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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Woodford Patient Capital Trust Plc | WPCT | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 33.60 | 01:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 33.60 | 33.60 |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 06/11/2019 16:03 by spectoacc @timnet - largely agree with @ltcm1 but there are a few listed holdings (Autolus for eg), and some that have a reasonable amount of value supported by other investors (eg Atom Bank). But most of the junk (listed it in a post somewhere above) is either valued by later funding rounds from other WIM entities, or finger-in-air nonsense from Link.The issue for WPCT isn't so much the Not Asset Value, as the debt. If that OD doesn't get rolled over - and even if it does, as it won't be rolled permanently - where will WPCT raise the money to pay it off? They've already sold much that has a realisable value (eg OSI, half AUTO). Also worth remembering Woody's investment record - beyond bad in WEIF, no reason to suspect there's winners in WPCT. But in terms of your question - ie other significant revaluations - they'll likely occur on WEIF's impending sale of the unlisteds/unicorns. Some suggestion that might be only another c.20% or so off. But don't think that makes WPCT good value - sticking to my final value of 0-20p. Amazing that Woody still has supporters on here, after all that's been predicted - and has happened. |
Posted at 25/10/2019 14:54 by spectoacc @jonwig - if Schroders had resolved the OD, they'd have had to RNS it I reckon. So no, that's ahead.Do they know how little IH and the other unicorns are worth? Most probably. Do they care? Why should they? Forget the red herring of the performance fee, they're in it for c.£5m/year of almost pure profit (they get trading costs etc on top). What's not to like? OK reputational damage, yes - but all to be blamed on Woody, and still the possibility of a major kitchen-sinking ahead of the name change to let them start from a lower base. What we know for sure - there's big hits to NAV to come on the WEIF forced sales. Further, there's some holdings to go bust due to lack of further Woodford money. There's big falls ahead in the c.63p NAV, just as there was in the c.90p NAV. Do Schroders see some winners that they want in, want to back via other funds, want to own themselves? Maybe, but that's largely irrelevant to managing WPCT, they don't own the holdings. Buy them cheap off WEIF. Might WPCT be a long when WEIF have sold their 9% overhang, sold off the stocks in common, and the OD is confirmed as renewed? Yes, quite possibly - but a lot lower than here. Realistically, you also want Schroders to be making new investments within (former) WPCT, rather than being lumbered with Neil's picks - but how can that happen? Any issuance, warrants or otherwise, is needed to repay debt. Not seen a full list of WPCT's holdings for yonks, but doubt it's changed much beyond the sales we know about (no more OSI, sold half Autolus). And I don't remember any potentially great investments. And there haven't been any so far. And now c.£5m/year to be taken out too. |
Posted at 24/10/2019 07:27 by spectoacc @Jonwig - NAV 63p to 77p seems perfectly reasonable - for anything other than WPCT! What's real NAV? 20p? 20p to 77p seems more of a stretch.I'm surprised at Schroders - a decent name, as you say - you'd think they'd say "hang on, many of these holdings, eg IH, are worthless, and that lack of value is about to be exposed with WEIF dump their holdings". Now - what if adding Schroders' name is enough to get a large fundraising away, enough to keep many of the unlisteds going a while longer, perhaps to buy back WEIF's 9%, and genuinely have something to "invest"? I agree on the OD, I think NT will extend another year. I still say the announcement is nonsensical tho. Schroders aren't taking on an IT with cash to invest, or assets to juggle around. There is no market for most of WPCT's junk. Who's going to buy it when they could have it from WEIF? Edit - @Jonwig, just to be absolutely clear, where do you see Schroders being able to exit WPCT positions? Autolus is about the only semi-liquid thing, and doesn't even cover the OD. Edit II - a reminder of WPCT's Top 10 as per HL: Benevolent AI (presumably already written down in half, tho with WEIF still to dump) Oxford Nano (allegedly a good co but have apparently pulled their float - WEIF still to dump) Autolus - quoted on Nasdaq, should be realisable Crossco(1337) Plc - no idea, never heard of it, is 8% of the fund? Rutherford - arguably valueless, "listed" but completely untradeable, WEIF to dump IH - nearly 7% of WPCT. Need say nothing on this one, other than "WEIF to dump" Immunocore - any value? Oxford Sciences - this is long since sold, list must be seriously out of date IH, again Mission Therapeutics Most of the liquid stuff - half of Autolus, the OSI - has been dumped already. So take the above list with a pinch of salt. |
Posted at 23/10/2019 10:18 by cc2014 RUTH call has to come from WIM so either WIFF, WEIF or WPCT.It can't come from WEIF as WIM were removed as investment manager in the last two weeks WIM still manages WIFF and WPCT for the next 11 weeks or so. It can't come from WPCT due to the investment restriction imposed by the lender. Or more precisely it could come from WPCT but only if WPCT manages to raise enough cash to get the bank off their back and then another lump for RUTH. One could make a guess at how much cash would be required to get the bank off WPCT's back but since at the last count the bank debt was £117m I'd be guessing the bank want it down to £50m. Technically possible but only in the manner of exploring maths rather than what can be done in the real world. It could be done from WIFF by again selling other stuff by RUTH is so far removed from the investment objectives of WIFF, I would see the Board intervening. Which leaves the call on WIM as a company which they can't afford as most of the cash is taken out every year. All a bit of a puzzle unless RUTH conclude their no point in asking for any more as the likely outcome is WIM enters administration and that would lead to publicity. |
Posted at 18/10/2019 13:44 by spectoacc @timnet - I fear my only interest is in having called Woodford out in 2016, and been banging my head against a wall most of the time since - until the last 6 months, which have been overflowing with schadenfreude (but with more head-banging at Woodford's lies)..Link are up to their necks, I agree. The revaluation upwards of IH, adding c.8p to WPCT's NAV, was a particularly heinous act IMO. The subsequent revaluation down has yet to be completed. To ditch WIM from WEIF now, after all this time, is ridiculous. Is Link trying to appear as the gamekeeper? The WPCT Board, several of whom have already jumped ship, certainly need attention. The Guernsey listings, done in plain site simply to get around the letter of the law, is another. FCA culpable here - Guernsey warned them. Note the RAV "Fat Bloke Finance" connection, with the RAV boys owning the co that sponsored the listing, whilst Woody held RAV, RAVC, RAVP in WEIF. Using WEIF money to support WPCT stocks, at higher valuations, is certainly interesting. I think WEIF took the last Rutherford slot? Woody has always claimed "all wealth ex house" to be in WIM & funds - is this true? He has two houses, for starters. If it's not true, where's the case against him? HL utterly heinous for their "Wealth 50" and I'd love them to be targeted, but struggling to see how. They are clearly the "deep pockets" tho. I'd also love Woody to be taken to task for spouting such nonsense about how WEIF was positioned. But again - if it's not "advice", is there a claim? The secret WPCT share sale seems the most likely thing to get NW on IMO, but it doesn't return investors money. And Link on all the WPCT stuff, inc the "Not Asset Value" that lo and behold, has been getting slowly walked down (with a long way still to go). |
Posted at 17/10/2019 07:21 by spectoacc Housebuilders have been on a tear thanks to Brexit hopes, so WEIF being up 1p would be no surprise.Sadly, the unicorns have yet to be written off. Again tho - if you've underperformed the market by 50% (he has), then eg a 40% bounce (20% so far, and only on some holdings) still leaves you down 30%. Start at 100, down to 50, 40% bounce to 70. Neil's levels of hubris remind me of Fred the Shred - we've seen nothing like it since the banking crisis. Lay in bed thinking of Woody's most "borderline" activity. We all know why he's a failure, we've all been shouting it loudly enough, but in terms of things that may possibly be actionable: 1. Saying one thing, doing another. Endlessly bleating about a "Once in 30 year UK valuation opportunity", something most of us agreed with, whilst punting the WEIF Top 10 on Autolus, Industrial Heat, Benevolent AI, Proton Partners, Raven Russia (equity & multiple prefs) 2. The Guernsey listings - strewth. Even Guernsey wasn't happy! 3. Slotting 60% of his personal shareholding in WPCT, without telling anyone, and whilst not having any inside information - really? 4. Tiny later fundraisings at much higher valuations on the unlisteds, in order to set the NAV 5. Using his position at WPCT to sell a chunk of WEIF's unshiftables in return for WPCT shares, at NAV 6. Committing WPCT (or WIM?) to future funding rounds, without including it in the gearing % |
Posted at 16/10/2019 08:41 by spectoacc A key question is where do the commitments fall - WIM, I believe, and WIM only really has WPCT left, and only for the next 3 months.If I was Proton Partners (sorry: Rutherford), I'd be triggering all I had left ASAP. And it'd be WPCT having to fund it. The Unicorns are clearly usellable IMO, as widely predicted - hence Link's action the day before the "2nd closing date" for the auction - so I'd discount not only IH, but the others too. There's residual value in some Benevolent - as shown by Temasek's investment at half the previous valuation - but shifting that size is clearly a big problem. IH is worthless IMO, we all know that. Rutherford's value is way, way lower than book, IMO. Most of the smaller, early-stage junk in WPCT is - unsellable junk. That leaves the remaining chunk in Autolus and - what else? Is there enough to repay the OD? Who will take it on, and what will they charge? How will they even get paid? Just a reminder - Top 10 in WPCT, as of 31 Aug: Rutherford Benevolent Atom Bank (dunno) Oxford Nano (not bad, IMO) Industrial Heat (lol) Immunocore Kymab Mission Therapeutics Ratesetter (must have some value) Autolus (the sole potentially realisable value I can see in the Top 10) OD, running costs, new manager fees, commitments. If the OD was due in Jan 2021, rather than in 3 months, it'd be less of an issue - soldier on, hope for a "realisation event". [Edit - except the covenants have had to be relaxed already.] And if some could be funded through by WEIF as previously. And if WEIF wasn't going to be selling the lot itself soon. Next event for WPCT - watching BlackRock trying to dump WEIF's 9% shareholding. |
Posted at 15/10/2019 16:12 by timnet As WEIF and WPCT are completely different vehicles, presumably the Board (execs and non-execs) of WPCT has a duty to protect the interests of WPCT shareholders in isolation. Consequently it is their personal duty and responsibility specifically not to accept, or have accepted, the "dumping" of WEIF holdings in WPCT either by buying unlisteds directly (obv. via a friendly broker) from WEIF or swapping WPCT shares for unlisteds in specie. It is clear to me that WEIF has been benefiting, and will continue to benefit, from the process at a continuing cost to WPCT.Does anyone on here know how to set up a class action against: Link; the Board; WIM; HL; and/or Mr Woodford himself? It is now clear to me that there are several specific grounds for some kind of action, many of which could and should be levelled at any or all of the above. |
Posted at 15/10/2019 12:40 by ltcm1 It is all well and good saying WPCT should go into "run off mode" but the whole situation as outlined by Shareprophets is the WPCT companies need a boatload of cash to get into the stage where investment could be realised. The FT are essentially endorsing the Woodford 'patient' strategy!If WPCT went into run off mode it would run off to zero IMO. I would have thought the only way out is a sale and transfer of WPCT into another fund or funds, with WPCT holders receiving paper in the purchasing funds. The game is over for WPCT, this thing needs to be broken up ASAP. |
Posted at 15/10/2019 12:24 by jonwig FT's Markets Live hasn't much on Woodford, since the FT is busy pushing its fraud exposure of Wirecard (German, DAX30) - a much bigger fish! However:Here's Stifel's Iain Scouller There was always a high likelihood that investors in the Woodford Equity Income Fund (WEIF) would not wish to stay in the fund once it re-opened, and we think that today’s news of a wind up and return of cash to investors gives investors clarity now, rather than having to wait until the end of the year to see the outcome. The Woodford Patient Capital (WPCT) board has put out a brief holding statement reiterating they are undertaking a review of the management arrangements and will make a further announcement in due course. With Woodford Investment Management effectively in wind-down, we think the board of WPCT does now need to appoint a new manager as a matter of necessity, given the trust does not pay an annual management fee (only a performance fee) and Woodford IM will have little revenue to pay its expenses now that there is no fee income from WEIF. We think that any new manager of WPCT will expect a conventional annual management fee to be paid going forward. We also think the wind-up of WEIF increases the likelihood that the board of WPCT will decide to put the trust into run-off, with investments realised gradually over a number of years and cash returned to investors once the bank debt (£111m at 26/09/19) is repaid. We commented on the bank debt issue in a note last Thursday (link here). WPCT opened down 3p in trading this morning to an all time low of 35p - in the short term, we think the shares may see some bounce, given the increased likelihood that a new manager will be appointed to WPCT and a run-off of the trust appears more likely. However, we would expect the price to continue to be volatile, given the question marks around the realisable value of the portfolio, especially the unquoteds and issues around WPCT’s need to reduce leverage One of the biggest factors in corporate failures has been excessive leverage, so it is always a factor to monitor closely. This trust has been running with leverage of 15% to 20% of NAV in recent years. In normal circumstances this should be quite manageable, however Woodford Patient Capital (WPCT) is clearly not in normal times and we think a close eye needs to be kept on leverage, given the debt facility expires in January 2020, unless renewed. We assume that by 31/12/19, there is a sale of a number of unquoteds from WPCT, resulting in a cash inflow which can be used to pay down debt. The manager says there are negotiations underway on a number of company-specific transactions, together with interest from parties looking at acquiring portfolios of assets. We also assume that a new bank facility will be negotiated, although at more onerous terms than the current LIBOR+1.5% cost. As 2019 draws to a close, if neither of these developments materialise, this would be a cause for significant concern. There are clearly a number of scenarios for potential outcomes for WPCT over the next year. It continues to be a high risk investment in our view given leverage, management company issues and the illiquid portfolio. Given the current inability to make new investments and difficulties in making follow-on investments due to the trust being close to its leverage upper limit (19% of NAV vs 20% maximum at time of investment), we think the board should seriously consider adopting a 'run-off' strategy where investments are gradually realised over a number of years and cash is returned to investors, once the bank debt is repaid. There is also a question over the viability of Woodford Investment Management and the board have already said they are reviewing management arrangements. If a new manager is appointed, we think it would be helpful for portfolio companies if some of the existing management team transfer over to any new manager, in order to maintain continuity and knowledge of portfolio investments. |
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
