Invesco Perp High Income

artha

Does Neil Woodford know something that the rest of the world doesn't?

AS a newcomer 12 months ago I did a quick bit of research and one of the funds that I went to, based on alpha managers etc, was the title fund i chose. It is now the worst performing fund in its class. I ditched this fund fairly quickly after gaining some experience but wonder whether this fund has some mileage for accelerated gains in 2010 relative to more aggressive/cyclical funds. What do people think abouit this fund?

If you are an existing holder I can understand why you continue to hold but realistically do you think you should have switched to a fund that would have taken advantage of the recent opportunities?

Aegis

I have other funds which took advantage of the recent gains quite nicely. I've held the IP fund since before the crash, and overall it's held up very nicely by being more defensive than many of my other funds.

I continue to hold it as a hedge against further economic issues causing further drops to cyclical stocks. Woodford knows his stuff and has managed to keep a much lower level of volatility through all the troubles compared with many of his peers, and I'm happy to keep my confidence in him as a manager of part of my investment portfolio.

StevieJ

Don't understand why he ditched the 6% yield oilies, I have bought and very happy to have them in my portfolio.

atypical

StevieJ wrote: »

Don't understand why he ditched the 6% yield oilies, I have bought and very happy to have them in my portfolio.

He's explained why numerous times I think:

"When I switched out of BP to GlaxoSmithKline, I could do so on the same yield from a company that was not covering its dividend, to one that covered it two times over with cashflow."

http://www.citywire.co.uk/Personal/-/news/markets-companies-and-funds/content.aspx?ID=360268

sabretoothtigger

Good fund but lower risk reward then some people may want. I believe he has not matched the ftse 100 index recently but the ftse may be higher risk then people realise

3 years seems the lowest time frame to compare funds on. Anything less becomes more speculative and about trading then investing which is fine if thats your thing. Obviously this guy is aiming to perform well over 5 or 10 years and that means consistent gains that hold


Seems a good one to mix with emerging markets funds. Average risk would still be quite low hopefully

StevieJ

atypical wrote: »

He's explained why numerous times I think:

"When I switched out of BP to GlaxoSmithKline, I could do so on the same yield from a company that was not covering its dividend, to one that covered it two times over with cashflow."

http://www.citywire.co.uk/Personal/-/news/markets-companies-and-funds/content.aspx?ID=360268

But why does it have to be either BP or GSK, why not both, BTW I checked BP dividend cover and it is 1.88 and likely to have improved when they issue their results statement this week. Just checked and GSK is 1.82 (based on profit not cashflow which would be relevant in his calculation).

RayWolfe

Woodford's strategy is interesting.
He is renowned for not taking chances and giving a good, if unspectacular performance over the long term. He doesn't buy bubbles; he seems to always be in defensives. OK, so far so good, but, isn't that just a bit too easy. If he was REALY good, wouldn't he be buying bubbles and selling before they burst? Can't we have just a bit of the excitement?
On the other hand, I have held a substantial holding for about 10 years and he has returned 10.2% p a! So I'm lucky to have bought at the right time or he is quite good!

JamesU

artha wrote: »

Does Neil Woodford know something that the rest of the world doesn't?

It is now the worst performing fund in its class.

What do people think abouit this fund?

If you are an existing holder I can understand why you continue to hold but realistically do you think you should have switched to a fund that would have taken advantage of the recent opportunities?

The same concerns were raised some time ago on a thread, I found this article an interesting read:

http://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/InvestmentGuides/Funds/article/20100215/eedf794a-17cf-11df-b0bd-0015171400aa/On-the-defensive.jsp

JamesU

Primrose

This was one of the first funds I bought in a PEP years go and have held it ever since. Yes, there have been a few under-performing periods along the way but Neil Woodford is not a fund manager to go along with the herd and occasionally this may mean missing out on opportunities. However, I prefer to judge him on his long term track record and will cotninue to hold this fund. Investing with a manager who buys bubbles and sells before they burst would be great if we all had crystal balls, and if you want excitement in investing, there are plenty of other funds better placed to make your hair stand on end. The problem is that bubbles have a nasty habit of bursting before you expect them to so I'm happy for this proportion of my portfolio to be "the slow train" which gets me there in reasonable time, rather than the express train that crashes en route.

Jonbvn

The key is in the name of the fund. The major KPI is for income.

sabretoothtigger

RayWolfe wrote: »

Woodford's strategy is interesting.
He is renowned for not taking chances and giving a good, if unspectacular performance over the long term. He doesn't buy bubbles; he seems to always be in defensives. OK, so far so good, but, isn't that just a bit too easy. If he was REALY good, wouldn't he be buying bubbles and selling before they burst? Can't we have just a bit of the excitement?
On the other hand, I have held a substantial holding for about 10 years and he has returned 10.2% p a! So I'm lucky to have bought at the right time or he is quite good!

Buying bubbles would be trading and he is investing.
Holding an interest in a bad company because other people like it but you know its trash sounds terrible and if theres any justice would eventually turn out to be very unprofitable


10% PA would be 164% compound (much more then double) if you reinvested any dividends. If he did that over the last ten years when ftse gained little to nothing thats top class

Does Neil Woodford know something that the rest of the world doesn't?

He knows this isnt a bull market?



For a defensive fund I prefer the more exciting but probably lower performing Artemis strategic fund. Doing things like shorting Japanese gilts sounds quite extreme to me and possibly much higher performance if black swans start landing in flocks.
So far it looks like it'll gain less then 1% a month but consistency is what matters so it should be interesting