Woodford Concerns

dividendhero

masonic wrote: »

Certainly more science behind it than one of the companies he bought.

On his blog, Woodford said of Industrial Heat (them of cold fusion fame)..

Industrial Heat has built a platform of new energy technologies focused on harnessing hitherto poorly understood or neglected energy science, including cold fusion. Despite its potentially disruptive implications, scepticism has historically surrounded this branch of science. We funded Industrial Heat to engage credible world-leading institutions to rigorously assess the claims of research groups in the field.

Not a word on either who these "credible world-leading institutions" are nor what their findings were .

Johnnyboy11

Herbalus wrote: »

Whenever I read anything by Motley Fool, I am less likely to join their share tipping service. Makes me wonder why they write such vacuous opinion pieces.

Showing my age here, but in the past (10+ years ago) Motley Fool was 100% behind passives and was dead against individual stock picking and similarly against managed funds. It had a great community forum, of which I was a member. It was bought over by some American crowd, the forum closed down, and a volte-face in favour of individual stocks. I don't believe a word that it prints.

masonic

dividendhero wrote: »

On his blog, Woodford said of Industrial Heat (them of cold fusion fame)..

Industrial Heat has built a platform of new energy technologies focused on harnessing hitherto poorly understood or neglected energy science, including cold fusion. Despite its potentially disruptive implications, scepticism has historically surrounded this branch of science. We funded Industrial Heat to engage credible world-leading institutions to rigorously assess the claims of research groups in the field.

Not a word on either who these "credible world-leading institutions" are nor what their findings were .

I've spent more time than I should, out of idle curiosity, trying to determine what if anything IH has been up to since the thoroughly debunked cold fusion experiments announced in 2016. So far I've come up with nothing. Ostensibly, they could have drawn a line under it and began building a portfolio of more credible energy technologies, but I can find no evidence of this.

AnotherJoe

bowlhead99 wrote: »

One blogger wrote in the context of the IH saga, if there is one percent chance of finding something worth a trillion dollars in the next couple of decades, you and your co-investors could have 99 attempts at that and spend ten billion between you on each attempt and still turn a profit if it pays off.

And there's the rub there's not 1% there's not 0.1%, there's zero chance of IH turning a profit .
Its a scam. Read the history of the founder and his existing convictions for scamming, , read how they've shown their supposed product, with less disclosure than Mossad.

dividendhero

AnotherJoe wrote: »

And there's the rub there's not 1% there's not 0.1%, there's zero chance of IH turning a profit .
Its a scam. Read the history of the founder and his existing convictions for scamming, , read how they've shown their supposed product, with less disclosure than Mossad.

Cold Fusion is theoretically possible by means such as muon catalysed fusion where the electron in hydrogen is replaced by a muon - but this is by no means easy, which is something of an understatement.

IH haven't even given the slightest hint of how their technology works. As you say they're a bunch of scammers and Woodford seems to be in denial that he, or rather his investors have been had :mad:

masonic

dividendhero wrote: »

Cold Fusion is theoretically possible by means such as muon catalysed fusion where the electron in hydrogen is replaced by a muon - but this is by no means easy, which is something of an understatement.

Based on current technology that just moves the energetically infeasible process upstream.

Herbalus

Johnnyboy11 wrote: »

Showing my age here, but in the past (10+ years ago) Motley Fool was 100% behind passives and was dead against individual stock picking and similarly against managed funds. It had a great community forum, of which I was a member. It was bought over by some American crowd, the forum closed down, and a volte-face in favour of individual stocks. I don't believe a word that it prints.

I agree with that. I’m 28, and started taking an interest in investments around the time of the crash. I didn’t make much headway (student finances), but I recall them being reportedly trustworthy and a good source of consumer knowledge, working for the community at large.

When I resurfaced to look at the sector some years later, the difference to their brand and content was so stark I wondered whether it was a completely different company.

talexuser

It's reported platform Fidelity will not allow purchases in Income Focus, only withdrawals!

cogito

talexuser wrote: »

It's reported platform Fidelity will not allow purchases in Income Focus, only withdrawals!

It's not clear to me why Fidelity should take it upon themselves to decide where their customers should invest their money (or not).

LHW99

Cold Fusion is theoretically possible by means such as muon catalysed fusion where the electron in hydrogen is replaced by a muon - but this is by no means easy, which is something of an understatement.

Well "normal" hot fusion isn't yet giving more energy than you put in. I would suggest that replacing the / an electron in hydrogen / deuterium by a muon is theoretically possible in the same way time that travel faster than the speed of light is theoretically possible (you only actually get a singularity in the equations at light speed). IMO its not going to happen on a timescale compatible with anyone's investment horizon.