We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register for Free to get streaming real-time quotes, interactive charts, live options flow, and more.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Schroder Uk Public Private Trust Plc | SUPP | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 14.725 | 01:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14.725 | 14.725 |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 12/4/2024 10:44 by daffyjones Five years later, the FCA seem to be finally waking up.Neil Woodford’s understanding of risk ‘defectiveR The former star stockpicker Neil Woodford has been hit with a warning notice by the Financial Conduct Authority over the spectacular collapse of his fund five years ago, with the watchdog accusing him of having “defective understanding” of liquidity risks faced by the fund. In the warning issued on Thursday, the FCA said it intended to take action against Woodford and Woodford Investment Management (WIM) in respect of their conduct in the management of the Woodford Equity Income Fund (WEIF) before its suspension in 2019. The FCA said Woodford held “a defective and unreasonably narrow understanding of his responsibilities for managing the WEIF’s liquidity risks”, while also claiming that he had failed to ensure the company had appropriate liquidity when making investment decisions. In the notice, the FCA said the investment decisions made by Woodford and WIM materially increased the risk of and resulted in the WEIF’s liquidity profile “becoming unreasonable and inappropriate” It added: “They also materially increased the risk that the WEIF would need to be suspended and thereby place those investors who did not redeem prior to the point of suspension at a disadvantage.” In a separate final notice to Link Fund Solutions (LFS), the company in charge of the fund’s liquidity, the FCA said it “failed to act with due skill, care and diligence in its management”. It also stated that it failed to manage the liquidity of the fund and ensure that concerns about the liquidity position were acted upon. The warning notice marks the FCA’s intention to take action but Woodford will be able to make representations to its regulatory decisions committee before it decides what action to take. Woodford’s lawyers have said he will challenge the FCA decision. |
Posted at 20/4/2023 14:25 by daffyjones Link and the FCA announce they have reached a settlement of the enforcement case relating to the collapse of the Woodford Equity Income Fund. If approved, the scheme will provide up to £235m in compensation for those who were invested in WEIF at the point it was wound up in June 2019. WEIF was valued at £3.61 billion at the time of its collapse. £2.54 billion has since been paid out to investors.In September, the FCA had required Dye & Durham, the prospective purchasers of Link to set aside £306m for a potential redress scheme in addition to a £50m fine. This led to the collapse of the sale. Today Link Group announces it has sold its Link Fund Solutions business to the Waystone Group. If approved, the redress scheme would mark the end of the FCA investigation into the Woodford collapse. |
Posted at 18/4/2023 08:05 by jonwig ... and another in Citywire:Shocked about the illegal buyback. Nobody at Schroders looking out for such things? |
Posted at 06/4/2023 09:17 by spectoacc Ah but they can co-invest in a later funding round with something Schroders are already involved with. ie getting the WPCT mandate didn't just allow Schroders to rip c.£3-4m a year out of the trust, didn't just allow for them appointing Schroders in place of Link as trustee (more fees), didn't just allow for expenses, wages, free publicity. It also allows Schroders to use SUPP to support investee co's they're invested in with other funds.Handy, in this market. Someone - likely City - should have compelled Schroders/SUPP to return cash long ago. The Schroders Juniors shouldn't be getting to play with it like this. Even if their punts are eventually net winners (no evidence so far), how much difference does an $8m punt in a later funding round actually make? Or more to the point - when, ever, do SUPP investors get to see a return? |
Posted at 02/11/2022 07:57 by jonwig Kepler Trust Intelligence hs written an analyst report:"SUPP’s portfolio is maturing and evolving, yet trades on a discount of 46%..." They really have worked hard on this, and earned their fees of several thousand pounds. |
Posted at 13/10/2022 18:29 by daffyjones New all time low. As bad as Woody was, at least he deluded himself that he was going to achieve some value for investors. Schroeders are clearly just milking this dry for all the fees they can get |
Posted at 06/6/2022 08:36 by jonwig Thanks bamboo!Whatever Link got wrong, suspending the fund was absolutely the right decision. There was already a queue of big holders to withdraw their money (Kent CC Pensions the largest at £260m). To satisfy them, the most liquid holdings would have to be sold on the spot. By the time a lot of private investors and their IFAs had got their act together, all the decent stuff would have been sold, leaving zero-worth tat. |
Posted at 06/6/2022 08:18 by bamboo2 There's an article on the BBC website about the action.Three years ago, Robin McConnachie suddenly found himself unable to access money he'd invested with famed fund manger Neil Woodford. "I was shocked," said the retired City banker, who had invested £12,000 in the fund which eventually collapsed. On Friday, lawyers will file a case against the fund's administrators Link Fund Solutions, alleging they failed to properly supervise the investments. But Link says it acted within the rules and will "vigorously defend itself". Mr Woodford was one of the UK's most high profile stockpickers and when he set up his own managed fund, he came with an impressive reputation. At Invesco Perpetual, where he made his name, anyone investing a pension fund of £10,000 with him at the start of his time there would have seen it grow to £250,000 by the time Mr Woodford resigned to launch his own business 26 years later. Investors, ranging from ordinary people to pension funds, put money into the Woodford Equity Income Fund. At its peak, the fund was reportedly managing more than £10bn. But as investors became increasingly worried about the investments being made on their behalf, many withdrew their money. More than £500m was taken out in just four weeks. Then on 3 June 2019 - three years ago today - Link froze the fund, which later collapsed. "Link was in place to act as the referee," said Daniel Kerrigan, senior associate at the London firm Harcus Parker, which is bringing the case. "They let the fund go off the rails." Lawyers from the firm will argue Link had a duty to investors to ensure the fund was prudently managed and not overly risky. They say those duties were breached, for instance when the fund invested in unlisted start-ups instead of in large, dividend-paying stocks. But Link says it will be "vigorously defending" the charges. "A key responsibility of Link ... was, and is, to act in the best interests of all investors in the Woodford Equity Investment Fund," a Link spokesperson said. He added: "Link takes this and its other responsibilities very seriously and considers that it has acted at all times in accordance with applicable rules, as well as in the best interests of all investors, and it will continue to do so." It will be up to the High Court to decide whether the fund's eventual collapse in October 2019 was Link's fault. Neither Mr Woodford himself, nor his company, is targeted by the litigation. A sale of the fund's assets has already allowed some money to be returned to investors. Mr McConnachie has so far received just under £8000 in that process but he's hoping the lawsuit can return the rest. Having invested into Mr Woodford's fund at Invesco Perpetual, he decided to diversify his holdings and direct some of his money in his new venture. "He was regarded as a high-flying fund manager," Mr McConnachie said. "The prospectus said the new fund will be run along similar lines." He said he was so angry by the way Link acted, he decided to join the lawsuit against them. "What Link did or didn't do is simply not acceptable and they should be called to account." Last year, Neil Woodford spoke publicly about the embarrassing saga, telling The Daily Telegraph he was "very sorry for what [he] did wrong". He added: "I can't be sorry for the things I didn't do. I didn't make the decision to suspend the fund, I didn't make the decision to liquidate the fund. As history will now show, those decisions were incredibly damaging to investors and they were not mine." Mr Woodford has since set up a new investment business though it has not been welcomed by all. The FCA has been carrying out its own investigation into the fund's collapse, and is yet to decide whether to take any action. In January, MPs urged the financial watchdog to move quickly, given the public interest in the scandal. Harcus Parker represents 7,000 investors who lost money. The initial claim against Link, lodged on Friday, represents 1,500 of those and will seek damages of an estimated £18m. A further claim relating to the same issue is being brought against Link by the firm Leigh Day. It will represent 12,000 investors. "There are believed to be around 300,000 people affected by this issue out there," Mr Kerrigan said. "We encourage people who have not signed up to do so." |
Posted at 15/9/2020 14:27 by spectoacc ON is a fair point. Think I'd buy IPO Group for it - altho interesting IPO been small sellers.From what they announced at last ON fundraise (when IPO sold some), I think valued at c.£1.6bn, vs c.£1.8bn in Link's NAV now. Neither unreasonable, but there's going to be more dilution before profits. From ON website: "Seed funding was obtained in two rounds, from IP Group in 2005. In June 2006 the company raised £7.75m In March 2008 the company raised a further £10m. In January 2009 the Company announced an $18m (£11.9m) and a separate £2.1m investment In February 2010 Oxford Nanopore raised £17.4m from existing investors and new, undisclosed US-based investors. In April 2011 the Company raised £25m from existing and new institutional and independent investors based in the UK and US. In May 2012 the Company raised £31.4m ($50.8m), the majority of which was from existing investors. In October 2013 Oxford Nanopore raised £40m from new and existing investors in the US and Europe. In August 2014 Oxford Nanopore raised £35m from new and existing investors in the US and Europe. In July 2015 Oxford Nanopore raised £70m from new and existing investors in the US and Europe. In December 2016 Oxford Nanopore raised £100m from new and existing investors worldwide. In March 2018 Oxford Nanopore raised £100M ($140M) from global investors In 2020 Oxford Nanopore announced that it had raised £29M + £49.4M in new capital in two tranches" Expecting it to be marked up again at next NAV, based on the Covid newsflow. |
Posted at 23/8/2020 07:34 by jonwig Times:Investors in the failed Woodford Equity Income fund have to endure a third delay in the publication of the details of what is left of their investment. Link Fund Solutions, the firm responsible for the fund, which is now called Equity Income, admitted last week that it will not be able to meet its plan to publish the full accounts, leaving investors in the dark about its holdings for at least another month. Link has been granted permission by the regulator to delay publication of the accounts, which investors rely on to see how their money is being managed. Normally investment houses publish them at least once a year. Link took the decision to shut down the fund, without consultation with investors, in October last year. It then hired two specialist firms to sell the fund’s assets and return money to investors. However, the process has been mired in controversy. Investor anger was fuelled after it emerged that some of the fund’s assets were offloaded to an American company, which was able to sell some of them on at a huge profit within hours. More than 6,000 people have registered with law firms that are considering group litigation against Link. Laura Suter of the investment platform AJ Bell said: “This is another blow to investors. When the accounts finally arrive, they will provide a bit more clarity to investors on the sale process and costs involved, but it will now be more than six months out of date by the time they are published.” In its March 12 letter to investors, Link said it had extended its accounting period end from December 31, 2019 to March 31, 2020. This was due to what the firm called an audit conflict. Fund groups would normally publish four months after the accounting period ends, so investors expected an update by the end of July. However, in a letter dated July 29, it said it could not meet this deadline because of Covid-19 and what it called a “requirement for additional control steps in the audit sign-off process”. It now says it expects an update by the end of September. Link has also confirmed it will pay £183.15 million to investors on Wednesday, in the third distribution of assets, taking the total amount paid back to £2.45 billion. This would leave an estimated £261 million in the fund. Grant Thornton, Link’s auditor, said the delay in publication “should not cause any undue concern” and that it would “ensure the accounts are thorough and correct, especially given the volume of post balance sheet events”. |
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
