Woodford Patient Capital Share Discussion Threads

[prewar] 11/11/2017 18:13

Risk it is then, credibility shot to pieces.

Previous post you said prta was a big loser, what's the performance on that during the period of wpct ownership big shot?

[riskvsreward] 11/11/2017 17:52

No further discussion with someone who thinks swearing is his only way of winning an argument. Filtered.

[riskvsreward] 11/11/2017 17:49

I have no obligation to prove anything and provide analysis to some half-wit little kid. If you cannot give more than two winners from his list of about 15 quoted bio-tech companies (Sphere included,which was quoted until it crashed)that is enough proof.

[prewar] 10/11/2017 18:47

Sure, post up the list of quoted bio techs then, you'll prove your point then. Can you put the performance of them all whilst in the fund, 80% big losers as you said.

[riskvsreward] 10/11/2017 18:06

If you can read, I said 80% of Quoted Bio-tech companies in the Portfolio.

[prewar] 10/11/2017 17:47

Erm you've done the detailed analysis in making your statement '80% or more have made huge losses'. Just post up that detailed analysis.

Can't recall me making any statement surrounding number or percentage of winners. Not sure I've anything to justify? Happy to be proved wrong though.

[riskvsreward] 10/11/2017 17:38

Prewar, instead of challenging me to provide you the long list of QUOTED losers,how about you listing even one or two significant QUOTED winners.

To give you a starter, how about the list below: Northwest Bio, cir, dddd, ver, oxp, rene, prta, tbph, for more just to the Woodford fund website and look at the quoted bio-companies in the portfolio.

For the unquoted companies we have to give Woodford the benefit of doubt re their valuations. However,judging by the performance of the quoted ones, that is safely viewed as optimistic.

Another point that has not mentioned is with so many illiquid stocks and with such big positions, most Investment trusts arrive at their NAV by applying a discount somewhere like 20%. Has Woodford used the same prudent valuation method? It is obvious that there is no way that he can exit any of those positions without significantly depressing the price.

[p1nkfish] 10/11/2017 08:22

If it was independent there would be no conflict of interest.
The "operation ".
Typical US get out of jail legalise to cover market moving operations.

"Analysts who prepared this report are COMPENSATED based upon (among other factors) the overall profitability of the Authors’ operations........This could represent a potential conflict of interest in the statements and opinions in the Authors’ documents."

Take care out there.

Using this info is intended to have a knock on effect on WPCT.

[p1nkfish] 10/11/2017 08:12

Jonwig the disclaimer - they take no responsibility for the information published.

I wouldn't post what I really think of kerrisdale actions but they are very much less than ethical in my book.

Read the disclaimer thoroughly, very thoroughly.

[prewar] 10/11/2017 07:50

80% huge losers, wow, you'll be providing a list shortly I guess?

[riskvsreward] 10/11/2017 07:42

Exactly, just like Woodford put forward his rationale for being "long", the other side gave their reason for "being short". The one who is right will win and the other will lose.

The trouble is one cannot have confidence in Woodford as out of something like 20 quoted bio-tech quoted companies he has invested in heavily,not even one noticable winner and many many (80% or more) huge losers in nearly three years.

[jonwig] 10/11/2017 07:22

pinkfish - no "conflict of interest" at all: Kerrisdale show naked self-interest in providing a rationale for the position they have taken.

The aim is to show Prothena as a Potemkin Village. This worked with Globo and Quindell. With Herbalife the verdict is still awaited.

[topvest] 09/11/2017 18:35

Post 1222. Spot on. This is going to be available at a very low price at some point and then might be worth looking at. That's if it doesn't run out of cash first given that it can't liquidate most of its positions.

[riverman77] 09/11/2017 17:43

Given that there are some very decent funds on double digit discounts I see no reason to even consider owning this. While a brilliant fund manager, Woodford has no track record in this very specialist field. I think the big warning sign for me was that when this was launched the capital was deployed extremely quickly. Often with these sort of funds, the managers can take years to painstakingly build their portfolios, waiting for the right opportunities at the right price.

[mad foetus] 09/11/2017 09:36

I've sold out, having held since launch (though I did top slice at some point). I think there are better opportunities. Even cash at the moment feels better.

[jonwig] 09/11/2017 09:24

mazarin - yes, of course. The report will have been published after they took their position, but prepared beforehand. I haven't read it (as I've no real interest) but the depth of research they will have undertaken (such as interviewing hundreds of professionals) will far exceed anything Woodford did.

I don't know if anyone remembers the successful short of Globo by Quintessential. They sent a team to Greece to investigate the so-called suppliers, and all were fake companies!

[riskvsreward] 09/11/2017 09:03

This is looking sick by the way, prta down more than 7%, purp down in two days more than 10%.

[mazarin] 09/11/2017 09:01

Kerrisdale's report has to be taken into context as it has a short position in Prothena Corporation PLC and stands to benefit if its share price falls.

Their full report can be found at hxxp://kerr.co/prta.

[riskvsreward] 09/11/2017 08:56

According to Woodford fan club, this is a trust has it on its tin "Patient", which to them is loss making on years 1 to 4 and then suddenly from magical year 5 to 10,it will double, treble etc etc. Assuming they have any logic,surely the correct investment approach then is to be a "patient" investor and not to invest in this until the "magical" year 5?

[jonwig] 09/11/2017 06:57

Citywire:

US hedge fund Kerrisdale has launched a short-selling attack on Prothena (PRTA.O), the top holding in the Woodford Patient Capital Trust.

Kerrisdale argued shares in the biotech stock could fall by as much as 80%, saying it was 'certain' of the failure of its flagship drug NEOD001, a potential therapy for AL Amyloidosis, a rare disease caused by the build-up of amyloid proteins, which can lead to organ failure. Shares in Prothena fell 7.5% on the news, while shares in Woodford Patient edged 0.4% lower to 95.6p.

Prothena is by far the biggest holding in Neil Woodford's investment trust, accounting for 16.3% of assets, and is the fourth largest in his flagship Woodford Equity Income fund, at 4.1% of the portfolio.

More:

[p1nkfish] 07/11/2017 21:41

Ipo is only a small % of fund but now the ipo/ivo issue is cleared the value of the combined has partly recovered and ipo less dependent on Ox Nano.

[riverman77] 07/11/2017 21:22

I note that Purplebricks has been strong over past few days so maybe that's lifted sentiment. As you suggest, the rise in WPCT price is almost entirely due to a narrowing of the discount, so no meaningful nav growth to get excited about just yet.

[mazarin] 07/11/2017 20:51

I note WPCT increased again today by 2.13%, closing at 96p. Remarkably doing so without stirring any comment here. Long may it continue. However, the problem for me is that I have no way of knowing exactly why. I also note NAV today set at 98.95p for what its worth

[mazarin] 07/11/2017 20:48

I note WPCT increased again today by 2.13%, closing at 96p. Remarkably doing so without stirring any comment here. Long may it continue. However, the problem for me is that I have no way of knowing exactly why.