Woodford Patient Capital Share Discussion Threads

[porsche1945] 04/11/2019 12:24

Is this steaming pile of caap really worth anything or is it just a pigs trough of fees for Schroders now.

[my retirement fund] 04/11/2019 10:16

Incredible isn't it. Any sober village idiot knew full well IH is actually worth zero yet it takes someone with hands on authority to only just begin to spell it out to them. No wonder the share are still trading hands for stupid pie in the sky figures north of 30p.

[dr biotech] 04/11/2019 10:16

I see todays news as more of a positive than a negative. As mentioned above the value of IH was a known issue and the writedown has been on the wall for some time. The mark up on one of other unicorns shows that someone else believes in their potential. Obviously more information as to who/how much/what price would be handy.

Still wouldn't touch it with a barge pole, but its got to be one of the most interesting stocks to follow.

[cc2014] 04/11/2019 09:18

Good morning all. What we learn today is how markets move.

IH written down which anyone who had been reading this board for some time will know was certain to happen. So, no news there, nothing that should have moved the share price.

Then we have the mysterious write back of 0.7p, which is new information and should have helped the share price.

What we find out therefore is that most of the investors in this stock don't do much research, they just look at the discount to NAV and place their trades.


Anyways, the endgame is playing out and the discount to NAV is falling. As for valuation to some extent might as well use a pin or a dart as it's going to depend on how many of the unquoteds have a future without no new cash from WPCT. SpectoAcc dart board seems to have numbers between 0-20. A little harsh imho. My view is more like 15-35.

[spectoacc] 04/11/2019 08:27

I disagree @Jonwig, as you know. I don't doubt Schroders have a much better chance of getting it rolled over, on reasonable terms. But the chances of Northern Trust saying "Yeah, no problem mate, whatever write-downs and fiascos happen between now and then" are practically nil.

I expect they will roll it over, but on worse terms and for shorter duration, and subject to similar cash sweep and investment restrictions.

WPCT has a long way to go to get out of the woods - tho we should also mention this 0.7p write-back, what was that on?

[jonwig] 04/11/2019 07:40

I guess it suits Schroders to get all the downgrades away before they take over. They'll want to show improving performance from the start, narrow the discount and maybe somehow raise more equity. (And I'm sure NT have given them the nod about the overdraft.)

[spectoacc] 04/11/2019 07:31

@nw99 - OK, not "all" :)

WPCT has a "Not" Asset Value.

WEIF is a forced seller of the unicorns.

WPCT has a majority of assets in common with WEIF.

IMO WPCT NAV "0-20p".

This latest drop won't be helping January's OD renewal but hey - I'm sure Schroders will sort it.

[nw99] 04/11/2019 07:27

Not good thought we were passed the worst of the news

[spectoacc] 04/11/2019 07:25

The drip-drip-drip continues - and, as we've all been saying for yonks, will go on. How Link have been getting away with issuing a daily NAV - in the 80's when WEIF first got suspended - is beyond me.

Agree re IH, wonder what the WEIF holders will receive for their giant stake in it..

(Wouldn't rule out WPCT not falling by much - "Oh, they've kitchen-sinked it now, must be a long").

[jonwig] 04/11/2019 07:23

So if the share price falls by 5p, all the Schroders-inspired bounce will be gone.

"The rain, it raineth every day."

[jonwig] 04/11/2019 07:21

The Board of Woodford Patient Capital Trust plc has been notified by Link Fund Solutions Limited that it intends to amend the valuations of two of the Company's holdings.

The first is a downward revaluation to the Company's holding in IH Holdings International Limited (Industrial Heat) reflecting a delay in operational progress, in respect of which the Company's net asset value will reduce by approximately 5.0 pence per share.

The second is an upward revaluation to a business that had previously been written down in September 2019 due to a challenging fundraising environment. The business has since secured funding which has led to a revaluation, in respect of which the Company's NAV will increase by approximately 0.7 pence per share.

There were three AV reductions in September, one of them Benevolent AI.
The 5p drop in IH's valuation is about £45m. In the HY report, we were told that IH was carried at about £70m (9% of GAV which was £778m) and was later written down in August. My own guess it that IH is now at under £10m. (Still too high, as most here would say.)

[minerve 2] 03/11/2019 23:20

Lots of sustainable competitive advantage in mattresses. Barriers to market are f'ing huge.

🥴

[daffyjones] 03/11/2019 22:59

It is feared that many small privately owned and stock market-listed companies backed by Woodford funds will now find it impossible to raise extra cash.

Peter Sleep, a fund manager at investment firm 7IM, said: “A lot of these companies are loss making and with limited cash resources.

“And a lot of the share prices are way down, which reduces their ability to raise cash."

On Thursday, Aim-listed Xeros Technology, in which Mr Woodford owned a 33pc stake, announced plans to raise another £7m from investors at a whopping 81pc discount to its previous share price. Xeros also confirmed plans to explore a further cash injection before the end of 2020.

Another City fund manager said it was unclear who Aim-listed mattress maker Eve Sleep might turn to next, after the company relied heavily on Mr Woodford to back an emergency rights issue in January. Mr Woodford's funds own 30pc of Eve.

[jonwig] 03/11/2019 15:01

Telegraph in scathing tones:

Several of the people Telegraph Money spoke to, who are all experienced money managers, said Mr Woodford’s “lack of humility” made this point all the more important.

“These guys all have big egos,” one said. “He probably had an evangelical belief in what he was doing.”

A second said: “There was hubris here in ignoring adages such as the fact that the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.” Another said: “I think he wanted a knighthood. He wanted to retire after making Oxford [where his company is based] Britain’s Silicon Valley. It was hubris – I think his intentions were good.”

A fourth added: “When you start your own business you need humility if you are going to avoid mistakes. But his actions do not suggest humility.


A very basic rule - “Some investors want to be proved right and others want to make money.”

[minerve 2] 03/11/2019 14:49

Specto

If Corbyn gets in he isn't going to be able to build all this social housing himself. He will need certain builders to assist in his game plan. As it happens Crest Nicholson is already highly involved with local councils and housing associations in delivering such housing whether it is section 106 or intermediate. Some house builders WILL benefit. It is such a huge industry that labelling them all the same is a mistake. If I was a Persimmon shareholder I would be worried about Corbyn. As a Crest Nicholson holder certainly not. Other construction companies equally carry low risk politically because all political parties will need them such as school and hospital builders. I think Morgan Sindall is such a company that could benefit - it has run a positive balance sheet every year for the last 12 years which I think is commendable considering what is happening.

[spectoacc] 03/11/2019 14:30

@Dr B - I remember Langbar very well, bought it for the first time 15 mins before the end of what turned out to be its final day as a "quick" trade. Also lived not far from that pillock CEO. (Is "Pillock" actionable?).

Recall that the hold-outs from the settlement got far, far more money back than those of us who accepted.

As a final indignity, the cheque I finally received was drawn in such a way that my bank wouldn't at first cash it, except eventually at hefty cost.

JAG - yes, seem to recall the original one (that raised the most from shareholders) had some "issues" regarding how they spent that cash, hence the 2nd JAGAG, which in turn spawned the 3rd. "Just" couldn't make it up.

Woody so much simpler in comparison.

Telegraph seem 4 months behind this Board.

[dr biotech] 02/11/2019 20:31

Didn’t one of the Just action group allegedly embezzle some of he funds? I seem to recall it was multiple litigation. There was also the langbar fraud case that ended up in court - the activist investor that lead it also sued other advfn posters for defamation (I had a very minor role in that). I think that five or six posters paid a few thousand in compensation before the case collapsed. Two of the more interesting aspects from that trial were that some of the posters had said virtually nothing “get a life” and that bulletin defamation is more akin to slander than libel.

Unless you’ve lost tens of thousands litigation is probably only a way to lose more

[jonwig] 02/11/2019 19:04

@ Solomon - this is the introduction:

Dozens of smaller firms could be left stranded and unable to raise sufficient funds from the market following the sudden implosion of Neil Woodford’s investment empire.

A string of businesses which had relied on the fallen fund manager for investment have been stripped of a vital source of cash since Woodford's collapse last month - raising questions over how they will now fare without support from a major shareholder.

Mr Woodford's funds were heavy backers of small tech and pharmaceutical companies which rely on supportive owners as they seek to grow, often racking up heavy losses in their early years.

But what the article doesn't point out is that he was the sole funder because nobody else would touch them.

[solomon] 02/11/2019 18:58

I don't have premium access to this:

... but I can imagine what it says. It's been said in this thread several times above by the foresightful.

[daffyjones] 02/11/2019 11:40

These ambulance chasing lawyers jump on every high profile financial collapse. They just collect fees and never end up going to court.

[jonwig] 02/11/2019 11:02

The ShareSoc blog has a comment on the proposed legal action:

With the demise of the Neil Woodford’s empire and the winding up of the Woodford Equity Income Fund, investors are looking for whom to blame – other than themselves of course for investing in his funds. One target is Hargreaves Lansdown (HL.) and other fund platforms who had it on their recommended or “best buy” lists, including long after the fund’s problems were apparent. Now lawyers are only too glad to help in such circumstances and at least two firms have suggested they can assist.

One is Slater & Gordon. They say they are investigating possible claims against HL. and that “We’re concerned to establish if there was any actionable wrongdoing or conflict of interest by Hargreaves Lansdown in continuing to include Woodford funds on their ‘Best Buy’ Lists if it had concerns as to their underlying investments. We’ll also be looking at the price achieved when buying and selling instruments, such as ordinary shares, on the Hargraves Lansdown platform and whether or not this represents Best Execution”. You can register your interest here:

Another legal firm looking at such a claim is Leigh Day who say they already have 500 investors interested in pursuing a case. See for more information.

Having been involved in a number of similar legal cases in the past, my advice is that there is no harm in registering an interest but do not pay money up front and certainly not until the basis of any legal claim is clear. In addition bear in find that it would be very expensive to pursue such a claim and lawyers may be willing to do so simply in anticipation of high fees when there is no certainty of winning a case. How is the case to be financed is one question to ask? Funding such cases by private investors alone (the majority of HL. clients) is likely to be difficult so “litigation funding” is likely to be required which can be expensive and erode likely returns. Insurance to cover the risk of losing the case is also needed and expensive.
If they can establish that "Best Execution" on share trading wasn't sought, that would be a real can of worms