ADVFN Logo ADVFN

We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.

Trending Now

Toplists

It looks like you aren't logged in.
Click the button below to log in and view your recent history.

Hot Features

Registration Strip Icon for monitor Customisable watchlists with full streaming quotes from leading exchanges, such as LSE, NASDAQ, NYSE, AMEX, Bovespa, BIT and more.

WPCT Woodford Patient Capital Trust Plc

33.60
0.00 (0.00%)
26 Jul 2024 - Closed
Delayed by 15 minutes
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 0.00% 33.60 33.55 33.90 - 0.00 01:00:00
Industry Sector Turnover Profit EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap
0 0 N/A 0

Woodford Patient Capital Share Discussion Threads

Showing 11376 to 11395 of 11725 messages
Chat Pages: Latest  457  456  455  454  453  452  451  450  449  448  447  446  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
29/10/2019
06:14
jonwig, 50%+ plus, a bummer, don't you agree?
dudishes
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.

jonwig
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
daffyjones
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.
johnwig
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.

spectoacc
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%:

jonwig
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.

spectoacc
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.)
jonwig
27/10/2019
13:54
anyone got full list of holdings
onjohn
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.

tim 3
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).

spectoacc
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."

eeza
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!

jonwig
Chat Pages: Latest  457  456  455  454  453  452  451  450  449  448  447  446  Older

Your Recent History

Delayed Upgrade Clock