Woodford Concerns

itwasntme001

JohnRo wrote: »

The quote is not directly about the market or current value being rational, it's about belief in an outcome and market timing.

He may well be proved right to have chosen what he holds now at some future point in time but it doesn't look like his MO is going to get him there.

As a fund manager for a fund (especially a open ended fund), he should have understood this and realized his stocks could potentially fall as much as they did. It should be clear by now some of his picks were doomed from the start so for him its nothing to do with the Keynes quote. Its more about just simply being a very bad fund manager.

dividendhero

itwasntme001 wrote: »

It should be obvious to everyone that Woodford is finished and that is a good thing. It is a pity he was allowed to manage money to start with. At least the results show clearly he is completely incompetent.

To be fair to Woodford, he was pretty good at Invesco - but he was part of a time and subject to proper oversight. Once he struck out on his own he went rogue - can't see any of the funds recovering, he might as well come clean to investors and tell him they'll get some cash for Xmas

AnotherJoe

itwasntme001 wrote: »

But you do not know the market is being irrational. Looking at some of the companies he has invested in, the market price looks rational to me. Market in liquid securities generally is never wrong/irrational.

Looks irrational to me, since its probably around 2x where it should be on my back of a fag packet reckoning, (which is probably more space than he used to work out what to pay in the first place)


In any case, when you say the market is "never wrong" thats obviously wholly incorrect.

Unless by "generally never wrong" that's another way of saying "its sometimes very wrong"

itwasntme001

AnotherJoe wrote: »

Looks irrational to me, since its probably around 2x where it should be on my back of a fag packet reckoning, (which is probably more space than he used to work out what to pay in the first place)


In any case, when you say the market is "never wrong" thats obviously wholly incorrect.

Unless by "generally never wrong" that's another way of saying "its sometimes very wrong"

I meant generally never wrong and also just for liquid markets. Many of the companies he invested in are not liquid which i think is what you are referring to when you say they are twice as valued as they should be.

Reaper

itwasntme001 wrote: »

Are you buying because you think the investment is sound at current price levels (or lower) or are you buying purely as a punt (hope and see what happens)?

Definitely a punt. There are too many unknowns on both the downside and the upside too (rumours of hedge funds thinking of pouncing, Woodford being replaced etc).

Johnnyboy11

StellaN wrote: »

I noticed on the HL website (for the trust), that somebody bought nearly £600K worth of shares this morning, they paid 59.20

I'm still considering whether invest a small sum although I understand the problems with some of its holdings such as IH but there are a few holdings that could produce some value.

That £600k was for exactly 1 million shares. Somewhat spookily there was another purchase of exactly 1 million shares this morning, for the lesser sum of £540k. Who is the Woodford Whale?

itwasntme001

Johnnyboy11 wrote: »

That £600k was for exactly 1 million shares. Somewhat spookily there was another purchase of exactly 1 million shares this morning, for the lesser sum of £540k. Who is the Woodford Whale?

Maybe fake trades to create the illusion there is demand to buy this !!!!.

dividendhero

itwasntme001 wrote: »

Maybe fake trades to create the illusion there is demand to buy this !!!!.

Could be Woodford buying shares in the open market and then selling via dark pools, but knowing him he'll lose money dealing in his own shares

itwasntme001

dividendhero wrote: »

Could be Woodford buying shares in the open market and then selling via dark pools, but knowing him he'll lose money dealing in his own shares

hahahahaahahahahaha. i wouldn't be surprised. he is such a fool.

JohnRo

itwasntme001 wrote: »

hahahahaahahahahaha. i wouldn't be surprised. he is such a fool.

Don't be one yourself, whatever he is it's not that.