We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Customisable watchlists with full streaming quotes from leading exchanges, such as LSE, NASDAQ, NYSE, AMEX, Bovespa, BIT and more.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Close Brothers Group Plc | CBG | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.60 | 0.16% | 370.20 | 16:35:05 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 370.00 | 360.40 | 372.40 | 370.20 | 369.60 |
| Industry Sector |
|---|
| NONEQUITY INVESTMENT INSTRUMENTS |
| Announcement Date | Type | Currency | Dividend Amount | Ex Date | Record Date | Payment Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 26/09/2023 | Final | GBP | 0.45 | 19/10/2023 | 20/10/2023 | 24/11/2023 |
| 14/03/2023 | Interim | GBP | 0.225 | 23/03/2023 | 24/03/2023 | 26/04/2023 |
| 27/09/2022 | Final | GBP | 0.44 | 13/10/2022 | 14/10/2022 | 22/11/2022 |
| 15/03/2022 | Interim | GBP | 0.22 | 24/03/2022 | 25/03/2022 | 27/04/2022 |
| 28/09/2021 | Final | GBP | 0.42 | 14/10/2021 | 15/10/2021 | 23/11/2021 |
| 16/03/2021 | Interim | GBP | 0.18 | 25/03/2021 | 26/03/2021 | 28/04/2021 |
| 22/09/2020 | Final | GBP | 0.4 | 15/10/2020 | 16/10/2020 | 24/11/2020 |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 15/5/2025 20:52 by h1a3 (Sharecast News) - RBC Capital Markets lifted its price target on Close Brothers on Thursday to 400p from 340p as it suggested there might be "light at the end of the tunnel".The bank noted that Close Bros has had a bad run, leaving the shares trading at 0.4x TBV, with lack of cost control being a significant driver of falling earnings expectations. "We expect CBG to start to correct this from September," it said. "By FY27 we are 2% more optimistic on costs versus consensus, and 8% ahead on an adjusted profit before tax basis." RBC, which reiterated its 'outperform', speculative risk rating, also said it was more optimistic on a favourable outcome from motor finance. "The Supreme Court will decide in July how at fault CBG is in relation to motor finance commissions," it noted. "For CBG, we model an impact of circa £250m (adj. cons c.£280m)." RBC said that following its roadshow with Julius Grower, an equity lawyer specialising in commercial law, it is more optimistic of a favourable outcome for UK banks and thus has lowered its cost of equity for CBG by 2 percentage points. "If the SC concludes that there is only liability under the Consumer Credit Act, this will allow the regulator to set up a scheme which focusses solely on egregious commissions," it added. |
Posted at 22/4/2025 15:28 by the diddymen JakNifeThe provision will have to pass audit and the risk is of understatement. It is in no one's interest to understate the provision whether shareholders, company or employees; there is nothing worse than having to go back and restate provisions. For that reason you should expect the CBG provision to on balance be a worse case scenario. Notwithsatnding, the evidence that I have read through from the various commentators simply does not stack up with a substantive payout. The Hopcroft case looked thin but maybe there are more substantive claims out there. If a £700m claim comes in, then yes the shorts are right and it will impact on operations and CBG's value; but there will be a far wider impact than just CBG and the banking sector. |
Posted at 22/4/2025 14:44 by stoopid It would be a poor decision if they decide to sell a crown jewel like Winterflood in the current climate. With over 250 institutional clients, £40m+ in cash, a net worth of approx £90m and current assets under control of £850m it would be stupidity of the highest measure to dispose of it now, especially to a rock bottom offer of £40m.If the trading environment picks up like CBG has suggested it will, Winterflood will add valuable profits to the bottom line.Also, the 165m is currently a non cash hit (CBG are retaining the cash atm) that is covered by the influx of cash from the sale of CBAM. This is why the Tier 1 (CET1) ratio hasn't materially changed despite the provision and their financial position is still strong.Even if they had to take another £165m hit, they could cover it without affecting their Tier 1 ratio. Remember, retained dividends and profits over 12 to 24 months. |
Posted at 22/4/2025 12:36 by the diddymen JakNife, I have extracted below the statement from the company re the provision:"In light of recent developments in relation to motor commissions, the group has been reviewing its accounting assessment of these matters, as previously stated. As a result, the group anticipates that it will recognise a provision in the H1 2025 financial statements in relation to motor commissions of up to £165 million. This includes estimates for certain potential operational and legal costs, as well as estimates for potential remediation for affected customers. The estimated provision is based on probability weighted scenarios using various assumptions. These include, for example, commission models, rates and time periods in scope of any regulatory redress scheme, as well as response and uphold rates." I think that the £350m figure is the provision plus the cash from not paying a dividend plus the sale of CBAM. You may be right that the cost exceeds £350m but from what I have read and from the juxtaposition presented by the SC of hearing the CBG case and the First Rand case together (low commission v high commission) any reasonable person would say that £165m+ is unreasonable. It can only be opinion at the moment and we will have to wait for the court to determine. Given that CBG has expensed £165m and provided the cash, if the outcome is £165m or less then there will be no impact on underlying operations whatsoever. The company should therefore be valued at its earnings capacity which is substantially more than £3. While there has been volatility in the share price I felt the institutional shorters were adding legal dilemma to Trumpian economics to make a case that does not exist. For that reason the shorts are exposed and Thursday's news cannot have helped. Winterflood is just potentially the straw which breaks the camel's back. Looking at the trading today suggests that currently I might be right notwithstanding the risk of a market fluctuation when Wall St opens. Despite the US and wider economic concerns I believe that the people who made money shorting CBG have achieved that - good on them for calling it right - but they have closed and are no longer exposed. The current 7-9m shorts (guess) are however exposed. |
Posted at 11/4/2025 06:46 by the diddymen That slow day of trading yesterday was not. The 600k of trades were not 600k, they were 3.8m. Probability suggests a short has managed to close off a 1.6m position (find out after hours today) while in the light of the market correction the CBG share price looked moribund. The worst scenario for shorts is that it was a fund buying in (find out....).A lesson for shareholders that will be relevant for a short while, if the CBG share price is falling it is because someone is buying. The irony of all this is that the CBG share price is low because of the bribery action against the company. Perhaps the legal profession could better use their time looking at the opaque state of the LSE and ask who benefits. I fully expect the share price to plummet today as the next short closes. |
Posted at 03/4/2025 12:27 by jaknife woolybanana,"Judging by the Tv ads a hell of a lot of folk are going to be rubbing their hands at the thought a money that is not rightfully theirs!" Presumably you are arguing that the commission payment isn't "rightfully" the consumer's because it "rightfully" belongs to the car dealer to whom it was paid? What if I were to tell you that the basis of the consumers' case (at least for the Hopcraft case, which is a "secret commission" case) is: 1. The commission payment was, in effect, stolen from them. They had no knowledge that they were (economically via the loan) paying a commission to the car dealer, they assumed that the car dealer was being paid a salary to do their job. 2. The fact that there was a commission payment was hidden from the consumer, no reference was made to it in any of the legal documents and the car dealer never disclosed it. 3. The consumer believes that the car dealer was essentially "bribed" by CBG to provide the CBG loan product to the consumer. 4. CBG acted dishonestly by paying this "bribe", by conspiring with the car dealer to hide the payment from the consumer and by conspiring with the car dealer to take money off of the consumer over the lifetime of the loan in order to pay the money to the car dealer. 5. In the case of Wood v Commercial First Business Ltd & Ors [EWCA Civ 471], the Court of Appeal "concluded that it was not necessary to find a fiduciary relationship between the borrower and the broker to find liability for the secret commission whether on the part of the broker or as against the lender." and "The only test the court need apply is whether or not the payee was [under a ...] duty to be honest and impartial. see: So *both* the broker *AND* the bank are liable to the consumer for civil remedies. 6. Hence the consumer wants the commission repaid to them with interest. When you put it like that don't you feel some sympathy for the consumer? CBG conspired with the car dealer to steal money from them. Isn't it obvious that CBG must now give that money back? If you say that CBG are ok then you have a situation where any consumer can have a commission hidden from them, which allows a dealer to choose the most expensive finance agreement and recommend it to an unsophisticated borrower without disclosure and, in consequence, be paid a larger commission. JakNife [^^ Edited to take in subsequent comments from others and to clarify specific points.] |
Posted at 15/2/2025 17:58 by popit apple“As I have written above, I don't think it's a binary outcome from the supreme court. Yes they could reinstate the initial court outcome (CBG, STB etc will fly)” I think STB may actually offer much better value than CBG They are on a forecast PE of about 3 and they are still paying a dividend of over 7% OSB are also very good value on a forecast PE of 5 and a dividend of over 7% and without the court case risk OSB have not really kept up with the share price rise of the other UK banks and so it may not be long before a bidder comes calling |
Posted at 27/10/2024 21:53 by stoopid Whether you agree or not, CBG is nothing like Amigo. Not even the same circumstances.It may go under like Amigo, yes that's true.but unlikely. Amigo was a sub prime lender who went bankrupt after being unable to pay the compensation ordered by the FCA due to totally improper lending practices to people who could never afford the loans.CBG and FCA is an argument over DCA (Discretionary Commission Arangements) and CBG have, or will have, 400m+ in cash to cover any fines and compensation. Big problem is that no one knows what CBGs liabilities will be. £400m has been mooted, might well be more.As has already been pointed out. This is now a total mess with no dividends for the foreseeable future and investors will stay well clear because of the uncertainty and possibility of disaster. CBGs future is all dependent on the following 3 things;1 The Supreme Court and it's view of the appeal courts decision.2 Barclays Judicial Review of FCA investigation3 The FCA and their decision on quantum, any fines and requisite compensation. Pays your money, takes your chances. |
Posted at 10/10/2024 21:48 by popit Your forecasts have no connection to the general consensus of analysts and brokersMarket Screener has an average analyst consensus eps for CBG of 80p for 2026 and 90p for 2027 And an average analyst consensus dividend for CBG of 30p for 2026 and 45p for 2027 So CBG has an average forecast PE from analysts of only 4 And an average forecast dividend yield of over 12% I think most investors here will be more likely to follow the consensus of various analysts and brokers rather than your own forecast According to all of these valuation measures : 70% discount to a NAV of £11 forecast earnings per share of 90p and a PE of only 4 forecast dividend yield of over 12% CBG shares are extremely undervalued |
Posted at 21/9/2024 03:00 by popit chrisRBC is by far the most pessimistic broker about the possible motor liability for CBG and they have a Target Price for CBG shares of £6.20 So the upside for CBG shares is significant even according to the most pessimistic RBC forecast of a total liability of £350 million Most other brokers and analysts have a total liability for CBG of somewhere between £100 million and £200 million and CBG have already set aside far more than this by strengthening their capital by over £400 million Remember the dividend that was not paid for 2024 saved £100 million for CBG and if CBG do the same again for 2025 then the £200 million saved can be expected to cover almost every liability that has been forecast by analysts The shares have also already fallen by over £600 million since the FCA news and so many would say that the CBG share price has already fallen by about twice the most pessimistic forecast liability of £350 million from RBC The early share price reaction to the good results on Thursday was to rise to £5.50 as the eps of 76p would suggest that a dividend of about 40p will be easily affordable in 2026 at the latest and perhaps also in 2025 The selling that then took the shares below £5 did not seem to have any rational reason behind it The results were good and the outlook was good and the sale of CBAM for £200 million will also make the balance sheet even stronger going forward and CBAM was also not a very significant contribution to CBG profits anyway So if even the most pessimistic broker RBC sees a significant upside of £6.20 for the CBG share price with a total motor liability of £350 million, then the lower and the average expected liability of somewhere between £100 million and £200 million will probably see a share price for CBG significantly higher than £6.20 |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
