Woodford Concerns

masonic

thelawnet wrote: »

No, what I meant was that your method of calculating was unnecessary, given that the % holding in Woodford is known, and it is not necessary to posit numbers of units or anything like that, as they don't affect the calculations.

Like I said, I used round numbers to simplify things and allow others to follow the illustration using mental arithmetic. You seem to have misinterpreted my theoretical calculations as being an accurate reflection of actual dealing within the funds. The whole line of discussion was theoretical, so using accurate figures would not have led to an accurate answer and only complicated matters unnecessarily. The number at the end was not relevant, just the fact that it was not zero.

Interestingly your more accurate calculation came out with almost the same result as mine (surviving investors 1.1% vs 1.3% worse off as a result of using an inflated valuation of WEIF - again, that shouldn't be taken to mean it is what will happen, investors could be better off if there are net inflows into the MM fund, and the approach used to value WEIF going forward is not known).

Btw as I perceive it the problem for sellers now is that the settlement will NOT be done at the price published , but rather at the next pricing point, by which time they could have potentially marked things down and there would be nothing you could do about it.

Not a big issue in that the MM funds are expensive anyway, so it's no bad thing to sell. But the hoped for saving might not arrive.

Yes, when trading an OEIC, you never know what price you are going to get until after committing to the deal.

I was hoping the next price point for I&G MM would be available by now, but it seems not. I'm looking forward to checking this against the figures you worked out in #252 as this should be the correct date to compare the fund to figures you added up for the underlying assets.

Zola.

Cant wait for the next HL ezine on this...

Audaxer

Retired_Minky wrote: »

A bit off topic but I’d like your advice on this.

Seeing what’s happened here with a single fund has got me worried about my own situation.

I’m 100% invested my pension in the Vanguard Life Strategy 80 fund.

Should I move my money to multiple funds to avoid a similar situation. If so how many funds do you recommend?

I’m not an active investor. I just want to put the money somewhere and forget about it. Looking to drawdown from the pension in about 10 years. Happy with a slightly higher than normal risk as I have a separate income from property portfolio that will supplement whatever I get from my pension.

Any advice from those more in the know appreciated.

I think that all your investment in a multi asset fund of passive indexes like VLS funds is a lot safer than having everything in the one active fund, whatever active fund that is. However if your VLS investment is much over £85k (the FSCS limit for investments), I would look to split between a couple of similar type multi asset funds, such as HSBC Global Strategy or L&G Multi Index funds.

Thrugelmir

fun4everyone wrote: »

Going a bit off topic here but although I certainly understand your feelings and agree with the passive philosophy in general I look at active funds in a different way.

The wind will change direction in due course. Always does. There'll be a new fad. (Well at least resurrection of an old one that few remember).

aroominyork

Evening Standard headline: "I'm sorry: fallen star Woodford in apology to furious investors", then "Stricken fund manager Neil Woodford has broken cover to apologise to investors..."

Except he hasn't apologised at all. The quote from his YouTube video (which I have not watched) says "I'm extremely sorry we've had to take this decision." So it's the weasel strategy of expressing regret for what he has had to do. Well done, Neil - salt into the wounds. We all feel for you.

PS I've now watched the video. The emotion he (twice) says that investors feel is 'frustration'. It's filmed in his (or someone's) home to look very off the cuff but clearly was carefully scripted by his PR people.

fun4everyone

St James Place has fired Neil Woodford.

https://citywire.co.uk/wealth-manager/news/sjp-fires-woodford-from-3-5-billion-fund-contract/a1236133

Wildsound

fun4everyone wrote: »

St James Place has fired Neil Woodford.

https://citywire.co.uk/wealth-manager/news/sjp-fires-woodford-from-3-5-billion-fund-contract/a1236133

You know you're in a bit of a pickle when you're being dropped by SJP for performance and management issues :rotfl:

londoninvestor

fun4everyone wrote: »

Mark Dampier (head of HL research) apparently sold £6m worth of shares last week. I have not checked the validity of this claim I just read about it but what a scam. I mean insider trading allegations never come to anything, ever but if it's true thats a ****ing scam.

EDIT : He did indeed. ****ing joke.

https://www.hl.co.uk/shares/shares-search-results/h/hargreaves-lansdown-plc-ordinary-0.4p/director-deals

I'm sure it's all going to be donated to charity - after all his sensitive conscience is on record:
https://citywire.co.uk/wealth-manager/news/woodford-needs-hargreaves-lansdown-now-more-than-ever/a1208124

Earlier this year, as the broker unveiled its revamped fund buy list, Hargreaves Lansdown research director Mark Dampier, confessed ‘I can’t sleep at night sometimes,’ adding that his team ‘agonise over things like Woodford all the time’.

Alistair31

fun4everyone wrote: »

Mark Dampier (head of HL research) apparently sold £6m worth of shares last week. I have not checked the validity of this claim I just read about it but what a scam. I mean insider trading allegations never come to anything, ever but if it's true thats a ****ing scam.

EDIT : He did indeed. ****ing joke.

https://www.hl.co.uk/shares/shares-search-results/h/hargreaves-lansdown-plc-ordinary-0.4p/director-deals

Wow !

tin586

There is a Dampier interview with Woodford on YouTube from about a year ago.
It’s a bit cringeworthy.
Will be interesting to see if HL delete it.