Woodford Concerns

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.

lon_don

Broker research on WPCT published today

https://stifel2.bluematrix.com/sellside/EmailDocViewer?encrypt=878f7dac-7bb1-4e45-927a-5d6a43c604b4&mime=PDF

AnotherJoe

Thanks.
Overly long though.
Could just have been this

Reaper

lon_don wrote: »

Broker research on WPCT published today

They say:
we calculate that as a percentage of NAV 79% is in unquoteds, 23% in "quoteds with no trading" and 17% is in quoted companies


Wow. I had no idea. Another misleading name, he should have just called it Private Equity.

AnotherJoe

Reaper wrote: »

They say:
we calculate that as a percentage of NAV 79% is in unquoteds, 23% in "quoteds with no trading" and 17% is in quoted companies


Wow. I had no idea. Another misleading name, he should have just called it Private Equity.

Down 10% this week. And nearly 20% over the last two. Given it's been bumbling along for a while at the mid to low 40's someone knows something that's not public. Yet.
My guess is one of ;
They are going to close it and sell off the assets and investors don't want their money stuck in it for a year or more while that happens.
They are going to value IH at its true worth, zero.. that alone must be 15-20% the current price because it was stated at nearly 10% NAV when the fictional NAV was set at 80-90p.
BH is selling his investment over a few days and that is depressing the price.

Moe_The_Bartender

And down another penny (2.63%] today.