Member Info for SG2025

Two other useful links with very good summary of the FCA's scheme.

https://www.fticonsulting.com/insights/articles/fca-launches-consultation-motor-finance-compensation-what-does-mean

and

https://www.akingump.com/en/insights/alerts/fca-consultation-paper-on-motor-finance-redress-published

@m007j, I really wish research analysts and institutional investors were to view valuations with the same eyes as you do. But, only...

At a very simple level - the way I see it, there are 3 major areas of contentions - all pretty unjustifiable and irrational. If FCA gives up on any of these areas would result in significant reduction of redressal costs and provisions for banks - hopefully this will help even the non-believers, because the arguments are not just legal, but also plain common sense...

1. Time frame: why since 2007 and not since 2014 - various legal justifications already discussed on this forum..

2. Cases covered - FCA defined 3 categories. Whilst Johnson type cases are fine, the other two are fairly contentious, especially the 1st one..

> All DCAs - why? and not just those where the commission was above a certain threshold as defined by FCA in 3rd category (35%/10%).

> Non-DCAs with high commission - how can FCA really justify a commercial point of 35%/10%, when its not their jurisdiction to determine that, as long as there was no tied arrangement

3. Cost of each redressal - vastly faulty and definitely over-reach!!! For Johonson type cases (likely very limited), payment of full commission with interest - fine and justified by SC verdict

> For DCAs and others - the simple calculation by FCA is not really simple and essentially implies a lot of overpayment as per their current proposed formulae. In nutshell, they imply payback of substantially more than 50% of commission + interest, in all other cases. For example:

i) Non-DCAs (no-tie up): say commission was 36% of total cost of credit, it would mean paying back 50-100% of commission. But if the commission was 34%, then no payment. How is that proportionate?

ii) DCAs (no-tie up): if the dealer selected minimal or insignificant interest rate, why should payback even include the base commission !!???

I think their cost of redressal formulae / mechanics is bizzare and frankly idiotic. I will be keenly looking at the Lords committee tomorrow to see how the committee takes up each of these points and how does FCA really justifies them.. If they come across weak in any of these, which they should, then I will go all in on CBG tomorrow.

Sorry, I meant tomorrow's event at House of Lords !

Tomorrow's news will set the expectations for likely outcome on FCA final scheme - independent from it going to courts or not. The questioning will reflect the level of influence that lenders may have on politicians/FCA and FCA's response will indicate if they are likely to relent on lenders' legal and rationale arguments.. It will also indicate whether FCA will be considerate enough to try to avoid possibility of lenders going to courts... Fingers crossed.

Interesting use of wordings (greater likelihood) today in CBG's announcement - indicates if FCA goes through with the current form - there will be more provisions (figures up in the air), since 300m is also probability based - they definitely not giving 100% probability to current proposals, meaning if £11bn redressal cost, the actual cost to lenders will be much higher.

"This reflects a greater likelihood that more historical cases, particularly those involving Discretionary Commission Arrangements, would qualify for redress, as well as the possibility of the proposed redress methodology resulting in higher compensation levels than reflected in some of the group's previous range of scenarios."

This morning, when I opened Level 2 book for EasyJet, there were millions in sell order and almost 1/5th buy orders. With the drop in price since morning, to almost flatline now, kind of indicates, the stock was manipulated via a fake transplanted news (hopefully I am wrong). Also, an Italian newspaper reporting it makes very little sense to me, given UK based company and a middle east based speculated buyer - why didn't a UK or UAE based paper didn't pick up the news. There have been similar speculated news stories previously in Spanish papers about UK listed stocks which always turned to be false and always followed by a short spike in SP and trading volumes!!!

Thanks @B777CAPTAIN. Not following the forum actively, but 6m further delay bodes poorly in my views, especially since they signed a large engines contract with P&W.

Also, I don't understand why Wizz can not segregate grounding costs separately as ongoing operations costs !!?? - It would give market much more clarity on these one-off costs vs sustainable operational costs, and price the company better. Also, either they got a good compensation deal with P&W or a bad outcome from their negotiations, which looks likely given the segregation would clearly layout how much costs they are still having to bear. While the management seems to be doing good job in back to back setbacks since Covid, its beyond common sense to me, why they are being so opaque at the expense investors suffering from further uncertainty pricing into the stock - leaving lot of under valuation, while it could have been easily avoided with more transparency and markets able to price real costs.

Before someone jumps guns and labels me as a shorter - I am long on the stock, though a little down in the red currently!!

And also House of Lords in addition to media + any other relevant outlets.

Lenders will anyways respond to FCA's scheme - but it will get more traction if individual shareholders also raise these concerns and if media were to pick these up, it will raise profile and put pressure on FCA to be more transparent. Also, they will have to directly address the points / discrepancy vs SC case in their final scheme and can not skirt around the obvious issue!!

I was just wondering, would it be worth for us to raise questions with legal points raised by Liberty2 and Knot - may be we can create a new chain with relevant inputs from them and others to list points / questions and bombard FCA individually, as shareholder of an effected firm?

Copying 1.50 from FCA's Scheme document:

"Tell us what you think using the forms on our website or by emailing cp25-27@fca.org.uk. If emailing, please tell us whether you wish your response to be confidential and, separately, if you are content to be named as a respondent."

@Liberty2, @knot, you have pasted a number of posts / points - may we can all agree a template of responses with your help / lead and then send separately to FCA in coming weeks, as well as copy some of the leading media, like Times, Bloomberg etc?

Q1 results were reported in July no? What is new in this article / report? All stated facts are already well know. Can't find anything new, or I may be mistaken.

"What was the point of making that statement at this time?"

It's not just management's discretion to issue such an RNS. Its guided by FCA rules and their advisors (bank and lawyers), and that's precisely the reason why Lloyds also did the same. Its a bit technical and you wouldn't know unless you are a lawyer or a banker covering UK companies. Quite easy to blame management or directors for every daily share price movements, without really understanding their role and obligations running a public market company within the parameters of applicable rules and regulations.

Have spent this afternoon going through with a closer eye on FCA doc and particularly on the technical annex and diagnostic-report. Having also looked through all available CBG's AR (since 2012), my various calcs (top down approach) point towards approx. £150-260m hit from current FCA proposal - hopefully this only gets better, as lenders push back FCA. These factor in the stats available in FCA docs (market size, loan size etc.) and similarly from CBG's stats from its historical AR.

CBG has already provisioned £165m, and with its CET1 at 14.3 post Winterflood next year, they would have further cushion of (14.3 minus 12-13% *100m = ~£130-180m), based on their stated 12-13% CET1 target. Below this level, valuation gets further hit.. So hopefully this should already be comfortable enough..

Filtered you out and you may do the same if you want, but i wouldn’t stoop to your level or foul language.. I m on this platform for very valuable inputs from knots and liberty, and you are not worth my time.. my last post here,. Hope you don’t loose the so called six figures you claim to have made..

Thanks @ m007j

What a schmuck!,

Hopefully not..

No need to be an arrogant dic,, you are not the only one with 6 figure upside,, and I wouldn’t boast of my numbers just to demean you,, not worth my time. We are still just another fish in the pond with a number of sharks,,, when wrong better to be humble and move on..

Clearly inexperienced or naive you are (to put it nicely).. that was sacarsm,, meaning watch what you wish for!!

Someone asked for a press release from CBG - guess the company listened and obliged. Tad too much optimism on this group!! Happy to be grounded now. This will drag on unfortunately and feel gutted to be stuck and not sell out yesterday.