Woodford apologises for performance

Zola.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/09/06/neil-woodford-right-criticised-sorry/

Another case for following the passive path and not chasing last year's fashionable star fund manager ?

bostonerimus

Woodford was the last decade's star so I can see why people would stay with him after he set up his own funds. And what if this last year is just a blip and he out performs for the next decade? Do you feel lucky.......punk

barginfinder

worth a punt - just don't put all your eggs in one basket - even a diversified one

takesyourchances

I topped up a bit as Woodford's fund dropped. I watched the HL video as well this evening with Woodford's interview.

I am going to take the passive approach with all of this news and ignore the noise around Woodfords fund and keep it in my asset allocation in my UK income section of my portfolio. Not changing anything and lets see what the next lot of years brings with it, that'll be the telling factor in time.

darkidoe

takesyourchances wrote: »

I topped up a bit as Woodford's fund dropped. I watched the HL video as well this evening with Woodford's interview.

I am going to take the passive approach with all of this news and ignore the noise around Woodfords fund and keep it in my asset allocation in my UK income section of my portfolio. Not changing anything and lets see what the next lot of years brings with it, that'll be the telling factor in time.

Sensible. Ignore the news and stick to your asset allocation.

Malthusian

Poor old Woodford. 20 years of beating the index and all the fund pickers say "invest with Woodford, he's the man for the long term". One month of losing his shirt on sub prime doorstep loans and all the fund pickers say "sell Woodford, he's a clown, he's yesterday's man".

I have no idea what the pre-season rugby analogy was supposed to be about. Mid-life crisis?

talexuser

Obviously no one remembers what is was like sticking with him through the tech boom and credit crunch.

Still, past performance is not an indicator blah blah blah.

Audaxer

This surely strengthens the argument for passive investing, as it seems from this that it is very difficult to choose active funds and managers that consistently beat the market.

talexuser

The point is he's not last years fashionable star manager, he's the last 25 years fashionable star manager. Within that time you can pick out a couple of periods where he underperformed relatively, but came back well ahead of a tracker in the end. The $64000 question is whether he can keep it up in the future, but 33% since launch and then losing 4% does not seem like the end of the world yet.

CBaker

He has underperformed the benchmark since launch. Don't compare the performance to the FTSE 100 (like a recent article) as its apples to oranges comparison. FTSE 100 performance does not include dividends. Also Woodford as a lot of large positions in illiquid biotech stocks.

bowlhead99

CBaker wrote: »

He has underperformed the benchmark since launch.

Has he? What's a suitable benchmark?

Don't compare the performance to the FTSE 100 (like a recent article) as its apples to oranges comparison.

OK, why not compare it to the IA UK equity income sector average for the time his current fund has existed.



Yeah, looks pretty terrible. Abandon hope all ye who enter here.