Member Info for SG2025

It was a silly / moronic comment regarding Woolworths. Suggest no point spending anymore time and debate over it.. I too come from banking background and agree with Bunny that it would have to reported if such materiality existed. If not prominently, then atleast in their annual reports under leases and property etc. but it’s not !!! I see many such trust me comments on this forum with no valid source or proper reasoning / backing, and learnt over time to simply ignore and move on. Afterall retail investors as a community is considered novice for a good reason..

@johncooper, Whats the source of your information? "Most of their shops were old Woolworths shops which they had rent free for 5-10 years when they went bust" ?? Some filings / reports or figament of imagination!! Be more credible if you can share any sources / links?

@knot, care to elaborate on this statement of yours?

“The FCA are yet to realise why all the UK banks stepped back and there may be a very particular reason and legal problem the FCA are yet to consider comprehend as to how they deal with it“

You are an idiot NiharRoy, and this community has been too generous entertaining your ranting and rubbish posts. Anyhow, I meant to say, that it was the first thing you mentioned which made sense, and it was supposed to be a compliment, but here you go as always..

@Stoopid, although i normally dislike NiharRoy, but in this instance i agree with him, and also dislike your biased and sorry to say, stupid response. The same logic you mentioned on Buyback also apply on dividends regarding CET1 deduction (immediate at payment), and the buyback of 100-200m - are you kidding, that’s more than the company can authorise currently given more than 10-15% of market cap. Why can’t it be 7% of market cap to the same tune of your stated dividend levels ?? Given where shares trade vis a vis TNAV (less than 0.5x), it’s no brainer that buybacks are hugely accretive to shareholders, Ie a 7% buyback has the effect of 10-14% on share count. Unless there is a fundamental problem with the business, in a year or so when growth/margin recovers, valuation will catchup and yield far more returns to then existing shareholders..

Its really simple and less time wasting if you just filter the likes of Birdsong or other annoying posters, instead of wasting time replying or reading their useless posts? You click on filters and just add their name.. and they would stop bothering you. I have filtered out two myself including Birdsong and N.Roy, given their content and intent...

Thanks Liberty, and it’s exactly what the company has done today, amazing news on both fronts - CBG saying provisions enough along with providing details rebuking viceroy and a slap on the face for likes of @NiharRoy and @Chid and his new alias @Birdsong. Stock should easily shoot past 500 today in my opinion..

There are two simple questions I want to pose to FCA. They say the scheme will resolve all or majority of FCA disputes, right?, so:

1) what’s stopping the other 50-70% (or whatever number of failed claims per FCA scheme) to go to SC? And if they do go, which they will ofcourse with CMCs help, how will the uncertainty go away from lenders?

2) and if the SC then completely invalidates the scheme, will they refund the lenders for all the payouts in the scheme?

I will pose the same question to CBG management if they agree to go ahead with FCA scheme and not challenge it in courts!!

Hollow thesis as always without much understanding of it....

This thesis works only in the right context. Shares are down currently because of FCA uncertainty which will not go away because management buys some shares.. furthermore, when their own roles/jobs are tied with the existence of the company, they have sufficient enough incentive to see the company through the troubling water. In addition, even they don't have full visibility as to what the end redressal goal post is, so they are also much in dark, evenif not as much as others in market, given FCA final outcome vis a vis any further court battles - no one really knows the final outcome... In addition, its in their (and also our - as longer term investor) interest to have the shares depressed in the short term, to keep FCA in check on what it can do.. if the shares were trading well, FCA will squeeze as much as they dream for, as anyone can imagine...

With regards to Viceroy report, management can not comment beyond what they have for various reasons, particularly to do with legal liability (personal too), regulatory/accountancy checks as well as tactics. This is especially true since FCA outcome is just around the corner,,, anyhow whom am I kidding.

And if the management is still so bad and one doesnt have faith in them, no one is forcing anyone to invest in this script. Plenty other stocks with exposure to motor financing with hopefully better management - again has any other such management bought stocks recently to prove your theory again !!??

And lastly,,... Investing is not for emotional fuols and these recurring emotional outbursts (not seen on any other forum interestingly) are quite silly and only reflects poorly on oneself, which clearly someone on this forum has not learnt for and never will it seems.. I can only sense an old grumpy man or a very stubborn young man...

To summarize key takeaways from the FCA statement (in plain language):

Overall signal

> The FCA very likely intends to proceed with a motor finance redress scheme.

> The consultation language (“if we go ahead”) is procedural rather than genuinely uncertain.

Implementation timing

> The FCA signaling a 3–5 month implementation period means:

> Banks will have time to build systems and calculate redress.

> Payments to consumers likely start later in 2026.

Scale of the issue

> The FCA repeatedly refers to “millions of consumers”, implying:

> A large-scale industry redress exercise.

> Potentially one of the biggest since PPI.

Tone toward lenders

> The regulator acknowledges “scale and complexity”.

> This suggests FCA has accepted industry arguments about operational difficulty.

Policy direction

> By discussing operational mechanics before final rules, the FCA is effectively signalling:

> The policy direction is already decided.

> Remaining debate is mainly about implementation details.

Market interpretation - Analysts broadly read the statement as:

> Redress scheme highly likely

> Timing flexibility granted to banks

> Total industry cost still uncertain but potentially very large

💡 One more interesting point analysts noticed today:

The FCA continues to frame the issue around “discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs)” rather than broader motor finance pricing. That wording suggests the scope of compensation may be narrower than the worst-case market scenarios, which is why some bank shares did not react dramatically.

Key signals from FCA to markets:

> The FCA is already planning how the scheme will operate, not whether it should exist.

> The FCA is telling investors:

- Compensation will not hit immediately

- Firms have time to prepare systems and capital

- This reduces the risk of sudden balance sheet shocks.

4. The biggest hidden message

The most important line in the whole statement is actually procedural.

By outlining exact implementation timelines before final rules, the FCA is effectively saying:

“We are already designing how the scheme will work.”

That means:

policy direction is locked

consultation is mainly about details

This is a classic FCA approach used in:

PPI

Interest rate swap mis-selling

packaged bank accounts

5. The market interpretation (in simple terms)

If you asked a bank regulatory analyst to translate the statement bluntly:

What FCA said:

“We haven’t decided yet.”

What they mean:

“We are doing it, but we’re still negotiating how painful it will be.”

6. Implications for banks (what investors are watching)

The statement affects several listed lenders with large motor finance books:

Lloyds Banking Group (largest exposure via Black Horse)

Barclays

Santander UK

Close Brothers Group

Key investor questions now:

Total industry cost

£8bn–£11bn currently discussed

Allocation across lenders

Interest methodology

Complaint scope

Dealer liability vs lender liability

7. My “regulatory language” reading (summary)

Based purely on tone and structure of the statement:

Probability the scheme proceeds:

~90%

Probability total cost rises vs current estimates:

Moderate

Regulator objective:

Compensate consumers

Avoid PPI-style chaos

Avoid destabilising lenders

So the statement is best interpreted as:

“We are implementing a mass compensation scheme, but we are smoothing the operational landing for banks.”

C. Emphasis on “streamlining”

The FCA repeatedly stresses the scheme will be “streamlined”.

In regulatory language, this usually means:

Standardised calculation formulas

Limited dispute processes

Automated mass redress

Translation:

They want to avoid a PPI-style claims industry explosion.

The FCA explicitly told consumers not to use claims management companies because they can take ~30% of payouts.

D. Stressing consumer complaints “now”

The regulator encourages people to complain now.

This serves two purposes:

Consumer signalling – political pressure

Data collection – helps calibrate the scheme size

3. What analysts and the market seem to infer

There were no major sell-side research notes publicly released yet today, but several themes appear in media and sector commentary.

A. The scheme is very large

Estimates in the market remain £8bn–£11bn total compensation.

One estimate: ~14 million agreements affected since 2007.

Average compensation roughly £700 per loan.

This would make it one of the largest UK financial redress exercises ever.

Comparable scale:

PPI: £50bn+

B. The implementation period is a win for banks

The extension to 3–5 months was widely seen as a concession.

Why banks wanted it:

Operational complexity:

customer identification

historic loan data

dealer commission reconstruction

redress calculations

FT reporting notes the change followed lobbying from lenders.

So analysts read the statement as:

FCA signalling willingness to compromise on timing but not on the scheme itself.

C. The FCA is trying to avoid a banking shock

Regulators are very aware of:

PPI precedent

UK consumer credit market fragility

The tone suggests the FCA wants to:

Control payout timing

Avoid lenders exiting motor finance

Prevent credit availability collapsing

The FCA itself has said it must balance consumer redress with maintaining a functioning market.

Here is a the AI interpretation of the tone in today's press release...

Here’s a “read-between-the-lines” interpretation of the FCA’s language in the motor finance implementation-period statement, focusing on tone, regulatory signalling, and how banks/analysts appear to be interpreting it.

1. What the FCA actually said (key signals)

The statement essentially says:

The FCA has not yet made a final decision on the redress scheme.

But if it proceeds, lenders will get ~3 months (up to 5 months for older agreements) before payments begin.

The final rules are expected later in March 2026 after considering consultation feedback.

At the same time, the FCA emphasised that “millions of people would receive compensation in 2026” even with the implementation period.

2. The regulatory tone — what it implies

When regulators write statements like this, word choice matters a lot. The FCA wording contains several subtle signals.

A. “If we go ahead with the scheme”

Translation:

The FCA is keeping formal optionality, but the probability of a scheme is already very high.

Why regulators do this:

Avoid pre-judging the consultation process

Avoid creating legal expectations

But historically, when the FCA:

publishes detailed operational timelines

discusses implementation logistics

…it usually means the policy decision is effectively made.

Market interpretation:

The scheme is almost certainly happening.

B. Emphasis on “implementation period”

The regulator highlighted that lenders need time due to “scale and complexity”.

This wording matters.

What it signals:

The scheme will be large

The FCA has accepted lobbying from banks

The FCA wants orderly execution rather than immediate payouts

The industry response likely pushed for this.

News reports note lenders argued the original timetable was too short and could harm investment or operational stability.

Regulatory subtext:

“We will force compensation, but we won’t destabilise lenders doing it.”

My understanding and theory on this stock is quite simple - its travel tech and usually this space tends to attract growth investors as has been the case historically. But over the last year, the growth has declined significantly, now in mid-low single digit top line (with concerns around GBR revenues implying potential -ve growth in future years).... Nonetheless it remains high cash flow and the buybacks themselves imply v v high yield. The stock has declined for an ongoing churn in institutional investor base from growth focused to value investors. Once this churn stabilizes, the stock will make a gradual recovery... the buybacks have been aggressive and rightly so, to help with this churn and also incredibly return value to mid-long term patient shareholders.. Once the stock price recovers, the company can introduce dividends instead of buybacks gradually, which is what value investors will typically value more.... I remain invested for few months (upto a year) and will top up more for any falls and will look to exit for a decent return..

Reaction is fairly justified for an expected sudden change in the CEO. Raises questions why did the ceo decided to leave all of a sudden - anything in the closet or has he given up on the GBR challenges!! Hopefully nothing of the sort.. unfortunately the shares will remain subdued until a new CEO has been hired or something positive from the results, or any takeover rumors..

AI Output :

Who might realistically look to acquire Trainline (grouped by buyer type):

> Private equity / financial sponsors — analysts have explicitly flagged Trainline as a PE target given a de-rating and attractive multiples; PE buyers like the recurring cash flows and operational levers (costs, international roll-ups). (High probability if valuation stays low.)

> Large online travel groups (strategic travel consolidators) — e.g. Booking Holdings or Expedia Group — they want to broaden travel verticals and distribution (and Expedia has history in rail distribution via SilverRail). Buying Trainline would give direct rail inventory, API/product capabilities and cross-sell opportunities. (Strategic rationale + prior rail deals.)

> Super-app / mobility platforms (e.g., Uber or similar) — Uber has explored big travel acquisitions in the past to build a broader travel “super-app” and could be interested to fold in rail for multimodal last-mile + trip planning. An Uber/Expedia style tie-up is conceptually plausible.

> Travel-tech/GDS players (Amadeus, Travelport, Sabre) — already integrating/partnering with rail (Amadeus integrated Trainline API into its Cytric business travel product). A strategic acquisition to own distribution stack or deepen corporate travel rail capability is credible.

> Large European rail groups / incumbents (SNCF, Deutsche Bahn, national holding groups) — less obvious but possible: incumbents might pursue ownership to control distribution, data and retail margins — though regulatory/anti-trust and strategic conflicts can complicate such deals. Trainline already partners with many operators, which makes it attractive but politically sensitive.

> Other tech platforms / travel marketplaces could buy for capabilities (split-ticketing tech, API, B2B distribution).

Shortlist of the most-likely acquirers (my top 5 picks)

1) Private equity consortium (financial buyers) — most likely if valuation remains low.

2) Expedia Group (or an Expedia/Booking-style OTA) — strategic fit (rail distribution history via SilverRail).

3) Booking Holdings — to broaden verticals and traffic acquisition (has done acquisitions to expand cross-sell).

4) Amadeus (or another GDS/travel-tech owner) — already integrated Trainline API into corporate booking product; buying gives control of B2B distribution.

5) Uber (or another mobility super-app) — plausible strategic move to become full-trip provider.

* PE is the quickest path: Berenberg/market commentary already flag PE interest — they will move fast if multiples are low.

* Strategic buyers are selective: big OTAs or GDSs would pay a premium only if they see clear cross-sell or technology synergies (Booking/Expedia/Amadeus have precedents).

* Regulatory & operator politics matter: national rail operators buying an aggregator can trigger competitive or regulatory scrutiny in Europe — that reduces the the probability for those buyers despite strategic logic.

With market cap of 700m and share buybacks of 150m, its a 20% yield itself... unless business is going bankrupt or shrinking significantly from GBR, its an unbelievable opportunity in my view. There are some risks associated, but return potential far outweigh in my view. It may go down further, but may be 5% or less, but that would increase more and more appeal into it. This needs some patience, but will reward beautifully by year end or earlier... More it drops, more it becomes a takeover target (and it already seems so..), but it won't happen overnight and will take some time, even if already in motion...

It is definitely undervalued, but the scale of undervaluation depends on the turnaround. If the management can show some positive early signs / messages in the upcoming results, it will definitely jump towards 250-300 just on sentiment, however, if its muted or conservative, then possible falls back to previous lows. In anycase, my view is that unless there is significant conviction buying from quality institutional funds, it could be simply move in trading range and fall back to 170s (if not 160s) given next earnings announcement is still 3 months away (early June) and there will be an information vaccum to play until then. I have made a small trading sell (5% of my holding) on this basis.. and probably will do another similar sale or buy depending on how the stock moves over the next month or two...

Thanks Alessandro - I think you do understand yourself how foolish it sounds with no commercial sense even for Pentland Group.. Keep stocks stuffed in JD warehouses and not actively sell / promote it !!! Anyhow this is a stupid debate in my view, so will excuse from this topic in future.. if it interests you (as I am sure it will please one individual on this forum), please do feel free to carry on for his sake - no offense.

Btw, have you heard about AI hallucination ? If your output is purely based on ChatGPT, you should know the concept and understand where to filter out the AI output...

Care to explain / clarify :

> what specifically I said in my post that you found "******, abusive, antisemitic bilge ?"

> Also what I mentioned in my post that was "and promoting tanking stocks" ?