Woodford Concerns

barnstar2077

Brian65 wrote: »

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.

Don't you think that HL could have just picked a different fund to put in their wealth 50 and still made money? Obviously they dropped the ball, but HL don't have any reason to intentionally support an endeavour that would see it's customers upset. And even if they did have a financial incentive in the short term, the bad press would still make it not worth it. HL weren't the only people who hung around expecting things to pick up again.

AnotherJoe

Brian65 wrote: »

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.

Many people didn't think they were dodgy, many continued to have faith well after they should have bailed, (and "people" includes brokers not just the average punter, plenty of stories of them buying more as W's funds fell) its more a combination of incompetence, and face-saving in that I"m sure they thought they would come good and how embarrassing would it be to take it off the list, have a lot of their investors take their money out,and then see it rise again.


Bottom line is that their top [STRIKE]50[/STRIKE]49 (used to be 150 didnt it?) is a busted flush. Whilst you might think they would quietly drop it, I'm sure it helps their income by encouraging those who cant make a choice from all the investments and are hesitating "analysis paralysis" , to get on and spend their money.

AnotherJoe

I wonder, if WPCT closes under 40 for a few days, might it then continue to fall to the low to mid 30's? The back of my fag packet says there's 30-35p "real" value in it, I'm sure some of the cleverer analysts out there (including the shorters) have done some detailed analysis. If it hits 25p i might buy.
I also wonder just how low it has to fall for them to kick Woodford out? Or can they just not find anyone to take this poisoned chalice?

You'd think that Woodford going would give it a 10% bump (albeit probably a dead cat bounce)

MarkCarnage

Thrugelmir wrote: »

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

Jeez, are you serious?
RBS, Northern Rock equity holders to name but two might disagree with you....yes, capital adequacy rules have tightened post 2008, and depositors and bond holders are probably in a better place, but equity holders??

Some financials are pretty boring yes, but usually people like payment service providers. Banks still leverage the equity to make money.

Brian65

barnstar2077 wrote: »

Don't you think that HL could have just picked a different fund to put in their wealth 50 and still made money? .

Depends whether they got as much in kickbacks as they got from Woodford.

Brian65

AnotherJoe wrote: »

You'd think that Woodford going would give it a 10% bump (albeit probably a dead cat bounce)

Who knows what a change in sentiment would do to the share price in the short term.
The board might feel they have to be seen to be waking up and doing something. But firing Woodford is not a panacea.
A new manager would inherit all the same sh*te, know less about it, charge more in fees than Woodford, and go to the other extreme with the valuations to give themselves a chance of showing a profit. They also won't have as much incentive to get the best price, because, unlike Woodford, they can easily blame the person who overpaid for it.
Better the devil you know Perhaps?

barnstar2077

Brian65 wrote: »

Depends whether they got as much in kickbacks as they got from Woodford.

As I said, it still wouldn't make it worth doing from their point of view. Sometimes there isn't a conspiracy, sometimes there's just a few people in suits sweating and hoping it sorts itself out. They were pot committed I guess by a certain point.

cogito

MarkCarnage wrote: »

Jeez, are you serious?
RBS, Northern Rock equity holders to name but two might disagree with you....yes, capital adequacy rules have tightened post 2008, and depositors and bond holders are probably in a better place, but equity holders??

Some financials are pretty boring yes, but usually people like payment service providers. Banks still leverage the equity to make money.

The problem I have with banks and insurance companies is that their profits are largely a matter of opinion. Add to that the always present danger of yet another misselling scandal and I personally wouldn’t touch any of them with Mr Woodford’s bargepole.

LHW99

I personally wouldn’t touch any of them with Mr Woodford’s bargepole

I don't think that's long enough for me

Brian65

barnstar2077 wrote: »

As I said, it still wouldn't make it worth doing from their point of view.

Not this particular fund of course. But taking kickbacks to plug similar funds has paid off handsomely for HL.