Woodford Concerns

cogito

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.

But despite all their concerns, HL continued to include WEIF in their Wealth 50. Elsewhere, they say that they recommend particular funds because presented with a huge choice of funds, clients can end up making no decision at all.

That’s all right then.

Malthusian

fun4everyone wrote: »

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

The value of a commitment not to break legally binding regulations on unquoted shares in OEICs is also dubious.

If someone gives you a commitment to not do something that they know they shouldn't be doing anyway then you are being played for a mug.

dividendhero

Malthusian wrote: »

The value of a commitment not to break legally binding regulations on unquoted shares in OEICs is also dubious.

.

EU regulations no less, just the kind of "shackles from Brussells" that Brexiteers like Woodford wants to free from

Johnnyboy11

Worth pointing out that Woodford Equty Income continues to lose investors money. Today the price is 95.5p, which is about 15% lower than it was 3-months ago, and there's nothing that current investors can do. It just gets messier and messier.

MK62

dividendhero wrote: »

EU regulations no less, just the kind of "shackles from Brussells" that Brexiteers like Woodford wants to free from

Groan.....I wondered how long it would be before a Brexit angle came into the debate..:(...in any case my understanding is that under the EU Withdrawal Act, existing EU laws and regulations will be transferred over to the UK on exit day (whenever that may be), so this "shackle from Brussels" probably wouldn't go away anyway.......

Zola.

How is Woodford legally allowed to lock out the account for people to withdraw their funds?

Thrugelmir

Zola. wrote: »

How is Woodford legally allowed to lock out the account for people to withdraw their funds?

The fund needs cash to redeem the units. With insufficient liquidity. Then until realisations of assets are made the value of the fund cannot be properly ascertained. Vultures will be circling looking to peck the meat off the bones and buy assets at discounted prices.

Been issues in the past with open ended property funds. At least with IT's trading is far more orderly.

AnotherJoe

Zola. wrote: »

How is Woodford legally allowed to lock out the account for people to withdraw their funds?

Its in the small print.

Reaper

Zola. wrote: »

How is Woodford legally allowed to lock out the account for people to withdraw their funds?

Because although it might not feel like it this is actually in the interests of the investors.

With withdrawals turning into a stampede he would be compelled to sell non-liquid stocks at any price and the price he would get for them would be negligible. And it's the non-liquid ones he was compelled to sell to avoid breaching the limits.

By giving him a breathing space he can sell at more sensible prices over time.

That's not to say you won't lose money. You will. But it would have been a lot worse otherwise.

Thrugelmir

Reaper wrote: »

With withdrawals turning into a stampede he would be compelled to sell non-liquid stocks at any price and the price he would get for them would be negligible. And it's the non-liquid ones he was compelled to sell to avoid breaching the limits.

Even liquid stocks would realise lower prices. Large funds hold sizable stakes in individual companies. Building stakes time. Offloading the same.