Woodford Concerns

talexuser

fun4everyone wrote: »

And this article is a good one,

Nice one. I didn't realise the HL fee was now 0.5% - that's a hell of a discount. Still with HL's platform charges and the fund performance it still doesn't add up to anything worth considering.

fun4everyone

talexuser wrote: »

Nice one. I didn't realise the HL fee was now 0.5% - that's a hell of a discount. Still with HL's platform charges and the fund performance it still doesn't add up to anything worth considering.

When you look how big HL's investments are into Woodford Investment Management you can see what a bad situation this has gotten into for them.

Woodford Equity Income's 5 year figures are due out within the next few weeks. Given accumulation units have now returned 1% total, over FIVE YEARS (several of which were very good for the market in general) it's safe to say he will be bottom of the tables and nobody will put any money in now.

When you also consider all of Woodford's good/outperformance came in the first 12 months of the funds life and after that it has been dire then if you thought those figures were bad they are only going to look worse from here. He has had a large negative return since then.

When he was at Invesco he always had a tail end of unquoteds forming a small part of the portfolio with the top 10 being solid dividend payers like AstraZeneca and Imperial Brands. That strategy served him really well and although he was never going to compete with some of the racier funds one can purchase he provided solid long term returns for his investors. Woodford Equity Income started in the same way and imo it is no coincidence that that was the period where WEI provided nice returns. It was when he got arrogant about the unquoteds, did no research (Northwest Bio) and ignored warnings about crap that he bought like PFG that everything went belly up.

ironhead

fun4everyone wrote: »

Woodford Equity Income's 5 year figures are due out within the next few weeks. Given accumulation units have now returned 1% total, over FIVE YEARS (several of which were very good for the market in general) it's safe to say he will be bottom of the tables and nobody will put any money in now.

.

Morningstar is showing the price now at 99.89 - does this mean that it's now gone below the starting price nearly five years ago ? So actually minus growth now ?

fun4everyone

ironhead wrote: »

Morningstar is showing the price now at 99.89 - does this mean that it's now gone below the starting price nearly five years ago ? So actually minus growth now ?

Accumulation Units on the C class are at 101.08 so 1.08% growth over 5 years, with all dividends reinvested.

https://www.trustnet.com/factsheets/o/kebc/cf-woodford-equity-income-c-acc-gbp

That is the most common class available to retail investors (I think) but there are others, with varying different charges so there might be some small differences.

Utter horror show on the Income Focus fund, which has only been around a couple of years. Down 16% since inception

https://www.trustnet.com/factsheets/o/naoa/cf-woodford-income-focus-c-acc-gbp

MK62

fun4everyone wrote: »

Utter horror show on the Income Focus fund, which has only been around a couple of years. Down 16% since inception

The Income Focus fund has, since it's launch on 12/4/17, lost about 16%......while the Equity Income fund has lost about 24% over the same period.....even more of a horror show I'm afraid.......:(

Zola.

This just reaffirms that simple indexing is probably the best investment you can make.

talexuser

Zola. wrote: »

This just reaffirms that simple indexing is probably the best investment you can make.

Unless you've been in Fundsmith or Lindsell Train or Scottish Mortgage etc the past years that is.

Thrugelmir

talexuser wrote: »

Unless you've been in Fundsmith or Lindsell Train or Scottish Mortgage etc the past years that is.

Terry Smith couldn't replicate the same success with FEET though.

As for Scottish Mortgage. Holdings such as Tesla are let's say interesting. Likewise no one is complaining about the level of investment in the unquoted element of the portfolio. As the overall performance has been strong.

cogito

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Terry Smith couldn't replicate the same success with FEET though.

Interesting that Smith considers a 23% return over 3 years to be a failure and apologises to his investors whereas over the same period Woodford has lost 20% and continues to insist that he is doing the right things.

arnoldy

I've read the blogs and the words, and two things worry me (and this is my impression only)


1. I have the feeling there is the cult of the owner-personality going on. Do people within the Company challenge? can they disagree? is there a culture of sycophancy to NW?
2. The move from unquoted assets is cast as a response to clients. No mention of Hargreaves Landsdown pressure which many of us thought was the real reason. But the whole HL-NW thing is a sordid mess.


But hey ho time will tell, and you have to respect someone who does not hide in the pack. I hope for many of us investors things come good. 40% underperformance means 70% outperformance required to get back to whre is shoud be.