Woodford Patient Capital Share Discussion Threads

[chucko1] 02/10/2018 16:15

A counterpoint is that when NW set up EIF, he was in the top few percentile in the first year. Perhaps even right at the top.

However, look at what was in the fund at the time - all the same biggies such as BAT, IMB, GSK, AZN, RR, BT, RB, VOD, BAe, (even Capita!). What’s in it now? - a bunch of coloured bricks not paying a dividend and a mighty concentration in builders that are paying a pretty high dividend. Fund managers simply don’t do that in normal circumstances. They change things around, sure, but this doesn’t pass the smell check for now.

[petethepict] 02/10/2018 11:15

I know that we picts are notoriously slow on many issues, but I fail to see what chucko1's last six long meandering posts have to do with WPCT. And why is he asking a fellow poster, who admittedly is quite a bit brighter than he is, to justify something or anything?

It's unclear what that something is. Is it the valuation of an undefined small project in a small US company, or its viability, or its future profitability? How can anyone know? Do we know if that project is still being pursued? Certainly without doing the research, or approaching the company direct neither of which which chucko1 seems to want to do, his last six posts have been a crazy waste of time and effort. It's grandstanding meaninglessly in an irrelevant fashion, it seems to me. There is no reason for RAM to go out and save chucko's bacon.

And pardon me for saying it, jonwig's contribution to the same subject seems totally without focus. It's got nothing really important to do with WPCT.

[chucko1] 02/10/2018 10:24

I would also add, 6 complete morons upticking your misguded post. As David Coleman would have said:

“Quite remarkable”.

Sorry to sound so feisty this morning, but I have a low stupidity threshold for the moment. Must be the weather.

[chucko1] 02/10/2018 10:19

@ram, points 1 and 2 were well known and not what was being asked!

The reference to 12 investments (thank you - I hope that did not cause too much pain) suggests that there were no longer 12 investments! And that was 18 months ago, so some of the remainder might no longer be being funded. The upshot is that there is no further clarity as to what this valuation uplift relates to, if not directly to the advances made by the IH scientists themselves.

But this is what I found:

Via hxxp://energycatalyzer3.com/: Industrial Heat LLC is involved in at least 12 low energy nuclear reactions (LENR) research efforts. Nor is the Raleigh, North Carolina, – based company letting its ongoing lawsuit with ecat inventor Andrea Rossi slow it down.
Industrial Heat has intensified investment in six processes; and scaled back its’ involvement in another six, owner Tom Darden said in an interview with The Triangle Business Journal. The Journal claimed that research in LENR is still going on at Raleigh’s Triangle Industrial Park.

Unfortunately none of the LENR companies or processes that Darden mentioned were identified. Darden, the CEO of hedge fund, Cherokee Investment Partners, said he feels increasingly good about cold fusion research.

End of article.

So, this article is 20 months old (dated Feb 2017) but suggests that all areas of research related only to LENR as none others were cited. This is a long way from what you implied, and I think you owe Jonwig an apology as you have offered nothing, absolutely nothing in addition to what he already knew.

I would also add that it took 30 seconds to find this article, but, interesting as it may be, it hardly repaints the canvas of our current knowledge.

[porsche1945] 02/10/2018 09:57

As the UK sinks every deeper into the brexit induced domestic mire over the next six months I have a feeling the market will be deciding Woodfords fate across all his funds. This will affect PC as he shuffles stuff between the funds more and more. Another year gone with it all under water, the domestic stuff getting worse and worse, monster redemptions forcing a sell off of anything decent and being left with an ever growing amount of the sort of dross that populates PC. HL should be hauled over hot coals for punting this rubbish as hard as they did.

[researchanalystman] 02/10/2018 06:27

Chucko1Jonwig just doesn't want to do his own research. and i guess from your comment the desire to check for yourselfhas not been there which is a shame. So, After 1. Autolus ipo (The announcement produced a 51% uplift to the value of its 15.9% stake in Autolus to $104.7 million and added 3.2p to the NAV per share and since then up from $17 ipo to oct 1st 2018 of $30.64 2. Benevolent. Ai ( goldman investing ) And other good stories(amongst poor ones) i wish all'Patient ' capital wpct holders well and future pleasant surprisesjust to close:Rossi's research was just one of a dozen avenues Industrial Heat was exploring. Of those 12, Industrial Heat has halted or slowed funding on about half, ... that the management team feels "increasingly good" about the remaining avenues. "Our triaging process is working pretty well to figure out which ones we want to continue to support and which ones we don't."(18 months ago)

[chucko1] 02/10/2018 01:44

@ram, a lot written in the two posts of yours. But nowhere near answering Jonwig’s question about the source to back up your assertion of 12 separate investments of IH.

Your point about the value of the house (absent it actually being sold) is not really the same. There are likely similar houses in the area and the price per sqft may well be reasonably transparent. In the case of IH, its IP (it has no revenues to speak of) is some blend of unknown and unique - so by definition, no comparison is available.

Concerning the house example, at least when the house is sold, the whole house must be sold. In the case of IH, do we have any idea how much or little was actually sold? Or that a truly willing and independent party was involved in the investment. I agree that whatever the shortcomings of this valuation method, it is still the least bad.

[chucko1] 01/10/2018 19:40

Which begs the question, although I repeat it: “What track record did NW have in bio/pharma or small-cap in his time at Invesco?”

His departure from Invesco may will have been a function of his inability to expand his involvement in all this smaller cap stuff. A difference of opinion with the bosses at Invesco was cited at the time (late 2013). If you look at the median market cap of his fund when he left Invesco, it appears to be of the order of £3bn, and that includes all the tiny stuff he had in the portfolio at that time. If you look at the same statistic for the St. James Income Fund at that time, it was around £15bn.

So that is the effect of small caps on this statistic, assuming other things being roughly equal.

But if we again look at that statistic, but for the EIF today, it is £1.3bn. It would seem that he has migrated significantly further into this small cap stuff over time, as though it were a long-held belief that there was outperformance there waiting for him to capture. This fund is now in the bottom percentile or two, so this has been a horrible change of focus. By comparison, the Invesco HI Fund he left behind for Barnett is (only) in the 24th percentile, and that includes some of the small stuff that could not be sold; I am sure the performance would have been rather better still without that.

So, although by no means conclusive, it would appear that there is some relationship between the migration to smaller cap with decreasing performance. (the less scientific argument is that AA, PFG, CPI et al. makes my point right from the get-go, but I’m trying to shine a light on it from a different angle).

In short, there is evidence that he is actually an increasingly bad stock-picker as the size of the company decreases and that Invesco were well aware of this and refused to allow him to venture further down that path. But, to be fair, maybe he has simply been unlucky so far ... (?)

[researchanalystman] 01/10/2018 19:06

To jonwig ..(Did you actually read my posts carefully..?when you said you wanted a hint?).. I may or may not be correct in my thinkingbut unfortunately separately i now have to repeat this now because I believe (do you?) a respectable entity would not uplift 8 percent without good reason( independent valued because an event happened).Whether the transaction value remains the same in the futureIs another issue, and uncertain. It may go higher or lower..butif investors are prepared to pay a level then that is as a good as you probably get..(just as it would be in a quoted share with limited float or volume... last marked priceTo not uplift would not provide wpct investors with a believed true value of their holding when each day a valuation is(has) to be provided.Yes valuations can come in a variety of ways ( property in Company accounts is a nightmare example) but you haveTo have a value and this is A independent , reputable One , based on evidence of last price of money invested. It has to be a most reasonable way..Ps do own a house bought some years ago ?what value (do you put on it if you need to value it.. or do you just use the price that you invested or paid.

[oiltakeyouhomeagaincaitlin] 01/10/2018 15:11

Ah, trollwatch, are you trying to tell us there was no known reference to 'standard deviation' in any Wisden? And that's why cynical bear knows nothing about it?


Come to think of it it might be useful in defining the difference beweeen a googly and a wrong'un. Strewth!

[trollwatch] 01/10/2018 14:52

Chucko1. Could you please take your childish bickering elsewhere? We are already overloaded with puerile transparent shareprophet posing, and we are all heartily sick of it.

BTW it was obvious that you thought you were being clever in one of your other tedious posts when you unnecessarily imported allusions to 'standard deviation' to an already entirely silly proposition.

I would guess that nearly every frequent poster here apart from cynical bear knows very well how to calculate 'standard deviation' because it is in Chapter One of 'Elementary Statistics for Stupid Trolls' and also in the appendix of the fabled "Teach Yourself Investing 1975 with some of the pages missing" which topvest swears by.

It is not at all a difficult calculation, but you did not show entire mastery of the subject. Besides in the real world it is of limited usefulness or interest.

[chucko1] 01/10/2018 13:49

Harijan, do you actually believe what you just wrote, or just more of the same juvenile garbage? It’s a serious question.

[harijan] 01/10/2018 12:52

ltcm1 is chuck01 is winnifrirTh is probably jonwig

Says it all really. All the silly nonsense has not stopped WPcT rising. NAV up today again.

[chucko1] 01/10/2018 12:31

Not citing your source for this matter, in response to a perfectly reasonable question from Jonwig, is pathetic. This simply turns this board into a playground, but perhaps I am merely restating the bleeding obvious.

Again, it indicates to me that there are far too many juvenile emotions being expressed here rather than some intelligent analysis of the security in question.

For all anyone knows, the 357% uplift is indeed the result of some fine engineering, but of what type? Whatever it is, I suppose it will keep the wolf away from them the door.

[ltcm1] 01/10/2018 12:25

RAM I don't blame you in any way if you choose not to cross reference your posts.

But the point is Woodford has mentioned nothing of this, if there was an NDA he could still talk in general terms about the Industrial Heat uplift. Surely if it wasn't related to cold fusion he would have been obligated to disclose that.

Hmm so we are being asked to believe a 357% uplift on an unquoted stock with only the briefest of explanations. I don't know how much is held in the Income Funds but we are talking about a lot of money here.

The fact certain posters are inferring the whole issue is di minimis is a further red flag in my book.

I think the whole thing is a worry because Woodford Investment Management is such a small player in the fund business.

Would this be acceptable from Blackrock for example???

[jonwig] 01/10/2018 12:11

LOL - all I wanted was a link, a hint!
I've tried really, really hard, I promise.

My profile ... dates from 2004. Have moved on.

[brummieloser] 01/10/2018 12:09

Two really excellent posts. jonwig is trying to exert a malign influence on WPCT. It used to work a bit perhaps, but it doesn't work any more.

[researchanalystman] 01/10/2018 12:00

"AboutI should be more serious in researching stuff, and view it as less of a 'game'."Jonwig- the above is you're advfn "about" !!!===============As you know i'm sure..Knowledge is powerwhy should i put my time and effort to follow up onWoodford announcement for others to be lazy and not doBasic research .. i might be totally wrong on my suggestedCompany but a) woodford has said the uplift timing is nothing to do with themand they will provide further info later when they can (guess nda)B)But personally i would like to re-iterate that unless you think woodford is being fraudulent - such an uplift (independent uplift ) will be well founded as it is a striking one.(8 percent) for wpct C) it is not difficult in these days of so much info available.Maybe not just concentrating on an erroneous fact that the person behindindustrial is investing in only one idea.

[jonwig] 01/10/2018 10:12

@ ram - I've queried previously your 'dozen projects'. Can you verify, please?

Industrial Heat - again, what is your source, please, for 'One of the others has come up trumps'? I've tried hard to discover anything about I H in the public domain, but both your assertions have eluded me, sorry!

I've also looked at recent results from UNC but nothing which could be relevant shows.

Call me old-fashioned, but when I make an assertion in a post, I either provide a link or would have one ready. I'm surprised that you don't do this, or is it the new age, where alternative truths exist independent of objective reality?

[researchanalystman] 01/10/2018 09:42

Itcm1 - Unfortunately your post has got it all wrong..Spreading the issue about cold fusion being the uplift reason..A bit of research and insight would help..Industrial heat is an investor in a dozen projects , admittedly one of them included an investigation-and research into whether this was true/feasible.. ( a reasonable pursuit for wpct /industrial heat to assess) the others are a multitude of ideas out of north carolina university - a premier research place.One of the others has come up trumps - hence the uplift by a Premier independent valuation company of unlisted companies.( may i suggest you also place this on sites where you say its because of cold fusion ...that is truly misleading information)