Woodford Concerns

arnoldy

This doesn't look good:


https://www.standard.co.uk/business/jim-armitage-link-went-missing-on-its-job-to-watch-over-woodford-equity-income-fund-s-behaviour-a4162286.html

itwasntme001

Brian65 wrote: »

Warren Buffet does not appear like that to me.
He hasn't done so well of late, but that may be because his funds have got too big to find decent opportunities for.

Buffet actually has a good level of skill proved by his historical performance. His "mean" is way above the average investor whilst Woodford's "mean" is actually worse then a passive index investor!!

Thrugelmir

itwasntme001 wrote: »

Buffet actually has a good level of skill proved by his historical performance. His "mean" is way above the average investor whilst Woodford's "mean" is actually worse then a passive index investor!!

BH has lagged behind the performance of the S&P500 (with dividends reinvested ) since Oct 2008.

cogito

Thrugelmir wrote: »

BH has lagged behind the performance of the S&P500 (with dividends reinvested ) since Oct 2008.

That's because until he bought Amazon last month, Buffett didn’t invest in any of the FAANGS. Most of the S&P gains have been in the tech sector.

Brian65

itwasntme001 wrote: »

Buffet actually has a good level of skill proved by his historical performance. His "mean" is way above the average investor whilst Woodford's "mean" is actually worse then a passive index investor!!

As always it depends where you draw the start and finish lines.
If you take Woodfords record from the very beginning since he worked at Invesco he has still done very well.
Wheras if you take it since he started on his own, he hasn't.
Which makes me wonder if the real talent came from others at Invesco that Woodford was taking the credit for?

dividendhero

The limit of open funds having no mare than 10% of assets in unquoted shares is an EU directive, UCITS II. Is this an example of "bonkers rules from Brussels" that Brexiteers like Neil Woodford want us to jettison once free of EU shackles?

arnoldy

dividendhero wrote: »

The limit of open funds having no mare than 10% of assets in unquoted shares is an EU directive, UCITS II. Is this an example of "bonkers rules from Brussels" that Brexiteers like Neil Woodford want us to jettison once free of EU shackles?

Thanks for the origin of the 10% rule. Does that mean that some of the Hargreaves Landsdown Multi Manager Funds are now in breach of the directives? If so how can they continue trading on Monday. How can the FCA allow new investors to buy into the HL MM funds affected - if the whole thing then blows up because of the high proportion of untradeable assets? Many are saying WEIF might be untadeable until Christmas/2020. For some of the Fund of Funds holding Woodford that will be like the Financial equivalent of the Batan death march.


I note that WEIF is now down to 95-96p. Before the unlisted assests have been sold for gawd knows what price.


Remember it was the tolerance to the bending of guidelines where Woodford was allowed to go well, well, above 10% that lead to the current disaster - not just for HL/Woodford but thousands of ordinary investors.


Take a gander at the Times today about some some of the Corporate Behaviours/Fees. You'll need to hold your nose though.

MK62

arnoldy wrote: »

Thanks for the origin of the 10% rule. Does that mean that some of the Hargreaves Landsdown Multi Manager Funds are now in breach of the directives? If so how can they continue trading on Monday. How can the FCA allow new investors to buy into the HL MM funds affected - if the whole thing then blows up because of the high proportion of untradeable assets?

If WEIF has an 18% exposure to unlisted companies, and a MM fund has a 15% exposure to WEIF, then that MM fund has an overall 2.7% exposure to the unlisted companies in WEIF.......way below the 10% directive (assuming no other unlisted holdings of course).

However, that 18% figure of WEIF's exposure to unlisted companies is based on the valuations of those unlisted company holdings before all this blew up......the figure is probably inaccurate now, and likely to be lower.

One of the problems now, is that the press might whip up the fear level to a point where it may become hard for WEIF to open again......the possible stampede for the exit door might make any semblance of normal OEIC fund workings impossible, at least for now anyway.

I expect when it does open again though, that there may be a significant penalty to those wishing to exit, in the form of a dilution adjustment.......hello haircut, so to speak.....:(

arnoldy

I expect when it does open again though, that there may be a significant penalty to those wishing to exit, in the form of a dilution adjustment.......hello haircut, so to speak.....:([/QUOTE]


But that's exactly why holders of HL MM with big WEIF exposure will run to certainty and sell.

redux

Brian65 wrote: »

Wheras if you take it since he started on his own, he hasn't.
Which makes me wonder if the real talent came from others at Invesco that Woodford was taking the credit for?

Or conversely, whether his decision to strike out on his own was due to what he regarded as constraints imposed by other influences in the firm, and we might now wonder whether some of those were do with governance rules or standards.

He's been stepping sideways around the rules for some time, such as all the swaps and the Guernsey listing. Would Invesco Perpetual, later just Invesco, have indulged such stunts?