Woodford Concerns

Brian65

iglad wrote: »

They are lucky as the Investment trust he runs has lost almost 60% over the past 3 years.

More than rather than almost 60% when compared to a world tracker

Thrugelmir

AnotherJoe wrote: »

Fair points re holding investments so just the question why he bought a load that have gone down in value since he bought them. D

Do you know what price was paid for the shares?

Thrugelmir

Scarpacci wrote: »

I can't see any reason to expect the UK cyclical companies would hold up any better in the event of a worldwide downturn.

Banks and insurers are hardly cyclical. If anything rather boring.

AnotherJoe

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Do you know what price was paid for the shares?

I do. More than the price today, since they were bought between March and end June and over that time period they were higher than they are today. Unless Woodford got "mates rates", though the last time he did a transaction publicly he actually paid more than market price so I wouldnt count on that.

AnotherJoe

I see WPCT is up today. BH probabiy doubling down

snowqueen555

A few years ago I was close to investing, glad I didn't as the fees put me off. It is crazy how Hargreaves Lansdown heavily promoted this fund on their website, I had read somewhere that HL accounts for a huge percent of investment.

Brian65

snowqueen555 wrote: »

It is crazy how Hargreaves Lansdown heavily promoted this fund on their website

I wouldn't say 'crazy' because HL were following a policy that has given them their enviable profit margins of about 64%, way above their more responsible competitors, and made them vast amounts of money in the past. Its just that this time their luck ran out.
Reckless, Irresponsible, Unprofessional. But not Crazy?

dividendhero

Brian65 wrote: »

I wouldn't say 'crazy' because HL were following a policy that has given them their enviable profit margins of about 64%, way above their more responsible competitors, and made them vast amounts of money in the past. Its just that this time their luck ran out.
Reckless, Irresponsible, Unprofessional. But not Crazy?

HL's policy of pushing Woodford and his funds was sensible short term, crazy long term.

Yes they did make a lot of dosh on the back of Woodford, but their name has been tarnished for a long time..and there's yet to be any sort of public enquiry, who knows what'll emerge from that!

Brian65

dividendhero wrote: »

HL's policy of pushing Woodford and his funds was sensible short term, crazy long term.

HL were taking a risk by promoting dodgy funds that were a nice little earner for them. Their luck could just as well have run out in the short term, as it did in the long term.

Prism

snowqueen555 wrote: »

A few years ago I was close to investing, glad I didn't as the fees put me off. It is crazy how Hargreaves Lansdown heavily promoted this fund on their website, I had read somewhere that HL accounts for a huge percent of investment.

Although promoting and fees come have some effect on active fund selection they should not be the primary driver of anyone's eventual choice. Lots more detail to look into such as manager style, past performance during downturns, volatility, stock selections etc. After doing that I would suggest most people would have avoided Woodford funds for numerous reasons.