Woodford Patient Capital Share Discussion Threads

[dudishes] 29/10/2019 06:14

jonwig, 50%+ plus, a bummer, don't you agree?

[jonwig] 29/10/2019 06:00

An IPO I was looking at (and considering buying), RTW Ventures (RTW) has had a poor reception. A life-sciences PC fund, thrown by the spectre of Woodford:



Dealings start tomorrow, USD-denominated. My point is that it will have the cash to pick up any decent stuff in the Woodford bran-tub. Will start a thread.

[daffyjones] 28/10/2019 23:00

FT suggesting Woodford and Newman extracted a further £20m in dividends from WIM over the past year, on to of the £98m they withdrew from 2014-18

[johnwig] 28/10/2019 12:01

Iknow. I think I shall airily declare (for the 100th time) that Industrial Heat is worth 2 billion.. Is that in any way a less worthy backed-up prediction?

[johnwig] 28/10/2019 12:00

Iknow. I think I shall airily declare (for the 100th time) that Industrial Heat is worth 2 billion.. Is that in any way a less worthy backed-up prediction?

[johnwig] 28/10/2019 11:53

Could he not "slot" himself? (whatever that means).

[johnwig] 28/10/2019 11:48

The ignorant, repetitive, pompous, repetitive old git has spoken. (Specto/jonwig) Therefore it must be true.

[spectoacc] 28/10/2019 09:01

@Jonwig - what I do find strange is that Woody didn't/couldn't slot Benevolent when Temasek bought in. Could he just not stomach the 50% valuation drop? Because Link were always going to reflect it in both WEIF & WPCT valuations. Or were Temasek simply not interested in buying any of his position out? ie not worth them having "cheap" shares in a cash-short co, when they could subscribe for the shares and stop them being so cash-short.

Bear in mind it's mainly the failure to realise any value at all from the unicorns/unlisteds that led to Woody's defenestration.

Waiting to be proved wrong, but makes me think the Benevolents, IH's, Atom Banks etc have precious little value, at cost to WEIF holders and great cost to WPCT holders, who aren't even going to receive what value there might be.

[jonwig] 28/10/2019 08:56

Spec - I think I'd agree with most of that. I'd want to see an 'event' of sorts which indicates the kind of tactics S will be using.

Today's trading is heavy, and looks like holders selling into strength. Incidentally, shorts have gone below 0.5%:

[spectoacc] 28/10/2019 08:39

Also - "When the facts change, I change my mind" - unlike several on here, there's been nothing about the appointment of Schroders that makes me think WPCT's NAV is suddenly anything other than the Not Asset Value it's always been. But I did start to think about what would make me change my mind:

1. A huge winner amongst the Top 6 (eg IH discovers cold fusion, lol)
2. WEIF achieve dramatically higher prices than NAV from the unicorns (seems inconceivable, but SoftBank example above)
3. A bulk sale of WPCT's holdings, leaving enough cash to repay the OD, and for Schroders to basically start again with a "new" IT
4. A kitchen-sinking and dramatic - I mean dramatic - fall in WPCT's s/p, to the point where the potential upside becomes compelling. 10p?

[spectoacc] 28/10/2019 08:33

Hadn't realised Woody had 2/3rds of Woodford Capital. Of course, if it's flush with cash, they can wind it up and take it out as a capital gain at 20% tax.

Honestly, I think Neil needs the money.

[jonwig] 28/10/2019 06:27

Former star fund manager Neil Woodford and his business partner Craig Newman reaped close to £20m in dividends in the last financial year even as the crisis at their investment house escalated, according to an FT analysis.
....
In 2016, Mr Woodford and Mr Newman restructured their business in a way that enabled them to be paid in dividends, reducing their personal tax rate.
Profits from Woodford Investment Management are transferred to a second company, Woodford Capital, of which the two men are the only directors. Mr Woodford owns two-thirds of Woodford Capital.
....
“The Woodford saga hints at a wider practical dysfunctionality across the UK’s fund management industry,” said Luke Hildyard, director at the High Pay Centre, a think-tank. “It shouldn’t be possible for directors to profit so lavishly from such disastrous performance.”

[jonwig] 27/10/2019 14:19

@ ONJohn - the HY report gives them, at 30/06. I'll help you by posting the link:

[jonwig] 27/10/2019 14:16

@ Psychochomper (moderated) - engagement with that poster is a barren exercise. Nothing he says is of value. Please don't engage with him here. (Suggest filter.)

[onjohn] 27/10/2019 13:54

anyone got full list of holdings

[tim 3] 27/10/2019 13:45

Agree with many investors complaints about the equity income fund.

Marketing it as a fund with protection of investors capital as its main priority you can understand them feeling mislead when so many high risk and unquoted companies were purchased, they are one of the last places you would put your money if you did not want your capital to be at risk.

In my opinion there is a strong case that he mislead them.

I also found the way his funds always featured so highly in HL's top lists "surprising".

Questions need to be asked.

[spectoacc] 27/10/2019 13:31

@Jonwig - one major issue with the OD will be asset coverage. Come January's renewal, what will the WPCT NAV look like? WEIF will have likely sold down the unicorns by then, and resultant valuations of IH, RUTH etc are unlikely to be pretty.

Suspect Benevolent may be OK simply because it's been written down by 50% already, presumably to the price Temasek paid, and so may find a buyer at a similar level.

Remember NT once thought they had about 5x protection - they certainly don't have that now.

(Horse trading - lol).

[eeza] 27/10/2019 12:05

"The regulator must clamp down on fund labels that are misleading. For example, where a fund suggests a focus on producing an income for investors when it is in fact heavily invested in illiquid or unquoted stocks that do not generate income (as was the case for Woodford Equity Income).

The regulator itself should be overhauled so it is ready to detect potential problems.

The rage of investors cannot be underestimated. They feel let down by a regulatory system that continues to fail to protect the consumer."

[jonwig] 27/10/2019 08:29

Spec - "Horse Trading", then! If that's how WIM conducted its business, I'm surprised it lasted so long. Not how other fund managers work!

[jonwig] 27/10/2019 08:27

If we're still pointing a finger at Schroders after "four and a half decades", we shouldn't forget Goldman Sachs and the 1929 crash. From what I can find, Schroder Wagg came through the Secondary Banking Crisis pretty well.

NT and its overdraft - I don't know how much business S and NT do together, but S in in a position to expand that, if the circumstances are right. Agreed, banks aren't always smart: Lloyds buying HBOS wasn't (though they were leaned on), and DB has never been smart!

I doubt I'll ever buy this, but it's endlessly fascinating!