New Woodford Fund

Broken_Biscuits

InvestInPoker wrote: »

I wouldn't wish that on anyone either but if it was to happen I would just switch out of his funds into something else.


Part of the problem with picking an active fund is you don't always know who is going to be in charge in 5 years time or whos performance you are looking at when you look at a lifetime graph. One of the reasons I like the Woodford fund is I believe he is in for the long haul now and wont suddenly jump ship like a lot of these guys do for whatever reason (yes I know he left IP but that was after 26 years or something like that). If you go with an active fund I believe you have to keep a close eye in case the manager you picked stops being in charge of it for whatever reason, and if that happens re-evaluate your position.

he is 55, if you have a 20 year investment plan involving Woodford, you are relying on him working into his 70s. You would have to hope the fund is not one man

le_loup

Broken_Biscuits wrote: »

he is 55, if you have a 20 year investment plan involving Woodford, you are relying on him working into his 70s.

Yes, he wanted to retire early but hasn't got enough qualifying years for a full state pension.

badger09

le_loup wrote: »

Yes, he wanted to retire early but hasn't got enough qualifying years for a full state pension.

Or hasn't made enough private pension provision :eek::rotfl:

KrytenIceCubeHead

I've been shying away from small caps. They seem to offer great results if they perform, but with a high risk. Might put a couple of K into the new Woodford fund in April, but the rest is going into low-charge ETFs. Again.

db7

Apologies if this has already been answered but if I invest via two different platforms (e.g. HL and Fidelity where I have accounts already) will this mean I have a better chance of getting a better allocation and not being scaled back so much? For example, if I wanted to invest £30k should I split it £15k in each?

steelbru

Did you get the email from HL back in Februray ?

In that they say :-

"Hargreaves Lansdown has secured a significant guaranteed allocation for the benefit of everyone who applies through us - the sole execution only broker with this guarantee. If the offer is popular, and applications are scaled back, then the guaranteed allocation will allow us to increase the number of shares our clients might otherwise receive"

If true then that would imply that it would better to apply the majority of your money via HL. Might still be worth going for a smaller amount through Fidelity, as often they give full allocation to smaller investors and scale back larger investors. So maybe something like 2 or £3,000 with Fidelity ?

Who knows, just my hypothesis on things which could be entirely wrong !

bowlhead99

steelbru wrote: »

Did you get the email from HL back in Februray ?

In that they say :-

"Hargreaves Lansdown has secured a significant guaranteed allocation for the benefit of everyone who applies through us - the sole execution only broker with this guarantee. If the offer is popular, and applications are scaled back, then the guaranteed allocation will allow us to increase the number of shares our clients might otherwise receive"

If true then that would imply that it would better to apply the majority of your money via HL.

It is impossible to say whether the 'guaranteed' allocation is a meaningful amount or whether they are really still the only execution-only broker with that, or if they ever were. Clearly it is in their interests to get the maximum number of signups, because they get paid to do that.

They are masters of spin and marketing and hence I am definitely not going to divert any money I invest into this to their platform just because they say or imply that they have a great deal for us. Take Woodford's old Inv Perp High Income fund for example. HL say it has a 5% intial charge and you can instead get an 'HL saving on initial charge of 5%' and pay only 0%. However, can you find a single other mainstream DIY (or IFA) investor platform where you pay more than 0% initial charge on that fund ...?

db7

bowlhead99 wrote: »

It is impossible to say whether the 'guaranteed' allocation is a meaningful amount or whether they are really still the only execution-only broker with that, or if they ever were. Clearly it is in their interests to get the maximum number of signups, because they get paid to do that.

They are masters of spin and marketing and hence I am definitely not going to divert any money I invest into this to their platform just because they say or imply that they have a great deal for us. Take Woodford's old Inv Perp High Income fund for example. HL say it has a 5% intial charge and you can instead get an 'HL saving on initial charge of 5%' and pay only 0%. However, can you find a single other mainstream DIY (or IFA) investor platform where you pay more than 0% initial charge on that fund ...?

I totally agree with this opinion - they certainly used to convince me they were one of the cheapest. But as this is an Investment Trust the charges won't be so different between the platforms will they?

steelbru

db7 wrote: »

I totally agree with this opinion - they certainly used to convince me they were one of the cheapest. But as this is an Investment Trust the charges won't be so different between the platforms will they?

They haven't said they'll be any cheaper, just that they would be able to allocate a higher percentage if over-subscribed.

Note I did say "If true........"

bolzano

Sorry if it is a daft question, but I was wondering where this fund will sit within people's asset allocations? Will you be putting it in under UK equities? Or keeping it as a separate category? Or something else?