Woodford Patient Capital Share Discussion Threads

[toffeeman] 28/8/2017 12:01

I'm just annoyed with myself - I subscribed at the start and sold out at 113 and then bought back at 94.7 and thought sell again when I make another 13% and I should have settled for 10%.

[kallistos] 28/8/2017 11:56

I do not know any shares with epic code 'etc'! LOL

16 shares isn't the 'most' of 80 shares ! LOL LOL

Get your act together ,lads, you are struggling.

[riskvsreward] 28/8/2017 11:48

TAM, how about the list below. How much each of them has dropped in the past year?

alm, ipo, ivo, dddd, oxp, ver, cir, rene, hvo, halo, sphr, eve, rene, bmk, mtph, rm2, etc etc

In fact almost all the listed company holdings in the wpct portfolio are at or near year lowsand most of those listed above are more than halved.

Granted anyone can get some wrong but for a star manager to got most of them wrong and no one can even raise a question?

[kpo115] 28/8/2017 11:47

Well, there are many worse!

Anyway you are missing the point of the argument. Impressive or not, you cannot logically extrapolate from the main fund to WPCT. Different animals.

[rackers1] 28/8/2017 11:38

But Woodford main fund has returned what...something like 28pct ish since 2014?Hardly impressive.

[the air marshall] 28/8/2017 10:23

PUG,I have seen the article in the Times: I could have written it myself!

You may believe that it supports your main argument: in fact it destroys it.

The poorly performing shares mentioned in the article are these:

Astrazeneca-not in WPCT's portfolio.

AA-not in WPCT's portfolio.

Imperial-not in WPCT's portfolio.

Provident Financial-not in WPCT's portfolio.

Allied Minds-forms a paltry 1.25% of WPCT's portfolio.

It is clear to everyone but the trolls that WPCT has a totally different, very unusual remit which is not at all related to the other Woodford funds. How can you ever argue that the performance of those funds is in any way significant to the assessment of WPCT's prospects? I know how. By dishonestly 'tarring with the same brush' as you call it, a very old and disreputable trick. I prefer to call it conflation.




More than that, you are probably totally unaware that in Woodford's main fund the five top performing shares have delivered returns which are far greater than the 'losses' suffered by the five shares above that you and the bilious LK are always spouting. By your troll logic you should "read across", "tar with the same brush" the shares in WPCT and declare it a stonking buy! Explain why, if you don't agree. LOL

[jonwig] 26/8/2017 12:13

PUG - yes, an excellent article, and in fact quite balanced in its conclusions.

owenski - the FT has an excellent contributor in Hindsight Fund Management (aka John Authers).

On the 'buy low, sell high' principle, a lot of fund managers underperformed in the earlier tech boom by not believing it (Woodford was one). The advantage of managing your own investments is that you aren't trying to compete in performance tables, so you can follow a DIY policy which, sort of, matches the blsh method. What I practise is to move gradually to lower risk and part-cash when the market begins to be overstretched: the CAPE for example. This means I've now a lot of gilts and ITs such as PNL, RCP.

[essentialinvestor] 26/8/2017 12:02

In nearly 30 years only once did I sell at an all time high on an individual stock,
the company was bust about 3 years later. And I put that down to
just random luck.

[owenski] 26/8/2017 10:37

Buy low and find it's gone lower still. lol

How does one know when low is the lowest or high is the highest. This is one of those sayings that kinda makes sense but is usually enacted by clueless muppets who lose money and then tout some tired saying to show they know what they're doing - clearly they dont.

Buy when it's going higher and the risk is better balanced, one finds higher goes higher still, whereas lower tends to carry on going lower.

Woodentop is resting on past laurels, I dont rate him as some sort of stock picking Guru. His recent track record is appalling.

Do your own work and pick your own stocks, otherwise one is just delegating ones abilities to a stranger and hoping he does better.... and that aint the case here.

[pugugly] 26/8/2017 10:24

TAM- Excellent article on Woodford in Times today - You really ought to read it

[the air marshall] 25/8/2017 09:01

More gibberish from the man who doesn't know how to make a profit.

It's B U Y L O W A N D S E L L H I G H, OK?

[liquidkid] 25/8/2017 08:51

The most inane nonsense I have ever read so far on this thread, and am actually amusingly agitated by it.

The 'patients' are all these dribbeling incontinint pensoners frittering their grand childrens inheritance on the Wooshflush gambling machine, till the end of days or the account is empty. Roll up Roll up you hobbled mad madams: get three biotech investments in a row and you got a cure for one of those constant pains you have. Doh! phase3 failure, too bad - shuffle along now you grumpy old dears.
Pst, says Woodtrouf, wanna second chance? still got a few sure thing fintech investments...sure to rise heh heh.

[the air marshall] 24/8/2017 13:58

I'm really feeling rather happy. When trolls like LK and Plug were merrily crowing over some minor blip or other in the share price of some other investments not so long ago, I went out and bought a large lump of WPCT. Those shares are now showing a gratifying profit. I don't feel inclined to liquidate at the moment.

The trolls are not sufficiently intelligent to realise that making mindless 'sky is falling' posts is not the name of the game. The whole point is to buy low and sell high. You're actually allowed to make money. From his posts I deduce that LK (and a few recent posters here) has got it the wrong way round. Anybody can see from his garbled unintelligible posts that he could never actually have made a real profit. He's always advocating that people sell when the shares are low:

[p1nkfish] 24/8/2017 13:39

He's not alone. Look at IPO, IVO, Allied Minds, TURN.and others.
All in similar boat.
It will turn.

[jonwig] 24/8/2017 11:37

It would be funny, if this weren't nemesis upon hubris. (I've reached catharsis, as I don't hold any of these now.)

Seriously, though, the 'Patient' refers to the trust, not its investors. Think of nursing a patient: time and indeed money, as he's found with Sphere. Explained in the prospectus.

[owenski] 24/8/2017 11:19

How patient does one have to be in the Patient Capital Trust. lol

[glennpaul] 24/8/2017 11:15

I hear they're doing a big rebranding exercise. Apparently they're renaming it The Ultra Patient Capital Trust.

[p1nkfish] 23/8/2017 21:36

LMBO if this turned round and headed to 120p on news from a couple of the holdings.
There are about 50 holdings in WPCT of which some have their own portfolios.
It is well spread.

Performance will show through in its own time and not just because demanded to do so at some particular point in time.

[pugugly] 23/8/2017 18:43

pete - You obviously cannot read - Woodford owns Provident stock in one of his other funds As I posted. FILTERED.

ps Some reading for you from another board

"I see that Woodford funds own 19.9% of PFG. Another disaster for them. I do wonder how much real due diligence they're doing? If it's just a scatter-gun approach, with little original research, then investors can do that themselves, without needing a fund manager."
Author - Paul Scott - a well respected commentator -
You might find it educational ro read the full post - spob - I trust ok with you - Link given

spob
23 Aug '17 - 17:36 - 1335 of 1337 3 0

[pugugly] 23/8/2017 16:55

p1nkfish - Large holders (imo) unable to jump ship - They are effectivly locked in unless they can find another institution prepared to take their holding - to try and sell in the market would crush the price - as you well know.


TAM - Not trolling - if you are refering to me - just telling it as I see it - As I have said before many of his holding have and more probably will take the funds investment to Money Heaven - Depending on which database you use between 80% and 95% of "start-ups" fail. If you are lucky those that do not hopefully more than compensate.

[liquidkid] 23/8/2017 16:42

Hello sheep!
Reading the SPHR thread, bag holders looking to blame anyone but themselves

Learnt some new financial terms today:
'concert party' - recurring theme in Woofduff bets
‘whitewash resolution’ - FCA can answer that.

Press turning on him


PM Thing with Woodford is that he didn't make enough friends on the way up.
PM Openly slagged off the rest of the asset management industry
PM And now he's hit real turbulence...
BE Maybe he's right! But it's going to take a long, long time to demonstrate it.
PM See, we're rubbish. Or at least I am
...and so on

Startup IP financial unicorn Business plan:
1. Borrow £millions
2. spend or Lend it at high interest rates
3. Blow up the business and fail to get much/any of it back
4. Get Whadfood involved.

Anyone who is saying things along the lines of 'be patient Give it 10 years' is a ramping spiv and should be sectioned by the FCA. Custodial sentence not required cause they're already doing a stretch of seven years bad luck!

[the air marshall] 23/8/2017 13:07

Oh dear, the trolls were well and truly smashed over on the other thread despite the thread policeman blokie trying to protect them. They're trying their luck here again now. Of course the trolls' case is not helped by their lack of logic and literacy.

[jonwig] 23/8/2017 12:59

pinkfish - Sphere was formed in around 2002 and part-owned by a start-up trust, possibly Herald. I think Fidelity/Woodford took a stake then. There were lots of rumours of an imminent float and high valuation for years.