Woodford Concerns

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

bowlhead99

dividendhero wrote: »

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

ZPZ may be trying to limit how often he uses their name due to having a grudge against them and always being seen to be on their case since they were unhelpful when he was trying to do a pension transfer.

I'm not sure one would describe HL as a 'conservative financial house', they are simply a broker /fund platform with 'reassuringly expensive' pricing and a higher than average level of editorial to help you feel less intimidated by DIY investing , while also promoting their own multi manager (multi fee layer) solutions. They're not impartial because like many businesses, they have a vested interest in your buying what they would like you to buy, and if you buy advice, it won't be independent because they're not independent advisers.

Anecdotally (from IFAs here), IFAs weren't steering clients towards Woodford in recent years, while HL were. They didn't build their reputation on being 'conservative' though. I suppose we can now say for sure that they won't at some point go back to recommending WEIF... but they will still have their favourites.

AnotherJoe

Karatekid wrote: »

Amateur? Don't be a tool

That was sincerely meant in jest / to let you know others screw up as well.
My apologies if it hit a nerve.

[Deleted User]

dividendhero wrote: »

It's not libel say Hargreaves Lansdowne

Indeed, hero,Hargreaves Lansdown appear guilty of over-egging this particular pudding.

In mitigation, Hargreaves Lansdown did waive their management fees after trading in the fund was suspended on June3rd -knock yourselves out, Hargreaves Lansdown! - unfortunately Hargreaves Lansdown clients were still paying Woodford's fees through the suspension.

bowlhead himself has kindly sketched how one aspect of how Hargreaves Lansdown's relationship with the Woodford fund was a win/win for both, (#22 on the Woodford Equity income thread) but there were other "synergies", mutually beneficial to both parties if not Hargreaves Lansdown clients.

Thrugelmir

Sailtheworld wrote: »

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

Edges are generally limited to specific companies or sectors. Broader investing requires research. Research costs money (or a lot of personal time).

Moe_The_Bartender

This just in:

"Woodford Patient Capital Trust plc

Portfolio Manager

The Board of Woodford Patient Capital Trust plc (the "Company" or "WPCT") announces that, in light of recent events, Woodford Investment Management Limited ("WIM") has today served notice of termination in relation to its role as Portfolio Manager.

During its three-month notice period, WIM has committed to work collaboratively with the Board and its advisers throughout this transition period in order to protect the interests of shareholders.

The Board is in advanced discussions in relation to the ongoing management of the Company's portfolio and expects to be in a position to announce details of the new management arrangements shortly."