Provident Financial Share Discussion Threads

[ccnp] 17/1/2018 15:01

Nicely put Dex

[smurfy2001] 17/1/2018 14:58

Minerve, i'd suggest you write to the company if you really want to know

[losos] 17/1/2018 13:37

Minerve - "Also, we knew the regulators were PC numpties but this just takes regulation way too far. They need to decide what they are trying to achieve here. By attempting to protect the consumer they are inadvertantly damaging the consumer and putting them at great risk. If PFG failed - which I don't for one minute think it will - the regulators will have played a part. They are interfering in a business that at the moment could do without such interference. If PFG fails then many consumers who depend on PFG will have to go elsewhere to meet their short-term money needs. Some might go to local loan sharks or smaller operators who will naturally operate larger APRs."

I hardly ever post but I have to say this sums up my view of these so called 'regulators' they are making life harder for people. If I had time I could quote the example I had recently where my energy supplier was not allowed by the regulator to act on a letter I sent them, signed and dated. They had to do my request over the phone which involved all sorts of irrelevant (in my case) questions.

So my letter which was perfectly clear was ignored and time was wasted all round, but the pompous regulators sit back and take their fat salaries and pensions and don't help in the real world at all.

[stoxx67] 17/1/2018 12:43

test of £6 first, then, in due course, all things remaining equal, a test of £4

[minerve] 17/1/2018 12:41

smurfy2001

Please provide us with the evidence that there was a pilot scheme or trial. Until you can, I will assume there wasn't one.

[smurfy2001] 17/1/2018 12:39

I wonder if Woodford foresaw a rights issue after the last profit warning? I suspect the market are pricing this in after the recent trading update.

[fenners66] 17/1/2018 12:34

MRF - precisely Minerve has no idea how your investments have performed over the last 7 years but we do know about Woodford's.

I have to say for my part I am seriously happy not to have any money in his funds.

He also has access to the boards of the companies he invests in and therefore one has to question whether he has any clue what questions to ask.

He seems to sycophantically come out in support of all the companies he invests in whilst they crash his investments around his ears.

I sold out here with a 200% gain - too early - but for the right reasons - despite the massive share price fall since then I have not been tempted back.

Woodford bought too late and then added when it was clear this business was in trouble.

As has been said it's not his money so why should he care if it takes 10 years to get it back?
But that disregards their clients potentially needing it back in a shorter time frame....

[smurfy2001] 17/1/2018 12:28

Minerve,

I have not just making a safe(?) assumption.

[minerve] 17/1/2018 10:44

smurfy2001

Have you seen or heard anything to suggest a trial or pilot taking place here? I don't believe one happened.

[minerve] 17/1/2018 10:42

My Retirement Fund

Woodford does have good resources. But he is managing £Bns which have to be spread over lots of companies, and his time, I am sure, is limited for any particular issue.

Before you judge performance you have to decide timescale. Long investment is over decades, or at the very least 5 years, so your view, with respect, is premature.

Whatever his performance is it is undoubtedly better than yours! So who are you to judge? Others in finance receive much greater remuneration for doing less, and even damaging society, but are never in negative press like Woodford.

I think you need better understand investment and performance and who is more 'on your side' before making some of the remarks you make.

[smurfy2001] 17/1/2018 10:24

Minerve,

So the company change the model and it becomes a FUBAR. Why they didn't do this change piecemeal is beyond my comprehension. But they didn't and so we arrive at where we are.

Businesses do pilot/test their business plans at a very small scale. However, they never envisage any problems when scaling up. That's when the problem come out of the woodwork.

It's a repeated problem which I've experienced first hand in a previous business l worked for. There are reasons businesses 'flick the switch' and it mostly boils down to cost.

[my retirement fund] 17/1/2018 10:18

One would have thought with the resources available to Woodford he would have had some idea of what was what but he did not. Thats because he is a poorly performing overpaid fundmanager playing with other peoples money and the bottom line is if he loses it all it dont matter because its not his money and he still gets to collect obscene remuneration.

[minerve] 17/1/2018 10:08

I think the criticism here of Woodford is unfounded. Several years ago when PFG were delivering excellent year-upon-year returns no one was envisaging this happening. I didn't see anyone in the press or here predicting PFG's demise and if they were there was no rationale.

I think Woodford can be blamed for his optimism in Capita because the accounts were showing issues before it started to fail. Something that actually Questor picked-up on so kudos to them. But here no.

The directors - with proven track records in this field - decided to change the business model in a (partly) preemptive move to deter interference from regulators. Who wouldn't trust that they would be able to do this in a competent manner given their previous track record and knowledge of the business? The rationale made sense and nobody would have thought differently.

So the company change the model and it becomes a FUBAR. Why they didn't do this change piecemeal is beyond my comprehension. But they didn't and so we arrive at where we are.

What was Woodford to do? At the time one was still under the belief that these problems were transient and it was just a case of riding the change. Should Woodford have sold out and realised the loss? Or, stay and support the stock, ride the change and lower the average buy in?

Some of you sit here in your ivory towers but believe me running a position of millions is a different proposition from running a position of a few grand.

Also, we knew the regulators were PC numpties but this just takes regulation way too far. They need to decide what they are trying to achieve here. By attempting to protect the consumer they are inadvertantly damaging the consumer and putting them at great risk. If PFG failed - which I don't for one minute think it will - the regulators will have played a part. They are interfering in a business that at the moment could do without such interference. If PFG fails then many consumers who depend on PFG will have to go elsewhere to meet their short-term money needs. Some might go to local loan sharks or smaller operators who will naturally operate larger APRs.

So protecting the consumer, they are not! They could have waited until PFG were in a stronger position because I would hope that even the regulator would acknowledge that millions rely on this company.

[minerve] 17/1/2018 09:41

umitw

Yes there is new bad news. They have lost the business with Argos because Argos have decided to take their business in-house. Being part of Sainsbury's this was obvious and always likely to happen with grocers also wanting to be your bank.

I think the sell is overdone and shorters trading fear at the moment. This doesn't help a business that is going through a difficult period because the lower the equity value the more possible dilution or if they take more debt - the less power they have in negotiating favourable terms.

If you want to know where the hedge funds are operating post Carillion it would not suprise me if some were here.

[umitw] 17/1/2018 09:32

I thought bad news was in the price Already. There is no new bad news & they added new client base as well. Why 26% drop over t2 days?

[dexdringle] 17/1/2018 09:09

"Good business model screwed by idiot managers"

Sadly this is, more often than not, the case. Which makes it all the more bizarre that CEO's and Directors everywhere are earning more than ever.

I used to work for Egg which was, for those who don't remember, in may respects the first (sort of) internet bank. I say 'sort of' because it was more of an accident that Egg launched at the same time as the internet really took off (1998/99) and someone had the very bright idea of bolting the two things together. Egg was amazing. Market leading proposition. And even had its own ISP offering (for those who remember those). They were miles ahead.

Then the idiots took over and within 5 years the thing was in ruins and eventually got bought (bailed) out by Citibank, Barclays, Yorkshire Bank etc. Purely as a result of the sheer incompetence of the people running it.

[wad collector] 17/1/2018 08:50

Yes smurfy you called that right. I have had a bad run on my portfolio recently and this just adds to it. Good business model screwed by idiot managers.

[smurfy2001] 17/1/2018 08:46

I need to know what Woodford is thinking before even starting to build a position.

One to stick in a watchlist now and wait to see where this settles.

[my retirement fund] 17/1/2018 08:20

Catch 12 for them really. They desperately need to raise cash and the higher the shareprice when they do so the less diluted existing shareholders will be.However doing si is unlikely until the scale of the FSA investigations are known and the size of the fines imposed plus any remidal costs to to correct things.This could easily fall so mich further.

[paulmurphy777] 17/1/2018 08:04

Just cash call worries and results end of Feb driving this?

[freddie01] 16/1/2018 20:42

Don't upset minerve. At your peril. Oh dear.

[freddie01] 16/1/2018 18:59

Woodford highly thought of to some.