Woodford Patient Capital Share Discussion Threads

[spectoacc] 20/10/2019 07:43

Interesting, thanks - "..Worth anywhere between £200m & double that sum...". Wonder how that compares to NAV, and where that leaves WPCT. Guessing considerably lower.

Looking forward to the IH stake eventually going.. :)

Should be some good Sunday coverage on Woody but doubt anything new.

[jonwig] 19/10/2019 20:14

Monday, BBC1, 8:30pm. Panorama: "The Secretive World of Fund Managers". Includes Woodford.

[spikeyj] 19/10/2019 19:41

it's possible that some HL staff are now posting on threads
like this. after all, they probably have most to lose now?

(i am not suggesting that HL management are sanctioning such.)

[topvest] 19/10/2019 17:44

HL have not covered themselves in glory, that’s for sure. They are not responsible for investor losses though. Investors are responsible. They made poor decisions and have to take a loss. I’ve lost money from time to time...you win some, you lose some...but investors are to blame for their own misjudgement. It’s been pretty obvious to anyone that Woodford was a busted flush for at least 3 years. You should not be buying HL tips, but doing your own research.

[chinahere] 19/10/2019 17:41

I've read so many posts on this thread now and WPCT was a clear car-crash from years ago.

Anyone else think that discussing Woodford's defunct investments is now just a waste of their precious time?

I sadly think I'm going to un-favourite this thread now - but many thanks (most of you) for your very wise and informative posts!

[brianarthur1939] 19/10/2019 17:31

This thread stinks to high heaven. How lame was “specto’s” pathetic post.

[simon gordon] 19/10/2019 15:54

HL. sold their clients down the river by totally focusing on how much they could milk rather than putting their savings as the number one priority. They are culpable in this mess and the worst that will happen to them is new regulation against their conflict of interest:

FN News - 18/10/19:

Terry Smith renews spat with Hargreaves Lansdown

Stock picker criticises investment platform for omitting his flagship fund from its influential best-buy list

By Chris Newlands

Terry Smith, the prominent stock picker, has renewed his spat with Hargreaves Lansdown, criticising Britain’s biggest investment platform for omitting his flagship fund from its influential list of recommended products.

Smith’s attack follows intense criticism of the FTSE 100 company’s decision to continue to promote the multibillion-pound fund of Neil Woodford, the disgraced portfolio manager, right up until withdrawals from his flagship fund were blocked in June.

Woodford’s Equity Income fund, which was forced to close on Tuesday, was promoted prominently by Hargreaves in its Wealth 50 list of recommended funds, while Smith’s Equity fund – launched in 2010 – has been absent despite notching up better performance.

Smith, who called the Wealth 50 list “ironically named”, told Financial News: “Hargreaves Lansdown refused for the first three years of our fund’s life to even include it on their platform.

“They have come in for some publicity for their perhaps ironically named Wealth 50 best-buy list of funds, and we’ve never been recommended on that, but [they also] wouldn’t even allow investors to access our fund for the first three years. Why? Because our pricing structure got in the way of their own charging structure.”

Hargreaves declined to comment.

Smith’s comments were made as the fund manager last night picked up the Editor’s Choice award at FN’s annual Asset Management Awards Europe in London. His outburst follows criticisms made to the Times newspaper in January, in which he accused Hargreaves of making fund recommendations based on their potential to maximise the platform’s own profits rather than because they performed well for investors.

He said at the time: “Hargreaves Lansdown’s recommended funds continue to be chosen mainly for fund managers’ willingness to comply with a charging structure which enables Hargreaves Lansdown to maximise its own profitability.”;

[jonwig] 19/10/2019 15:03

chucko - I've concluded (unscientifically) that just one W employee visited here: 'researchanalystman'. He was, though, unattuned to the ways bulletin boards work, and his rebuttals cited stuff such as Amazon as illustrations of how startups become unicorns, etc.

I don't really care who was first to call him out: I started this thread with the possibility that I might invest, and (thanks partly to a broker's caution) decided against. Evidence that he was a wrong'un emerged, and had to overcome the prevailing view of his reputational ability.

Legal redress? Possibly HL is a target, for promoting his funds against the advice of their own risk/compliance department. Possibly the FCA for not shutting him down earlier. Possibly Link for subservience.

[spectoacc] 19/10/2019 13:40

@ltcm1 re post 10944 - not sure I know what you're talking about, I have the trolls all filtered. Surely @Johnwig hasn't made a valid point somewhere?

Different handles - no, been on ADVFN 19 years under only one. Different names on a couple of different sites mind, depending on when registered.

I didn't discover this thread until relatively recently - the real @Jonwig directed me here when we were discussing WEIF elsewhere on ADVFN.

As for "..A long time", it was in 2016, as shown by this thread (halfway down the comments - I'm "Nately" on the FT sites):


"I like Woodford, I've invested in his funds before, but for me it was all over with Stobart....Circassa another that proves it's possible for one man to have too much money to invest, as does Northwest Bio....It's all far, far too punty for me - Woodford in danger of appearing a one-trick pony whose reputation rests on his fantastic multi-year call on big tobacco & big pharma...."

Can't remember exactly when the STOB incident was but was earlier in 2016 - Fat Bloke Finance, STOB buying something from the MD, supported by Woody. I think the same MD whose court case Woody later backed (he lost).

I don't for even a moment claim to be the first to call out Woodford - on the contrary, if it was becoming clear to me in 2016, without having any money with WIM, it should surely have been apparent to many of those investing. Mind you - investing makes you blind sometimes. This was November 2016 yet could already list STOB, CIR, Northwest Bio, & IH, and performance had already turned down.

There's cheerleaders even now.

[simon gordon] 19/10/2019 12:57

Woody's 'SAS' persona is perfectly reflected in the FT piece: Boys with toys and the Ferrari, special mobile phone so he could trade whilst riding his horse, the macho office culture and his total disregard to safeguarding the savings of his investors by playing with his watch whilst this is pointed out to him in meetings.

[andy] 19/10/2019 12:37

Very enlightening, and easy to see how the disaster happened when you see how the company was structured.

[jonwig] 19/10/2019 12:29

[Gina] Miller says the Treasury select committee needs to investigate the “clear failure by the FCA under Mr Bailey”.



The FCA could have tightened the rules before the Woodford situation got out of control, but failed to act.

[skinny] 19/10/2019 06:45

An interesting insight!

"Mr Woodford’s downfall will have widespread consequences not just for the customers locked in his funds but also for the broader industry. The focus is rapidly switching to the roles played by Hargreaves Lansdown, St James’s Place, the FCA and Link". 

[jonwig] 19/10/2019 06:38

The FT's inside story of the Rise and Fall of the House of Woodford.

The Crazy Bear in Stadhampton, an hour’s drive from London, was the perfect setting to celebrate Britain’s most successful investment company launch. Garish chandeliers hung between wooden beams as guests jostled for space among the ice buckets filled with magnums of champagne. At the centre of the bar was Neil Woodford, the UK’s best-known stockpicker. By his side was Craig Newman, his ambitious business partner and minder. Giddy optimism filled the air. “Things got really out of control — people were absolutely hammered,” says one person who was there.

It was May 2014......

[pediment] 18/10/2019 23:24

Well that all went well.
100% VINDICATED.

Said it was pish and indeed it was, congratulations CB, TW and NS :-)

Ionic

[psychochomper] 18/10/2019 22:19

If Johnwig is now attempting to come across all intellectual, he has a very long journey ahead of him. You see, anyone who bought repeatedly at the prices that he claimed, albeit for mere "fun money", would do better by trying to wipe the slate clean. Somehow.

Let me offer him some advice: admit to yourself that you know nothing about the reality of what you were buying, or the reality of who was managing the assets contained within the investment, or the psychological (yet another psycho?) changes clearly being suffered by the manager, or the clear and present danger of the various fund interactions.

The danger is that without contemplating these damaging failings, he is destined to do something else really stupid. And not realise it!

[diku] 18/10/2019 21:50

Fair to say most invested here at IPO on the basis of high profile name record...