Member Info for m007j

Knot what is your logic for believing the FCA are fine with their redress scheme going to Judicial Review and they would be ok with even losing the JR case?

Chid, how does it feel to be been RIGHT all along about HMG and the FCA and REEVES? To have warned people and to have only received ridicule in response. I guess Jesus Christ suffered the same fate. And you like him have kept your dignity throughout. I guess knowing you are on the side of truth gave you strength.

Knot you have a complicated way of thinking, multi dimensional perhaps. I guess I look at things more simply (simple people have simple thoughts). Key points: (I) there is a less than 20pct chance the redress a scheme will go ahead as envisioned by the FCA in its last paper; (ii) either the FCA will dial it down significantly in the wake of the consultation or this will go to court; (iii) holding back the share price is the fear of a lengthy court process which will very likely be won by lenders (way over 50 pct chance lenders win) but could take another year to play out.

I find the quote below brutal. Surely it makes it impossible for the FCA to formulate a redress scheme. In order to have an unfair relationship what do you need? A series of factors together including high finance cost, partial/full non disclosure of commission. But how high a cost of finance is too high. SC said 55pct is too high. But is 50pct too high? What about 45pct, or 40pct. What figure is too high? Surely a judgement on what is too high a finance cost must take account of the risk the lender is taking? How can that be reflected in the redress scheme?

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.

So what makes the relationship between lender and customer unfair? The high cost of the finance agreement?

Knot, your last post seems to suggest the FCA are in a right pickle from a legal standpoint. The question is do they take a step back or do they double down. If they double down it is judicial review time.

CBG shares just keep falling. For those who believe in the company now is a good time to add to their positions. It is best to buy when share prices are low and sell when they are high.

Chid is definitely a bot. There is no way any human would have put up with the dismissive and condescending tone with which I have referred to and commented on his post often even suggesting he is from a lower socioeconomic strata and hinting that as a consequence his views carry less weight. He never once lashed out at me for my manner - instead he carried on in a very dignified manner (as is customary of working class people) pushing his inane and utterly worthless views. Hence he must be a bot. Of course I did all this so as to flush Chid out as a bot. Because otherwise I am a very nice, kind, considerate and respectful citizen.

Thinks seem to be moving at Cadogan - check out the RNS statements of the past few days.

There was an article on Bloomberg over the weekend entitled: "Banks Rocked by ‘Extreme’ Car Loan Costs Gear Up for FCA Fight". Usual stuff but it had some interesting quotes:

“As you have seen with increasing provisioning, the FCA’s current proposals break the link between loss and remedy,” said Adrian Dally, director of motor finance at the Finance & Leasing Association, a lobby group for the sector. “The FCA’s criteria for assessing liability is set so broadly that it would also compensate customers who suffered no loss at all.”

Lloyds, for its part, declined to rule out the possibility of a future legal challenge to the FCA’s plans. For now, Chief Financial Officer William Chalmers said the bank is focused on engaging with the watchdog during the consultation period, which ends next month. Barclays similarly flagged its intention to engage with the FCA. FirstRand, which has about 10% market share for car finance in Britain, has previously warned the fate of its UK unit could rest on the regulator’s plans for the redress program. After the FCA’s latest plans were unveiled, FirstRand argued what the regulator determined was unfair treatment doesn’t align with the recent Supreme Court ruling on the matter.

“We expect that the FCA will need to moderate its approach when laying out its final redress scheme towards the end of this year,” RBC’s Benjamin Toms said in a note to clients earlier this week.

Knots' point seems to be that the FCA is already in too deep with the existing redress scheme. They have invaded Poland and now they have no choice but to push on into the Soviet Union. My point is that it is one thing to invade Poland but quite another to push on into the Soviet Union. To push on into the Soviet Union results in an existential risk to all senior FCA officers (from a career standpoint) if they get tied down in a major legal battle which they end up losing. However, if they dial things down from here and make some concessions the FCA officers can life to fight another day and claim some kind of "victory" for consumers.

I dare knot to make a strong argument why it makes sense, given where we are now, for the FCA to try and push through the redress scheme as announced earlier this month without significant concessions to lenders.

Liberty2 - I totally agree with you. This process will not reach court. The FCA and lenders (and the government although they are not a direct party to this) are all incentivised to reach an agreement and put an end to the whole saga. Why would the FCA want to hold out given its weak legal footing. The FCA now know that lenders will not back off unless they get some concessions. Equally, lenders do not want 2 years of legal disputes. Why would Nikhil Rathi want to risk it - he knows his legal case is weak. The end result would be headlines like "FCA wasted £xxm of tax payers money on legal fees fighting UK banks" and "FCA was warned of weak legal case in fight with UK banks".

Secure Trust Bank chair and CEO buy GBP475,000 in shares

Secure Trust Bank PLC - Solihull, West Midlands-based retail bank - Chair Jim Brown buys 25,000 shares via Kiripaka Capital Ltd at GBP9.16, worth GBP228,988, on Wednesday. Chief Executive Officer Ian Corfield buys 28,296 shares at average GBP8.79, worth GBP248,727, on Tuesday.

Knot, let me get this right. You say that Clydesdale Financial Services Limited v Financial Ombudsman (FOS) is yet to play out. When the judgement finally comes it will be a loss for the FOS and this loss will totally undermine the legal basis for the redress scheme recently proposed by the FCA. My question - when can we expect a verdict in Clydesdale Financial Services Limited v Financial Ombudsman?

Knot, you present a very clear time table of what could potentially happen if the FCA do not back down. You say "My theory is that the FCA can't back down much because it exposes a flawed legal basis for the initial proposed consultation". But surely it would be madness for them to plough on ahead if they know and can see the banks are united and if they know the banks have a very solid legal arguments for their case. It would only compound the error and make it huge - can you imagine a further 2 years of court cases, it would be a nightmare for the FCA. Surely the incentive for the FCA is to tone things down and settle. And surely the government (who can have a quiet word with the FCA) will also want them to settle and move on. As you point out - banks holding cash for provisions have a massive multiplier in terms of credit creation/money supply creation suppressed. The government know this.

So it is very simple. Either the FCA significantly water down their redress scheme or they WILL face legal action from lenders who are all clearly united and on the same page. And the FCA is unlikely to want to face legal action given it has now become obvious the terms of their redress scheme is not aligned with this summer's Johnson v FirstRand SC ruling.

Settle down SG0912! You are clearly getting too emotional and that will cloud your judgement as an investor and greatly undermine your returns. You should strive for more distance. Take a chill pill and maybe have a few days away from checking the share price.

I appreciate all the legal analysis from various posters. But surely yesterday's statement from Secure Trust Bank captures it best:

"STB remains committed to ensuring customers receive appropriate redress where there has been customer harm. However, it considers that the FCA's proposed approach to assessing unfairness is not aligned with the Supreme Court judgment in Johnson v FirstRand, where the test for unfairness is highly fact specific and must take into account all relevant factors".

And surely the FCA will have to simply backtrack somewhat and reach and compromise with lenders which is actually inline with the SC judgement.

Helmet what are you on about. Your trade was both a buy and a sell. You melnat. You sold and someone else bought. It is called a market - it requires a buy party and a sell party to function.