Woodford Concerns

AnotherJoe

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The whole episode illustrates the danger of investing in open ended funds. Like a run on a bank, i.e. Northern Rock. Investors pulling out their money at the some time. Undermines the value of the underlying assets held. Book value has no bearing. It's down to what one of the circling vultures will offer you. Market makers being under no obligation to take any large amount of stock off the funds hands in a single transaction either.

But that was and has been hugely exaggerated by the preponderance of unlisted [STRIKE]dross[/STRIKE] companies within WEIF

Karatekid

AnotherJoe wrote: »

Amateur. I've lost much more than that on single share buys before now

Why didn't you exit WEIF / WPCT say a year ago when it was clear they were a disaster zone?

Amateur? Don't be a tool

Sailtheworld

itwasntme001 wrote: »

There will always be another train wreck but it probably wont happen to most people. On the whole most managed funds wont be train wrecks but they could underperform.

Paying a fund manager c1% a year for 30 years to underperform is a slow motion train wreck.

Brian65

itwasntme001 wrote: »

All this is probably why many people prefer investing in property - tracks inflation better then stocks, can use leverage, get actual income, have more control in terms of what you buy (even trackers you cant control what you own as companies grow or go bust), is illiquid so much less likely to sell based on emotions, is a real asset that you can see and touch.

Property prices have risen because of Government intervention in the housing market. How confident are you that future governments will continue to restrict supply, and subsidise demand?

Barny1979

Over £1k out of my SIPP

itwasntme001

Sailtheworld wrote: »

Paying a fund manager c1% a year for 30 years to underperform is a slow motion train wreck.

Assuming one does hold for 30 years. I would never do so personally. Managed funds should be closely monitored and when strategy changes/ fund manager retires / conviction turns out of favor, it is time to look into selling.

Sailtheworld

itwasntme001 wrote: »

Assuming one does hold for 30 years. I would never do so personally. Managed funds should be closely monitored and when strategy changes/ fund manager retires / conviction turns out of favor, it is time to look into selling.

You sell to someone who thinks it's time to buy. 50% of the people in a trade are making the wrong call.

I'm surprised that people with an investing edge are so altruistic as to pay a third party to do their investing for them.

dividendhero

ZingPowZing wrote: »

I wouldn't describe the average Woodford investor as a "rainbow chaser." His funds are rather populated with investors from the other end of the spectrum. I feel sorry for them, particularly as some seem to have been "put away" by the conservative financial house who carried their trust.

It's not libel say Hargreaves Lansdowne

Sailtheworld

itwasntme001 wrote: »

Assuming one does hold for 30 years. I would never do so personally. Managed funds should be closely monitored and when strategy changes/ fund manager retires / conviction turns out of favor, it is time to look into selling.

You sell to someone who thinks it's time to buy. 50% of the people in a trade are making the wrong call.

I'm surprised that people with an investing edge are so altruistic as to pay a third party to do their investing for them.

Prism

Sailtheworld wrote: »

You sell to someone who thinks it's time to buy. 50% of the people in a trade are making the wrong call.

Not with a fund you don't - you sell back to the fund itself. There is no other party

I'm surprised that people with an investing edge are so altruistic as to pay a third party to do their investing for them.

Because the theory is they can do it at least 1% better than I can and possibly 0.8% better than a passive fund can. Always a risk of course