Member Info for Stoopid

I think it would be a mistake to sell Winterflood currently. Although it was aligned with CBAM (now sold) any turnaround in fortunes would be a material gain in profits for CBG also, at the current time are they likely to get top dollar for it? I doubt it.

Unless there serious issues that the market is as yet unaware of I believe CBG should retain ownership.

Agreed. With 100m EBITDA on the horizon as promised by the company, the ANZ open banking deal OBconnect now in full swing with first profits to be accounted for, the FY 2025 trading update on 23/04/2025 should be interesting.

Back to 850 soon would be nice. Looking for 1000 in the next 12/24 months if 100m EBITDA/EPS of 70p-80p is achieved. Hopefully an increase in the divi as well to maybe 9.9/10p a quarter?

OMG shorter bloodbath on CBG tomorrow? The DOW is already up 7% and NASDAQ 8%

Could be a crowded space as shorts look to exit?

On a CBG centric note, I personally think some are forgetting that there is a financial redress scheme ready to be implemented by the FCA no matter what happens (Unless the SC radically go against the Court of Appeal) as soon as the SC posts it ruling due to the DCA commission arangements.

CBG have already set £165m in relation to any motor finance claims and managed to keep a CET1 of 13/14%, so unless you think that they are a lot more exposed the SC ruling may have no material impact on CBG.

The business is still doing well despite recent hits, Novitas £100m ish, the selling of CBAM, Car finance scandal £165m so far. If it wasnt for exceptional losses/write downs, profits would still be in the region of 150m to 200m+ a year with a market cap currently of only £400m.

This is simplistivc I know, but CBG have over £400m in retained cash atm because of this debacle, so that suggests the rest of the company is worth nothing?

HAHAHAHA wow, great rebuttal, that was a big mistake LOL, using a CBG document that was produced for a different deal 7 years after the actual car purchase.

And another big point that the FCA have just reiterated is that they will set up a compensation scheme which will, as has already been noted by market comentators, limit the lability banks i.e CBG will pay.

It may well be that with the future FCA compensation scheme, that the money CBG has already set aside will be enough, as such there may well be a rebound in share price.

M007j excellent summary.

So my understanding is that his all hinges, as Knot has said previously, in establishing the Car Dealer/Broker as an Ad Hoc Fiducary for the customer contrary to their own interests or any profit.

KG was that not in relation to the duty of a fiducary to their client?

Knot, am I understanding correctly, that this now lies completely on whether or not the SC decide that the car dealer/broker is a fiducary for the consumer??

None of the other law regarding bribery, seceret payments etc matters until this is established? And that establishing the car dealer as a fiducary that then means in technical law, the banks essentially bribed the dealer and are hence liable?

Also how can being an unsophisticated person mean that you can avoid reading documentation and get as you say a free pass here i.e. compensation?

As one of the Justices noted, fiducary duty would mean that a majority of car dealers for the last 75 years have been "dishonest" because they acted in their own interest instead of the person buying the car?

Ouch, that one hurts..... the broker is acting for the lender......

No, my understanding is that the lender has then "bribed" (via commission) the broker/car dealer to provide the finance from them.....

I believe the arguement is that the car dealer is acting on behalf of the customer in setting up finance and therefore must be a fiducary?

Knot, thank you.

And this bloke is in trouble again, the SC judges are giving him a torrid time..... Think he is representing Hopecraft? But maybe all 3, not exactly sure.

So, as Knot has already pointed out, it appears that this essentially hinges on the point of classing the car dealers/brokers as having a fiducary duty and should be acting in the best interest of the person buying the car and the banks have acted as an accessory and have bribed the brokers. So car dealers cannot act in their own interest and and have to act in the best interests of the person buying the car? Madness??

If the SC discounts that the brokers are fiducarys then the point of bribery is moot and the current arguements about bribery wont matter. Bribery is important because it establishes that the banks are on the hook for compensation? Yes?

This is getting complicated........

Ouch again, differing views on the law and the test of bribery there?

Stupmy, nope, none.

Im no judge but after listening to this its hard to see how this can possibly be about Bribery and suddenly turing the car dealers into Fiducarys. Who the hell doesnt know or realise that the car dealer is out to make a profit and is in it for themselves?

Stupmy LOL, just as well im not speaking!

Ouch, this bloke is getting himself into a tight spot, the SC judges obviously dont agree with him here....

Knot, Ha, fair one, point made.