Woodford Patient Capital Share Discussion Threads

[spectoacc] 17/10/2019 14:54

@Pug - discussed above - look out for the "Transfer to another manager" box having been ticked. We've seen all the WIM transfers over the past 2 days (I counted 19), now they're all being RNS'd with Link as the holder. Should note that IAG, BT., BATS, IMB not RNS'd as below 3% holdings.

Although it isn't clear, BlackRock in theory can't begin to wind up WEIF until the middle of January, under EU law. But have said they can "reposition" the fund in the meantime, so perhaps they'll reposition it to cash!

[pugugly] 17/10/2019 14:52

May have been previously reported - Need to watch out for possilby misleading rns's showing a Woody fund disposing of their entire holing but then - hours or DAYS later the matching rns showing now held in the name of LINK -

Not sold in the market and so far as one can deduce being still held for sale

If this is the wrong interpretation can anyone please corect me -

[spectoacc] 17/10/2019 14:50

"...Puts 30 jobs at risk..".

Guarantees 30 redundancies I'd say.

Hadn't realised the IFF notice period (it's now gated, like its larger brother) was 6 months. WIM will be loss-making and he's got to keep it going for 6 months to fulfil IFF! Tho realistically - if WIM folds sooner, IFF's hardly going to sue.

One interesting thing - we all know Woodford is mind-bendingly hubristic. Is he going to go bankrupt? After pulling in tens of millions in profit and more over the years? He's always said "all wealth ex house in WIM & funds". WIM is going to be costing him now, and has nil value at the end. He still has the house(s) and equestrian complex. And presumably will be getting back his holdings in WEIF and IFF as and when (& the 40% remaining of his WPCT shareholding, but that may be worthless).

He's that much of a fool, I'd give evens on personal bankruptcy. To credit him with carefully tucking away cash for just this eventuality is to credit him with more nous than he has IMO. I'd be particularly amused if he'd geared to invest in WEIF/IFF.

Altho I didn't believe it and still don't, this is the man who had to slot 60% of his WPCT shares to pay his tax bill.

[careful] 17/10/2019 14:15

5% up today.
Woodford now gone.

[ltcm1] 17/10/2019 11:34

Personally I think in the fullness of time HL are going to have to make a PPI type payment to their customers over this.

Woodford may have gamed the system but I doubt he transgressed the legal line.

[spectoacc] 17/10/2019 09:51

@DrB - no.1 no doubt covered by "Wasn't giving advice", the same argument HL will use. Outright nonsense is pushing it tho! And said repeatedly.

Re 2. - Guernsey apparently asked for meetings with FCA. FCA agreed, then failed to show up. Couldn't make it up.

4. can be blamed on Link

5. can be shifted onto the WPCT Board

6. "It were WIM m'lud, not WPCT, no case to answer".

But 3. seems beyond the pale to me. Didn't have to notify as not a person with control - really? Maybe. But not a person with any knowledge of eg the likely valuation drops due on the unlisteds? We all knew, and we're not WPCT's manager!

All IMO. And it's the pattern, as much as anything. What did Fred the Shred do that was outright illegal?

And that's before we get to Fat Bloke Finance and the web of interconnectedness.

[dr biotech] 17/10/2019 09:45

Realistically

1) you are allowed to talk your own book. Words such as “believe”; are a good get out

2/4/6 are probably allowed within the rules. Wouldn’t surprise me if the rules are tightened to prevent this

3/5. These look to my non-legal mind to be the most borderline. Selling up at what now seems to be an obviously inflated price without informing any one...that has to be close to insider trading. Taking on more unsellables by selling them from the WEIF to WPCT that’s certainly a lack of governance, but is it criminal?


There may be other issues over malpractice- was their sufficient due dilligence in acquiring the stakes in NW bioscience and Industrial Heat etc? We’ve all made poor investments, but always with our own cash.

[topvest] 17/10/2019 08:21

There is no way back for Woodford. Its all over and he will no doubt be called in to the Treasury Select Committee or whatever its called for a severe dressing down and public humiliation. You almost feel sorry for him, but he only has his own stupidity and arrogance to blame.

[spectoacc] 17/10/2019 07:21

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 %

[eithin] 17/10/2019 02:58

From Trustnet I get a price for the equity income fund of 69.9p actually 1p up since the announcement. Am I reading correctly or any explanation.

[tim 3] 16/10/2019 23:44

To me its not so much about the underperformance its about him taking huge risks way and above over what he said his Equity Income fund would be exposed too.

[diku] 16/10/2019 23:08

And the media have a habit of pumping high profile names..

[henchard] 16/10/2019 23:02

Jeez riverman, this isn't "underperform" it's a man who, when he left Invesco, had too much money, too much power and too little oversight from the nominal official safeguarders of PI interests who failed to see the ridiculous risk his enterprise quickly morphed into (or went along with it for their own £interests). Something that has been patently obvious for 18 months plus to anyone with half a brain.

[riverman77] 16/10/2019 22:46

I'm no Woodford fan but premature to write him off completely. Remember he's bounced back before having significantly underperformed in the late 90s.

[volsung] 16/10/2019 21:10

I hope Mr Woodford doesn’t lose any money or sleep over all this nonsense. Hopefully his eventing will take his mind off this debacle and he can move on to pastures new ( no pun intended)

[topvest] 16/10/2019 20:12

Where have all the Woodford fans gone? This Board is getting boring...one way flow!

Anyway, the inevitable has happened. Next step is for this to go into a wind-up.

How long before the lender takes control? I think this trust could well be suspended fairly quickly pending clarification of its financial position.

[porsche1945] 16/10/2019 20:09

@ empathy...since when would you listen to a financial adviser, hopeless muppets who if they knew what they were doing would be on a yacht somewhere not driving around dreary estates in cheap cars trying to sell dogsxxt investments. You want to do better than the herd, do different from the herd.

[williamcooper104] 16/10/2019 19:34

Alas themes is the legitimate accounting rules They ought to treat such fundings as a related party transaction and ignore them Wpct is small - SoftBank are huge and have done it on an epic scale

[empathy101] 16/10/2019 14:42

Sadly I invested about 50k across his 3 funds ... thankfully it’s only a small proportion of my portfolio and I’m pretty well diversified - it has taught me a lesson though - financial advisors are adamant you shouldn’t have many funds (ie only one income fund, one small companies fund etc) .. this is a prime example of why spreading your risk makes sense ..

[andy] 16/10/2019 14:33

CAreful,

You ask a good question.


The 'NAV' was set by Woody financing these companies with a small placing at a higher price than a previous larger placing, resetting the NAV of the whole to that greater price paid for a few shares.


It's nothing short of scandalous, IMHO.

[tartshagger] 16/10/2019 14:22

Lol excellent latin EJ. I never got the hang of the declensions.....