Hargreaves Lansdown Share Discussion Threads

[ochs] 05/7/2019 11:36

Thanks. That seems strange as any potential new client going on the HL website and selecting funds would see the LT funds as currently part of W50 and may invest accordingly.

[lomax99] 05/7/2019 11:16

It's in an email update to HL clients, the change is intended to take effect at the end of the month.

[ochs] 05/7/2019 10:18

I can't see this on the HL website, where is the source?

It doesn't surprise me as with LT now owning 12% of HL they are probably worried it would be seen as some sort of conflict of interest, so after Woodford are playing safe.

[norland1] 05/7/2019 09:32

Strange decision by HL to take off Lindsell Train Funds from their Dodgy 50 list. because the funds hold too many H L shares. Whilst I agree that the figure is on the high side have HL lost confidence in their own share price because of the Woodford implications

[lomax99] 04/7/2019 22:57

The DMO must be asleep at the wheel, they have not yet ‘spun’ the decision by HL to remove LT funds from their Wealth 50 list!

[ochs] 04/7/2019 20:26

Agreed, I think about 1,825p was the low. Be interesting to see how far it can go from here.

[lomax99] 04/7/2019 20:02

The fall was overdone....

[ochs] 04/7/2019 19:44

Where have all the shorters gone? ;)

I'm a little surprised to see the shares recovering so well, after all the Woodford fund is closed for at least another month, so that's more loss of revenue/reputation for HL.

[lomax99] 04/7/2019 19:24

Lindsell Train adding again.

[j0sekl] 02/7/2019 20:32

To each their own strengths. I have no need to allow someone else to decide on such matters and there are specific alpha reasons besides sector exposure. It's punchier and this is a passion.

[growthpotential] 02/7/2019 12:13

Why not target a sector based fund rather than a single name within a target sector? I do both personally but wondering on your thoughts?

[j0sekl] 01/7/2019 18:39

Recent years were generally about finding growth: Amazon Netflix Just Eat Cineworld

Reading the commodity bubble from several years ago. Came into some huge governance issues in some PI dominated names. But Tullow has been a recent move.

Built a consumer book for the core holding, things like Kering, LVMH, Visa..

Currently trying to find a biotech. Also looking at lithium where the companies are woeful imo.

[lomax99] 29/6/2019 16:35

Hi JOSEKI - Been in CVSG since c. 2007. Current main holdings are FUTR, BUR & HL. Tend to be LTBH until story changes, happy to top up on dips. PAYS was a main holding, until they were taken out. Have a number of smaller holdings and a small proportion in funds. Any holdings you are particularly keen on? Always looking for new ideas/opportunities.

[j0sekl] 28/6/2019 19:32

Good to see you here and on CVS lomax.

We may have some similar preferences. Curious to know what else you're interested in or looking at.

[lomax99] 28/6/2019 18:42

Added a few today.

[j0sekl] 24/6/2019 14:19

Mutual funds will continue as they are, regulation has been improving and changing in recent years.

What is true is that some mutual funds should shut down. Not everyone can add value.

[lomax99] 21/6/2019 19:45

Not sure ETF's will end up ruling the roost. According to this article, they are not without their own issues: Https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/464d8d78-a843-11e7-ab66-21cc87a2edde

[hpcg] 21/6/2019 10:23

The threat to HL is not any directly to HL itself but a consequence of a threat to the unlisted open ended fund industry. The only reason to own a fund is the inabillity to access esoteric asset classes, but since ETFs have moved into that area there is less and less reason. I own one strategic bond fund, and that is on a macro view and a mean reversion view, i.e. buying after a period of negatvie performance. All passive investors should be using passive strategies mixing global debt and global equity. Open ended funds will continue to decline as a proportion of the market, and with it the extortionate fees.

[lomax99] 20/6/2019 10:37

Yes Ochs, Chris Hill's reply was detailed and concise. This incident, which impacts a minority of HL's clients, will be short lived (for HL) and reflects far more on W than HL.

[ochs] 20/6/2019 10:15

Agree lomax99. I think Chris Hill's letter was very detailed and displayed an openness which the Treasury committee will find refreshing coming from a financial services company.

From HL's point of view it is clear they put far too much faith in 1 man from a 3rd party company and they need to review this approach going forward (and it sounds like they plan to).

The only other issue is how long the Woodford fund remains suspended. This will hurt HL's revenues if it is for many months. It also sounds like they are not managing to have clear dialogue with Link Funds.

[lomax99] 20/6/2019 09:30

No case to answer. Their model is strong, a long term structural growth story. Happy to increase my holding if this does drop much further.

[porsche1945] 20/6/2019 08:53

HL’ business model will come stress, other platforms too, its plain these buy lists are advice by association with the words “ top 50 “, its daft to suggest otherwise, its an implied endorsment. Could be a long slow sink for these, be lovely to get back in 12/14 quid. Pathetic dividend tho.

[ochs] 19/6/2019 22:21

Very interesting indeed, thanks for posting.

The best response to Chris Hill's letter to the Select Committee is what HL constantly tell their clients "Past performance is not a guide to the future" - as it seems HL retained Woodford in their new W50 list in the vain hope he would repeat his previous recoveries of 2003 and 2010, when actually they'd been pretty worried by the large weighting of unquoted stocks for at least a year and a half.