Member Info for pineapple1

Melvin?

Lorenzo Lamas, thank you for your analysis.

Perhaps most notable is the nature of the product being sold.

PPI was an add-on product, sold alongside mortgages, loans and other credit agreements

and was rarely, if ever, a necessary part of the purchase. Car finance was, and remains, an

essential part of the underlying transaction, without which many car purchases could never

have taken place

nonsense. no ppi = no loan

Just wanted to share two things

(1) I looked at this a while back and was put off by the markey cap vs turnover relationship. Seemed high then and still seems high, so I wont buy

(2) I was looking to buy something on Saleroom a couple of months back. I registered etc for the auction and asked the auction house a question. One of the things they came back with was, "if you want to save 5%, call us to bid, don't bid online"

Exactly. when people on here are saying they're worried about 3 instead of dreaming about 8 9 or 10 that will be the bottom. as it is there are far too many bulls on here

Travelled to london last week. driver still using a pen and paper to mark people present. the bus was 40 mins early in both directions. thats a massive F up cos i was borderline going to drive given how long it was going to take. and finally i need to go again soon. looked up alternatives. flixbus will get me to london and back for 6 pounds c/f national express around 20 pounds.

Shareholder Voting rights % Date of notification

abrdn plc 9.87 23 December 2024

FIL Limited 5.12 17 March 2025

Royal London Asset Management 4.88 30 October 2024

M&G plc 4.85 22 April 2022

these are the biggest shareholders. i would guess they get paid either way

wace only get paid if they are right

For somebody who places such immense weight on the presence of 'shorts', it shows an extremely evident bias, or ignorance, when they choose to ignore the presence of Institutional 'longs'.

If your investment decisions are based around looking at institutions investment behaviour for guidance, why choose to ignore the 70% of reported longs in this company by Institutional investors, the same guys, albeit much bigger, wealthier and 'in the know' as you like to say, than the 4% of reported shorts.

I repeat - Institutional Investors make up over 70% of the reported long holdings in this company, and they have been actively adding recently - this is NOT including the ' ill-informed sheep on this forum', as you also like to say.

this is like saying that all the racing tipsters know more than people actually laying horses to lose. the longs have to invest the money they are given, thats your 70%. they know next to nothing, they are following a set of rules. on the other hand the shorts do not have to bet at all. when they do it is the wise that take note

Even acknowledging that the client got the lowest interest rate available seems to be conflicting with arguing that the broker did anything otherwise (the basic principle of loss). What was the bribe actually achiving if there is no loss and the client attained the lowest interest rate ?

the lowest rate allowing for the kickback will be higher than the rate you could presumably get by filling in an online loan app. the difference is the loss.

The commission will be added to total loan – so if the car costs £6000 and the commission is £500 the total loan for the car will rise to £6500.

if the car costs 6k and there is no kickback then the car doesnt car 6k anymore, unless the dealer is a moron/happy to give his money away.

So in the Johnson/First Rand case the dealer got the customer the lowest interest rate out of 22 lenders,

be interesting to see what the approach is to calculating losses for these cases. you would have to go back to the time of the quotes and get freestanding car loan quotes and see if they beat the lowest one above making allowance for the comm. what a mess.

The contract encompases and binds both the car and finance together, not separately.

was this not the argument re. ppi that got thrown out?

Expecting a massive sudden upmove from this level

when is this expected ?

Judgement expected shortly after.

define shortly

All the mugs are bullish and the experts are bearish...you do the math.

No real science behind this, except that the Supreme Court went against the CofA recommendation in allowing this appeal to take place, with CofA seemingly adamant that an appeal should not be allowed.

the gatehouse law prediction says exactly the opposite

Anybody posed or answered the question why reeves thought it pertinent to get involved? presumably owing to a non zero chance of a few legitimate businesses going out of business

This is clearly heading back to below 200

Reeves is just hot air bluster. putting economic growth ahead of justice. lmao. this is going back to 200 shortly

Cos the bottom is only reached in the capitulation phase. there are so many bulls on here we obviously are nowhere near the bottom.