[ADVERT]
Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Woodford Patient Capital Trust Plc LSE:WPCT London Ordinary Share GB00BVG1CF25 ORD 1P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  0.00 0.0% 33.60 33.55 33.90 - 0.00 01:00:00
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Equity Investment Instruments 0.0 -3.8 -0.5 - 305

Woodford Patient Capital Share Discussion Threads

Showing 11101 to 11117 of 11725 messages
Chat Pages: Latest  445  444  443  442  441  440  439  438  437  436  435  434  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
18/10/2019
21:30
Ever heard of "denial"? Happens often in investing, and that does not exclude the very best. The antidote to it is wise counsel, a manageable ego and a pair of ears sending signals to a few brain cells. NW had it, to a degree, at Invesco. I would argue he had zero counsel - by his own design [inadvertently?] - at WIM. From there, the ego was fatal. In this respect, whether or not he lost a lot of his own money is immaterial. Blame lies everywhere, although one might feel sorry for those who have lost their jobs at WIM and who had no sway over the actions of their superiors. Let's see who should have spoken out or resisted but did not, or even those who did speak out but could not be heard. I know of many efforts now being considered relating to legal action against those involved. I am not a lawyer, so I cannot weigh the merits of the actions. But to This_Is_Me, you are correct in your caveat emptor characterisations of events, but retail investors sometimes are deserving of rather more than this according to the specifics of the situation. In WEIF, its description as an income fund and the implicit support by HL and WIM of that description with the opacity (to the average investor) of the WPCT/WEIF "swaps" of zero-income-producing assets (negative income, in reality) should allow some decent argument. The valuations of these assets should provide several more lines of argument, but this is useful only to the extent that there is someone with deep pockets to compensate. Only HL have these pockets, so a successful claim must need to involve them, however sinful (or not) others have been.
chucko1
18/10/2019
20:32
"He has lost more than anyone posting here." Really, gosh! he's taken some £50m in dividends from WIM over the four years and appears to be "right wadded" as we say oop north. Indeed he has lost money with his personal holdings in WPCT and WEIF, but he sold some of the former to settle a tax bill (so he says). Anyone who has a six figure tax bill is unlikely to be destitute. Most of the posters here have not lost money through investing with Mr Woodford, though some have admitted to investing via HL, who fraudulently persisted in promoting his funds for their own gain. I don't really understand your post: on the one hand you seem to be excusing W for losing a lot of money (which I've refuted I think), and on the other ... I dunno.
jonwig
18/10/2019
19:29
Specto - I must admit to thinking exactly the same as Johnwig's question. I think it is factually correct you have not been posting here for that long. Clearly you know an awful lot about this and I don't disbelieve you when you say you have been negative on Woodford for a long time. Also there isn't anything inherently dishonest about posting under more than one name, at least with the same views and opinions. It just would be good to address the question or it will rumble on ad infinitum. Or if you think the matter de minimis then please say so.
ltcm1
18/10/2019
18:32
Bet the Audi estate is an RS. £12k road bike too I believe. Oh, Neil....
spectoacc
18/10/2019
16:50
Herr red tick licker still prolific, Does he not know his master has disappeared with the fees for diabolical fund performance, Maybe playing golf with the ex HL boys? Got to be questions here, and lots of them.....
elmfield
18/10/2019
16:42
Catching up with news, the FT's Morning Quote email: Hero-to-zero fund manager Neil Woodford was keeping his head down this week after being sacked from his main (frozen) eponymous fund and resigning from the other two on Tuesday. At the industrial estate near Oxford where Woodford Investment Management is based, his Audi estate car was not in evidence on Wednesday. Nor were any of the Ferraris, Porsches or big-engined motorbikes for which he has a fondness. Instead, dozens of WIM parking places stood empty. He commented briefly on the news, speaking of the “highly painful” decision to close WIM — hence the tumbleweed car park. He nearly apologised for the collapse of his fund, misaligning its open-ended structure with illiquid investments and having unlisted holdings quoted on the Guernsey exchange and reclassified as “liquid”. But in the end he stayed unrepentant, saying only: “I personally deeply regret the impact events have had on individuals.” His team said he couldn’t say more, due to gagging restrictions from the Financial Conduct Authority, which is probing, though the idea of a gag is denied by FCA officials. Investors are certainly unamused.
jonwig
18/10/2019
16:25
IC had a few pages on Woodford but nothing new, and the usual sloppy journalism of saying BlackRock had already sold down ALM to below 5%. They haven't. Not sure why they picked on that one rather than all the rest of the "Manager transfer" RNS's.
spectoacc
18/10/2019
16:00
Yay! Be interested to know how they can get them - weren't giving advice, DYOR etc - but HL were particularly heinous, defending their Wealth50 and mailing it out the very same week WEIF gated. Also heinous: - Woodford/WIM - Link - the FCA (particularly over Guernsey) - the WPCT Board (the asset swap, gearing, commitments, not booting Woody even when the music had stopped) - BB muppets, some no doubt on the payroll, at least one posting from Oxford.. - Unthinking IFAs All IMO, of course..
spectoacc
18/10/2019
15:55
Solicitors Leigh Day confirm FT story that they are "currently investigating a potential legal claim against the investing platform Hargreaves Lansdown on behalf of investors who have lost money following the collapse of Woodford Investment Management"
cc2014
18/10/2019
15:42
Anyone who does not obey the rule of diversification in their holdings has no one to blame but themselves. At most I have 10% in any one holding and for most it is 5% max. I occasionally double up when the timing seems correct which takes them to 10%. I currently have three at 10% and all the rest at no more than 5%.
rcturner2
18/10/2019
15:41
#10930 I perceive for a number of years at the start billions (and yes I do really mean billions) was piling into WEIF every year. Even with WPCT I seem to remember NW issuing more shares at the shares were trading at a premium (I could be wrong on this it was a long time ago) I assume NW is so arrogant he saw the money inflows going on forever and the funding issues never crossed his mind.
cc2014
18/10/2019
15:37
I assume still a few nutters buying!😂
elmfield
18/10/2019
15:31
I remember it being reported here that WPCT had a classification of a 'low risk' fund by some entity, which was absurd given the makeup of it and the leverage. The part about WPCT I just can't understand is the cash management. Why didn't they keep £100m in cash to fund the next stage funding these companies would need? It does seem to me WPCT would have faced a liquidity crunch in almost all circumstances under WIM's management. Even with three successful IPO's Purp, AJ Bell and Autolus there wasn't enough cash to fund the other companies, the cash management of the fund seemed to go disasterously wrong. Perhaps this is hindsight bias but surely they should have managed it better.
ltcm1
18/10/2019
15:16
Credit where credit is due, Johnwig has not run away. Honourable. But that's the only positive. How can anyone be so boneheaded to think that each and every name he has cited above is the same person. It is as though he genuinely believes it (not convinced he does). What he might have considered is the there are several different people who individually reached the conclusion (rightly so) that WIM was a car crash, because it was bleeding obvious to the financially seasoned. In fact, I would go so far to say that you must be thick - truly moronically thick - to have read this board and deduced otherwise (i.e. no car crash). I will go further - this requires a degree of stupidity the same order of size as that required to purchase more WPCT very recently in the 40s. Oh, and in the 60s and 70s. Keep wailing, Johnwig. It makes me laugh.
psychochomper
18/10/2019
15:13
Bow Wow How !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Mi master jonwig sez johnwig is askin a v. dificult qestion. He havin a Pow Wow (geddit?) with hisself to find replie. Woof Woof happi humpin, dry off course rex t'dog
rexrandi
18/10/2019
15:09
I'm sorry to hear Timnet. We know there are very many PI's like yourself who have been caught up in this. Woodford has acted pretty poorly and make some bad decisions but there's a difference between making bad decisions and making illegal ones. His saving may actually be that unlike other fund managers he published his holdings in full every month. It cannot be argued his investors did not know what we was doing, unlike other funds were you can only access this every 6 months. The question is "who is any class action going to be taken against"? If the answer is WIM (Woodford Investment Management) I suspect once they have finished the 3 months for WIFF and WPCT, there will be no assets in WIM. The running costs are £12m a year and they have no income, WIM will have to pay redundancies etc. OK, they used to have lots of income but I suspect it will all be gone already. In any event even if you won you'll only get say £25m out of them which is pretty much a rounding in terms of the loss to shareholders. If the answer is HL (Hargreaves Lansdown) then you are going to have to prove they were negligent in their advice. Hard to see this when everthing everywhere is covered in markets go up as well as down, PLUS they clearly stated he was a contrarian investor. The contrarian investor part probably saves them as it might as well say that losses could be significant. Your loss is in WPCT which has been open to trade at all times. Regardless of the outcome you had at all times the ability to sell. Regrettably any class action or otherwise will require you to say what you did to mitigate your loss and what your opportunities to do so were. I can see that there are some arguments that Woodford has acted inappropriately. The WEIF/WPCT switch (which seems to have benefitted WEIF so maybe you don't want to bring that one up), the Guernsey listings, but again the FCA have said they see that as irregular but don't go as far as to say illegal. Once again, sorry to hear.
cc2014
18/10/2019
14:04
SpectoAcc Clearly you're a wiser investing head than me! .......might also be interesting to see if Woodford, WEIF, Link or WIM lent stock in WPCT to the market for short selling purposes - tempting as a nice not-so-little earner - but the height of hypocricy if it could be proved.
timnet
Chat Pages: Latest  445  444  443  442  441  440  439  438  437  436  435  434  Older
ADVFN Advertorial
Your Recent History
LSE
WPCT
Woodford P..
Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P: V: D:20211026 22:02:23