Woodford Concerns

Reaper

AnotherJoe wrote: »

That is the level that IH's "product" is at.

Its. A. Scam. Its that simple.

I don't think it's that simple. Rossi is a fraud. However I think IH was genuinely trying to make the E-cat work and they are genuinely trying other technologies too. I just wish I knew what they were in case any of them do actually have a chance of working. I don't think they are a Theranos.

Personally I suspect the long term NAV of IH will end up at zero, but through gullibility rather than fraud.

MK62

fun4everyone wrote: »

Hargreaves Lansdown now revealing some details
https://citywire.co.uk/funds-insider/news/hargreaves-we-challenged-woodford-over-unquoted-stocks-18-months-ago/a1241932

Lol, so HL were telling Neil what to do? Superstar contrarian fund manager! :rotfl:

Seems the connection between WIM and HL was very deep.

And it seems that relationship is now sour, perhaps irretrievably.

Given that it appears almost half the ownership of WEIF is via HL, it's hard to see how WEIF can come back from this.....I hope the FCA keeps a much closer eye on WEIF than they have in the past, and does not allow the fund to stay closed longer than necessary, certainly while the fee pocketing on the captive money is still going on.

fun4everyone

MK62 wrote: »

I hope the FCA keeps a much closer eye on WEIF than they have in the past.

They knew fine well what was going on years ago but chose to do nothing about it. Not regulation - just jobs for the boys doing as little as possible.

Anything they do now is just trying to look good like they are actually regulating this stuff. Shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Reaper

MK62 wrote: »

I hope the FCA keeps a much closer eye on WEIF than they have in the past, and does not allow the fund to stay closed longer than necessary, certainly while the fee pocketing on the captive money is still going on.

I suspect the FCA eye may fall more on HL. Towards the end it sounded like they had worries but did not stop recommending his fund to their customers for fear of precipitating the very thing that eventually happened, since their customers made up such a large proportion of the total.

fun4everyone

I predict minor slaps on the wrist and lots of tough sounding statements saying "lessons have been learned"

dividendhero

I suspect in a year or two they'll make a movie about this..who'll play Woodford now that Norman Wisdom is no longer alive?

dividendhero

Reaper wrote: »

I suspect the FCA eye may fall more on HL.

Suspect you're right..HL are a much softer target and have deep pockets

MK62

Reaper wrote: »

I suspect the FCA eye may fall more on HL. Towards the end it sounded like they had worries but did not stop recommending his fund to their customers for fear of precipitating the very thing that eventually happened, since their customers made up such a large proportion of the total.

Yes, I'm sure they will have a look at that too......

The FCA is apparently giving evidence to the Treasury Committee next week......and Ms Morgan will shortly have a new boss to impress......

Meanwhile this is an interesting read.......

https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/treasury/Correspondence/2017-19/Letter-from-FCA-Chief-Executive-to-Chair-re-Woodford-180619.pdf

redux

I note that the Citywire article mentioned above, and a similar one at Investment Week, besides the bits about no breach disclosures by Woodford earlier, also have a section where HL claims it asked Link for information on a couple of more recent occasions, and received no replies

https://www.investmentweek.co.uk/investment-week/news/3077603/hl-was-not-informed-of-february-2018-breaches-by-woodford

HL also emailed Link Asset Services, the authorised corporate director for the fund, in November 2018, requesting information on their valuation of the unquoted section of the portfolio and their fair value pricing process; HL followed up with Link on this issue again in March.

However, upon trying to discuss the decision to suspend the fund with Link and its approach to valuing the fund's individual provate and illiquid investments while dealing is suspended, and how they might approach reopening the fund, HL came across communication problems, saying: "To date, they have not answered these questions or our concerns."

Does this start to look like a throwing under bus competition for lawyers? At least they are defensively trying to avoid being run over.

dividendhero

HL seemed to have exposure to Woodford that was "too big to fail", I know hindsight's 20:20 and all that - but shouldn't have got themselves into this position..