finance-compensation-scheme-implications-for-law-firms

Consumer facing view of the Reuters article from GB News. Note the blame shift. Its now stacking up on the FCA having a flawed scheme, which will cause a delay to consumers getting pay out. Pressure, pressure, pressure.

Interesting quote - ''A spokesperson for the financial regulator explained it had "engaged extensively" through the consultation with feedback, helping to refine its proposals.''

https://www.gbnews.com/lifestyle/cars/car-finance-scandal-compensation-delays

What a show its been for 2025. Curtains about to open on 2026.

https://www.gbnews.com/lifestyle/cars/car-finance-scandal-compensation-delays

Bobby Dean, proving himself to be a real champion of the people.

This was the chap who in the Treasury Select Committee hearing was aggressively raising concerns on behalf an unnamed CMC, Courmacs perhaps…

Strange that he would not want his valued constituents to simply proceed with a free redress scheme, as opposed to handing over 30% to a CMC.

Now shifting his focus to changing a law to suit his warped agenda.

Good luck, Bob.

Https://theintermediary.co.uk/2025/12/british-business-bank-backs-350m-enable-build-deal-with-close-brothers/

Also - a high quality legal opinion (Consultation submission) on the current FCA scheme, rather than from relying on AI or PI forum members opinions, for those that wish to seek a qualified view:

https://goughsq.co.uk/motor-finance-commission-responding-to-the-fca-consultation-on-its-proposals-for-a-redress-scheme/

Here comes the public softening, noted today by Rathi:

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/uk-regulator-open-refining-motor-finance-redress-plan-rathi-says-2025-12-03/

Knot - '' Liberty : " yes the SC did reinforce the FCA's ability to impose a redress scheme under the CCA" - point to the exact statement of paragraph which enabled this "reinforce" that is any different to the law prior to the ruling ? ''

You are misinterpreting my comment. *reaches for thesaurus to appease*

My response was to suggest that the finding of unfairness from the SC in Johnson, did indeed 'embolden', 'facilitate', 'strengthen', the FCA's own moral position when it came to imposing a scheme which included findings of unfairness under the CCA. However, what they have wilfully ignored is the very fact specific circumstances that the SC noted - as I too noted in the previous post.

Yes the extension was an inevitability. The only deviation of the inevitability was that they have imposed it for end of May, as opposed to July. Potential minor appeasement of consumer side.

Basher - the AI model is relatively narrow-minded with that query and flawed in its conclusions:

Point by point;

Legal precedent: yes the SC did reinforce the FCA's ability to impose a redress scheme under the CCA. However, the bulk of the current scheme is outside of the CCA unfairness test imposed by the SC, hence the considerable argument. Therefore, at a JR level the banks will argue the FCA is acting ultra vires, beyond its legal power. This is a fairly solid argument acknowledged across the legal spectrum. Flawed AI conclusion.

Previous court rulings: yes the case of Clydesdale v FOS stands to strengthen the FCA case, in fact they are resting very heavily on this. However, this case was decided at High Court level, before the dramatic and landscaping altering overturning of the Hopcraft / Johnson / Wrench cases at Supreme Court level. Are there elements of Clydesdale which are currently being rested on which will be found to be unsafe verdicts once pressed legally, with the renewed clarity from SC? Potentially, hence the on-going argument. If elements of Clydesdale are overturned, as the previous CoA ruling for H / J / W was, then the FCA lose their legal footing in a very considerable way. Flawed AI conclusion.

Reputational and financial risk: this would be true if the legal challenge was to total billions, its not going to. An AI would draw this conclusion on the pragmatic level of generic relativity, cost of fighting a case vs cost of settling. Clearly the current cost of settling this case is at the absolute extremes of most legal matters in daily life. Fighting to reduce will certainly outweigh the cost of settling. ''The FCA has indicated that alternatives to its scheme would be more costly and take longer'' - this could be true, if the 14,000,000 cases included in the currently proposed scheme were taken to court and were all decided in favour of the consumers - for the points I have made previously in this post, I would confidently suggest that would not be the case.

I too agree there will be payouts to consumers, after all the SC has found that in very expectional circumstances unfairness occured, this catches some deals. Until Clydesdale is challenged there will also be DCA matters to contend with. The easiest target for the lenders and what I consider the first victim of the FCA proposed scheme will be the 35 / 10 unfairness test - there is no legal precedent for finding unfairness on this basis. If this falls away so does a large chunk of the scheme - this could be an area of concession. This is before you get into the time-bar argument which has not been heavily studied legally as of yet, publically atleast. This will come to light with time.

As I reiterate - who knows. It'l be sorted one day, like all things in life.

How long - I’d suggest barring any extraordinary public facing intervention from the Treasury for example (unlikely), the first you will know of the scheme in its entirety is when its launched in Feb / March. Same for the lenders broadly speaking, which plays into my thoughts on why maverick throwing cash at shareholders will not take place until this is nailed down.

The pragmatist in me would expect this to be narrowed and hands-shook in order to get a scheme cleanly off the ground, and put behind all parties within the 12-18 month window.

I do however see the continued rhetoric from the FCA holding the line, which creates more room for the scheme being launched broadly as proposed, and a legal challenge being a necessity. As has been mentioned, the banks will also be taking a view on what future liabilities they will face from other areas if this scheme passes with its very wide scope, potentially making the legal challenge Knot etc expect an inevitability.

Who knows - sunny day, enjoy folks.