We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Woodford Concerns
Comments
-
But it looks like the highly-paid investment "experts" are still there but they are firing the tea boy and the cleaner.I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
Support staff redundancies announced at Woodford Capital. I suppose that was inevitable, carrying on after this looks unlikely unless some uber-contrarians stick with him in a much smaller fund looking for upsides from a shorting over correction.
I guess they won't need any staff to deal with redemptions any time soon..Sales staff never0 -
gadgetmind wrote: »But it looks like the highly-paid investment "experts" are still there but they are firing the tea boy and the cleaner.
I expect that the institutional and retail investors would prefer the remaining billions to be managed through the difficult financial circumstances by the investment team who now have to make their own tea, rather than have them depart and instead have the tea lady orchestrate a fire-sale process involving placings of illiquid public and private equity investments.
Yes I do get that the more fashionable response on this thread would be to say, "well I would trust the tea lady to do a better job than these muppets , hur hur". However, that's balls, as most would probably recognise.
Some people (not directed at you, Gadget) seem to be positively rubbing their hands with glee that the fund has imploded and want it to now fail hard so that they can can act outraged while patting themselves on the back that they didn't invest in it. It would be a troubling thread to come across if you had it as a large part of your portfolio.0 -
I guess there will be some who did have it as a large part of their portfolio. A few will go to the press (I think I've read some) but most will now realise they have not been wise and suffer silently.bowlhead99 wrote: »It would be a troubling thread to come across if you had it as a large part of your portfolio.
I think it is interesting that the fund size fell so much in the last year which suggests to me that very many HL customers bailed out despite the encouraging pro-Woodford noises coming from Bristol.
I'm sure HL will in due course succeed in air brushing the experience out of their investment history but in the short term I can't believe that their financial advice and "Wealth 50" part of their business will not suffer.0 -
bowlhead99 wrote: »It would be a troubling thread to come across if you had it as a large part of your portfolio.
If you had it as a large part of your portfolio it's now a much smaller part of your portfolio, hur hur. (Unless you were invested in it 100%.)
Most regulars on this forum spend a lot of time telling people not to worship at the altar of the star fund manager and usually we are only proven right in marginal, glacially slow fashion. People don't often come back to the forum and say "hey guys thanks for helping me make an extra 2% per year".
When the cult of the star fund manager goes wrong as spectacularly as this, a bit of rubbernecking is inevitable.0 -
You have star fund managers like Terry Smith and Nick Train ( neither of whose funds are in the Wealth 50 now for different reasons). The difference is that they are part of a team giving their input but Woodford had only himself to listen to.The fascists of the future will call themselves anti-fascists.0
-
0
-
Malthusian wrote: »When the cult of the star fund manager goes wrong as spectacularly as this, a bit of rubbernecking is inevitable.
Well quite, but it is important that we learn from the past. China addressed the cult of Bolton, Woodford has now gone the same way, and they really won't be the last.
Neither is spreading your money across a range of "stars" a great solution is you just end up with a high fee closet tracker.I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
Just seen a video explaining what Woodford seems to have done, which may be of help for some of you .
I hope it is allowed to add this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb3q77y1IvQI'm a retired IFA who specialised for many years in Inheritance Tax, Wills and Trusts. I cannot offer advice now, but my comments here and on Legal Beagles as Sam101 are just meant to be helpful. Do ask questions from the Members who are here to help.0 -
More problems for Woodford as his 4th largest holding is de-valued...
https://news.shack15.com/benevolent-ai-faces-valuation-plunge/0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.1K Spending & Discounts
- 244.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards