Woodford Patient Capital

JohnRo

I'd planned to top up but decided to just hold what little I have in WPCT and forget about it.

It now either recovers in some form or other or it dies, I don't care. It's become the woodford paralyzed capital trust.

Hopefully a winding up process will at least realise the current share price, ideally a lot more.

Midas

Having got in at what I thought was a low price I got out at a lower one, nursing a loss. The news about Woodford flogging his own shares and failing to report this as he should have done tipped me out. Looks like a guy trying to escape with as much cash as he can on the way out. A painful lesson for me but only a fraction of my overall portfolio, thankfully. Fortunately I also got out of WEIF before the closure and at a profit. No more Woodford for me, ever!

poppy10_2

iglad wrote: »

trump is most certainly bad for business, he's a financial anti-christ.

S&P 500 up 38% since he was elected
Unemployment 3.8%, at a 40 year low
Inflation at 1.6%

If this is the financial antichrist, how would the financial pope perform?

AnotherJoe

JohnRo wrote: »

I'd planned to top up but decided to just hold what little I have in WPCT and forget about it.

It now either recovers in some form or other or it dies, I don't care. It's become the woodford paralyzed capital trust.

Hopefully a winding up process will at least realise the current share price, ideally a lot more.

Unlikely. I reckon you'll get 50-75% current price eventually. Not NAV because that bears no relationship to reality.

bowlhead99

Midas wrote: »

The news about Woodford flogging his own shares and failing to report this as he should have done tipped me out. Looks like a guy trying to escape with as much cash as he can on the way out.

Based on the announcement by the trust, 'failing to report this as he should have done' is not quite accurate - he had no obligation or requirement as not considered a 'person discharging management responsibility' with respect to the trust under the market abuse regulations.

One might think that running the firm that acts as investment portfolio manager would constitute "power to make managerial decisions affecting the future development and business prospects of the issuer" but perhaps on a technicality it is not, and is instead simply the sort of thing investors would be very interested in, so they told the market after he told them.

The 'story' given on why he did it is something I can readily believe - he needed to get his hands on a million or so to pay a tax or other commitment which in the normal course of events he would have covered from drawing dividends from his management company; he could not sell WEIF units (if he holds any) due to suspension, and it would be imprudent for him and his fellow management company owners to draw further funds out of the manager co.

But whether or not the story is perfectly believable, the messaging around selling off £1m of shares at 30%+ discount to NAV because you don't expect the discount to unwind any time soon, is uncomfortable reading for investors.

Having got in at what I thought was a low price I got out at a lower one, nursing a loss.

I bought a few thousand shares at a few percent higher than you did, so am approaching 40% down. Like others I think the apparent discount to current reported NAV is overstated as the fair value of the underlying assets is likely lower than the 80p+ currently being reported - and I thought the same when I bought in at a price over 60p. But unlike Joe above I don't think the current 40p price will ultimately be a premium to the eventual value an investor could extract - otherwise I would sell up.

It is interesting seeing some of his WEIF holdings come down in price due to implied overhang (or shorts action) as he is a forced seller. I added to a holding of New River, and may take a look at Burford again because when I looked a while back I thought £15-20 was too expensive; there could be some upside from £5-6. Another more speculative holding I have in the litigation finance space is also down over the last week, which may be contagion from the Burford activity - so there isn't a shortage of things on my watchlist at the moment.

AnotherJoe

bowlhead99 wrote: »

Another more speculative holding I have in the litigation finance space is also down over the last week, which may be contagion from the Burford activity - so there isn't a shortage of things on my watchlist at the moment.

OK, I'm calling the authorities, someone has taken over the body of BH.

bowlhead99

AnotherJoe wrote: »

OK, I'm calling the authorities, someone has taken over the body of BH.

Litigation Capital Management, listed on AIM last year. I bought a few thousand - five months ago, at 76p - then sold half on the first day of the new tax year at 103p. After I'd got around to moving the money into my SIPP, those proceeds plus tax relief helped to fund my earlier-mentioned WPCT holding.

Litigation CM dropped to 60p briefly today mid morning which seemed overdone, and while Burford's share price ended up staying around the levels they had dropped to by 10-11am, LIT rebounded back up to 77p by end of day. As that's very similar to the price at which I first invested, I'm considering re-buying the LIT ones I had sold three months ago to take me back to my original stake and cost. Just a psychological feel-good position to be in, having banked profits along the way. However, depending what Burford price does tomorrow, there may be some value in BUR as an alternative. As mentioned, I didn't find the BUR price compelling at 1500p but at 600 it could be worth a look, especially if there is some added scrutiny from the market over their accounting methods and it doesn't cause them long term harm.

Keep_pedalling

poppy10 wrote: »

S&P 500 up 38% since he was elected
Unemployment 3.8%, at a 40 year low
Inflation at 1.6%

If this is the financial antichrist, how would the financial pope perform?

You missed out the record national dept

AnotherJoe

Just switched on the radio and caught the tail end of a bit about Muddy Waters short selling Burford. Until now I thought Muddy Waters was a blues artist, but live and learn.
I know this is the WPCT thread but it's nOT good news for anyone holding WEI. Or indeed Invesco which apparently holds 14% of Burford.

p.s. after a bit of googling, saw this response by Burford.

Burford said that it had employed IFRS accounting standards that it said were “used widely across the financial services industry”, while citing years of “clean” audit opinions from Ernst & Young. ”.

So, that would be the same Ernst & Young who gave the wholly fraudulent LC&F a clean bill of health then?


p.s. BH, I strongly suggest you read the MW report before buying Burford.

Malthusian

Keep_pedalling wrote: »

You missed out the record national dept

A further sign of the economic prosperity brought by the orange nincompoop.

My debt is also at record levels, as my income is at a record level which means that people are willing to lend me more money so I can buy a nicer house. Just like the USA's.