Woodford Concerns

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.

[Deleted User]

talexuser wrote: »

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.

It seems to me that there is no easy remedy for the predicament; it's not like a football club that can turn its fortunes around in a matter of months after replacing the manager.

To some extent, anyone who invests in a fund is at the mercy of its manager's "philosophy," but
I feel sorry for High Income investors; many are still there from Woodford days and rank among the most passive and patient of investors. On top of that, many of them have their investments wrapped in ISA's, and I hear that they can take up to three months to transfer out to another platform. Some are now facing an interesting choice - whether to give up their ISA status for the sake of commuting their investment at once and avoiding a potential Woodford fund fiasco, submit to Invesco's protracted transfer timeline, or sit tight.

Thrugelmir

ZingPowZing wrote: »

It seems to me that there is no easy remedy for the predicament; it's not like a football club that can turn its fortunes around in a matter of months after replacing the manager.

Paying star managers inflated salaries on the basis of hope is the problem. As with any league table. Someone is top and someone has to be bottom.

[Deleted User]

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Paying star managers inflated salaries on the basis of hope is the problem. As with any league table. Someone is top and someone has to be bottom.

If the star managers had low or no salaries, investors in Invesco Perpetual High Income would still have a problem.
So the problem for all fund investors is being a passenger. It doesn't matter if the driver is changed if the destination is the same.

iglad

WPCT is now at 29p who will buy I wonder?

Thrugelmir

iglad wrote: »

WPCT is now at 29p who will buy I wonder?

Somebody is.