Woodford Concerns

Reaper

It does look like Woodford's stock picking has been reckless at best. Although he claimed to thoroughly research his picks it's hard to believe.

edgex

Moe_The_Bartender wrote: »

And what's going on with Sabina Estates whose website is inaccessible except for the home page and whose accounts show next to nothing but the big cheese seems to be a long time buddy of Woodford?

https://www.sabinaibiza.com/

Well the non-execs are connected via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_Property_Group
who have developed warehousing in Russia...

but they also both have no current appointments:
Bilton https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/PSQJ9RxCy3tL45Eh58W1gChWBHs/appointments
Hirsch https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/bTPngwH8XIA5RbuipmbSy-kI998/appointments


Heres Sabina Estates
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09874234/officers

Brian65

Malthusian wrote: »

I can't really see the point of replacing Woodford and getting a new manager to - what, sell all his unlisted crap and buy large-cap equities with the handful of coppers that is left, turning WPCT into just another UK or global investment trust with an image problem and a hideous performance graph? You may as well wind the fund up.

Equally I can't see the point of sacking Woodford and getting a new manager to keep the fund as it is. It's still the same crap, only you have eliminated the rationale behind the fund, which is: Woodford's genius stockpicking + patience = moon. If you believe that WPCT's investments will eventually come good it makes no sense to sack the man who bought them.

And what are you going to pay a new fund manager with given WPCT's "fee free" structure?

It's double or quits at this point.

Well yes. Added to all that is the question of asset valuations. A new manager isn't likely to be happy with the valuations set by Woodfords chums when he dumped the stuff from the income fund into the Investment Trust. A new manager will probably want to 'kitchen sink' the valuations to give himself a chance of showing a profit. But the Trusts borrowing limits are already stretched even on current asset valuations. Then there is the cash calls from the companies held by the trust - stretch borrowing limits further.

Scarpacci

An interesting recap here if you haven't read the whole Muddy Waters case: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-07/muddy-waters-latest-short-is-woodford-holding-burford-capital?cmpid=BBD080719_CEU&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_term=190807&utm_campaign=closeeurope

It sounds like Invesco's Mark Barnett was more involved with Burford than simply buying BUR on the stock exchange.

Reed_Richards

From https://www.ft.com/content/29f4ac20-b8e9-11e9-96bd-8e884d3ea203 :

It [BUR] has also been one of Aim’s strongest performers, with its share price having previously surged more than 1,000 per cent over the past five years.

So if you bought 5 years ago and were able to get out now you would have to settle for just a 500% increase?

Malthusian

Reed_Richards wrote: »

So if you bought 5 years ago and were able to get out now you would have to settle for just a 500% increase?

Hands up everyone who bought Burford Capital shares 5 years ago when nobody had heard of it.

5 years ago BUR's trading volumes were in the low tens of thousands.

iglad

talexuser wrote: »

The Telegraph today (behind paywall) discusses the Patient Capital Trust. The manager of BMO Managed Portfolio has held it since launch (obviously at a loss) and has actually topped up since talking to Woodford. He reckoned Oxford Nanopore (DNA kits) will float, Atom bank might be bought out at a premium and Proton Partners (Cancer Treatments) will also float. He also says recent sales had not been at a discount to book value, and Patient Capital is a good investment because Woodford's name is now toxic and undervalued! Still too racy for me though...

Topped up his losses in WPCT 1 year -50-% 3 yr 55% with a discount of 50%

Moe_The_Bartender

poppy10 wrote: »

Sabina is a cash shell. Claims to be a property company but doesn't seem to actually build any properties, or do anything really other than raise millions in capital, and distribute hundreds of thousands in salaries and fees to the directors.

Even worse is Safe Harbour, started up a few years ago with a vague business plan to "buy a B2B platform." Has raised tens of millions in capital, mostly from Woodford and Barnett, but still hasn't purchased anything years later so still isn't actually doing anything. In the interim the directors have withdrawn millions in salaries and "advisory fees". It's a publicly listed company on AIM but there have been virtually no transactions in its shares, other than one curious buy order last year that was just enough to raise the share price by 10% (from 120p to 132p), exactly the amount needed to trigger a performance bonus for the directors.

Anything Woodford touches seems to be dodgy.

Sabina has now delisted from the Guernsey stock exchange worsening his breach of fund rules. This is one of his investments that really should be written down to nothing as the company doesn’t seem to do anything but pay its directors.

dividendhero

Reaper wrote: »

It does look like Woodford's stock picking has been reckless at best. Although he claimed to thoroughly research his picks it's hard to believe.

I wonder if his "research" involved a dart board, some darts and a blindfold?

masonic

dividendhero wrote: »

I wonder if his "research" involved a dart board, some darts and a blindfold?

Not a chance. Studies have time and time again shown such methods achieve better returns than can be achieved by fund managers or indexes.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/random-darts-beat-hedge-fund-stars-again-2019-06-26
https://www.stockinvestor.com/35446/beating-market-surprise-surprise-monkeys-win/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickferri/2012/12/20/any-monkey-can-beat-the-market/#51f74706630a
https://www.ft.com/content/abd15744-9793-11e2-b7ef-00144feabdc0