Woodford Concerns

Thrugelmir

What's the modern theory that you've adopted if value is an outdated concept of investing?

talexuser

AnotherJoe wrote: »

In 6 months there will be an interview with NW where he says if only investors had faith he would not have lost them so much money as the new management.

Well if he continued those portfolios in a virtual sense, then he would have some actual facts and graphs to prove his case, compared to the wind up payouts. Still it couldn't have happened with the withdrawals, but he could say it was all Kent Councils' fault. :rotfl:

Thrugelmir

talexuser wrote: »

but he could say it was all Kent Councils' fault. :rotfl:

Jupiter quietly pulled a billion out without causing a ripple. Rather like Northern Rock when the lions roar, the stampede for the exits starts. Makes you wonder how investors will react when something hits the global markets hard.

HardCoreProgrammer

Moe_The_Bartender wrote: »

Look at M&G Recovery (still on the HL Wealth 50 despite years of fourth quartile performance and failure to achieve its benchmark). It used to be a great fund but Tom Dobell seems to have lost it completely and stubbornly sticks to an outdated strategy. And it's not the only one.

Apologies for the rudeness, nut if anyone still thinks the Wealth 50 list is a guide to good funds, they seriously need their heads examining.

The list is full of mediocre funds and is more than than a marketing list of funds which have bent over backwards and offered "discounts" to HL.

As to Link Fund Solutions and PJT Park Hill, they don't care if investors lose their shirt. They are just selling off everything, hence no reputation to guard, no incentive to make investors stay with the fund, and no prospect of repeat business. They will do it in such a way that maximises their fees and trying to get the beat value for the assets will come way down their priorities.

AnotherJoe

HardCoreProgrammer wrote: »

As to Link Fund Solutions and PJT Park Hill, they don't care if investors lose their shirt. They are just selling off everything, hence no reputation to guard, no incentive to make investors stay with the fund, and no prospect of repeat business. They will do it in such a way that maximises their fees and trying to get the beat value for the assets will come way down their priorities.

I think LFS definitely have a reputation to protect and that's why they are gradually writing down IH rather than writing it off on one go, because if they suddenly wrote it off maybe there would be awkward questions about why they uprated it 3.5x only a year ago after previously rating it at the £32M price NW paid, rather than the £0 it was clearly worth. The second (agreeing to NW's valuation) looks like cowardice, the 3.5x looks like corruption or utter unbelievable stupidity. Not sure which is the better of the two attributes to pick.

Sailtheworld

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Yet everybody says investing is for the longer term, i.e. over 10 years. While scrunitising short term performance tables. You cannot have it both ways.

The type of person who invests in a fund because it has a star manager says they're into it for the long term but are lying to themselves - the first adverse article in the Daily Mail and they're out.

Brian65

AnotherJoe wrote: »

The back of my fag packet says there's 30-35p "real" value in it,

You can buy it for less than that now - so are you getting interested?

AnotherJoe

Brian65 wrote: »

You can buy it for less than that now - so are you getting interested?

Nope because I could easily be too high especially with the fire sale aspect reducing the notional "real" value below my fag packet ,40% below according to Link themselves I think so that makes the achievable value maybe 20p optimistically. Plus I don't day trade any more there's nothing I'd sell to buy this pile of ordure.
I see them closing it soon and giving Bowlhead two mars bars and a fiver in recompense

Thrugelmir

Sailtheworld wrote: »

The type of person who invests in a fund because it has a star manager says they're into it for the long term but are lying to themselves - the first adverse article in the Daily Mail and they're out.

The fad for Global Equities isn't going to last forever. Investing with the herd may provide reassurance. The trouble is exuberance tends to drive prices higher and higher (or funds larger and larger in size with funds to invest). When the market finally bursts it leaves investors bewildered and scrambling for the exits.

talexuser

Reports today that Barnett is under pressure from the board of Income and Growth Trust. They are in talks with Invesco Chief Investment Officer about the poor performance and suggesting measures to address the weaknesses. Presumably raises questions for Invesco about the OEICs as well.