US based Phoenix Financial Services

bostonerimus

iglad wrote: »

A bit harsh on the Woodford investors many of whom were misled by their IFA's, also they did no research.

I’m being straight forward, there’s no room for soft peddling failure in investing. I was always dubious about Woodford because he relied too much on stock picking and too some big risks. I don’t like Fundsmith either because that relies on stock picking too.

People who give their money over to an IFA and don’t fully understand how their money is invested and the risks are foolish.

PotentialEnergy

Thankyou Aretnap for properly reading how I've run with this.

It is more the adviser in the US who is the mug, as to carry on as long as he has without giving up is amazing. But, yes, I took a risk buying a small Biotech business listed on NASDAQ.

I have just sold 60% of my holding today and it liquidated without issue and I have all my seed money back. The share price is still under 1% of its all time high in the last 15 years so it is going to be an ASOS style of story if it does take off but I'll take it as it comes.

Having been lucky to that sort of degree made me seek more thoughts/experiences on/of Phoenix.

I do thank DrSym for the Silverlaw case as my only findings had been against Phoenix's debt recovery body. I can now mention that Silverlaw one to the adviser and he may provide me with another tip. Joking of course.

What is strange with the stock concerned is its trading level. Almost every second there is a trade for 100 stocks taking place. Is it something to flag to the US Regulators as a pump/dump tactic or irregularity? Is it done to meet some criteria to be allowed to be listed on Nasdaq but stay under the radar as artificial trading to suggest greater liquidity?

Thanks for any further thoughts and I'll watch the share with interest but in the comfort my holding has essentially cost me nothing in money terms and so enjoy the ride. I realise I'm lucky in this instance!!! I try to string along cold-callers so they eventually give up but have wasted their finite time.

I just have to hope this adviser doesn't send over a !!!!! gang.

iglad

bostonerimus wrote: »

I’m being straight forward, there’s no room for soft peddling failure in investing. I was always dubious about Woodford because he relied too much on stock picking and too some big risks. I don’t like Fundsmith either because that relies on stock picking too.

People who give their money over to an IFA and don’t fully understand how their money is invested and the risks are foolish.

Nothing wrong with stock picking but you aren't comparing like with like when trying to compare Terry Smith to Neil Woodford their strategies and their funds returns are light years apart.

You must be an index devotee.

PotentialEnergy

On the Funds side, I will need to be the name of the fund "Patient" to ever respect Woodford. Seem it was his team at Invesco and mgt tolerating his contrarianship as it paid handsomely in the early noughties.
As for Fundsmith - wow - I am delighted with the Fundsmith and Smithson Fund/Trusts. FEET needs more time to see if they're up to it in the long run but wonder investor Anthony Bolton came unstuck in China. Stick with the markets you know even applies to the top fund managers.

Alexland

iglad wrote: »

Nothing wrong with stock picking but you aren't comparing like with like when trying to compare Terry Smith to Neil Woodford their strategies and their funds returns are light years apart.

Without wanting to turn every thead into an active Vs passive debate the evidence against stock picking is fairly well documented and over the long term most of these investors will underperform the market.

In terms of highly concentrated mega funds hoovering up increasing proportions of certain companies then, similar to some of Woodford's positions, it will be interesting to see how they unwind themselves after they inevitably suffer poor performance and the investors all head off to the next shiny fund.

Alex

iglad

PotentialEnergy wrote: »

On the Funds side, I will need to be the name of the fund "Patient" to ever respect Woodford. Seem it was his team at Invesco and mgt tolerating his contrarianship as it paid handsomely in the early noughties.
As for Fundsmith - wow - I am delighted with the Fundsmith and Smithson Fund/Trusts. FEET needs more time to see if they're up to it in the long run but wonder investor Anthony Bolton came unstuck in China. Stick with the markets you know even applies to the top fund managers.

Anthony Bolton had 27 years at the top with his Special Situations fund and he came a cropper in China but he was right about China and eventually at the fund did come good after he had retired.

Terry Smith is doing the business at the moment as he easily beat the trackers over 1, 3, & 5 years.

iglad

Alexland wrote: »

Without wanting to turn every thead into an active Vs passive debate the evidence against stock picking is fairly well documented and over the long term most of these investors will underperform the market.

In terms of highly concentrated mega funds hoovering up increasing proportions of certain companies then, similar to some of Woodford's positions, it will be interesting to see how they unwind themselves after they inevitably suffer poor performance and the investors all head off to the next shiny fund.

Alex

The passive is fine if you want low fees and low returns and don't actually want to do anything. You throw your money in the pot and let the algorithm take care of everything else. Nah I'll pay the extra in fees to get that return which is double or even treble any tracker. It may not last forever but if it gives me double the tracker return over 5 ir 10 years I will be very happy. Yes I will move my money tenth next best perfornimg fund, which is what active investing is about.

AnotherJoe

OP, was the company "CURE" by any chance ?

Malthusian

PotentialEnergy wrote: »

What is strange with the stock concerned is its trading level. Almost every second there is a trade for 100 stocks taking place.

Possibly the scammers trading the shares between themselves to sustain the illusion that it is a fair price at which the marks should buy the shares off them.

Is it something to flag to the US Regulators as a pump/dump tactic or irregularity?

If you are feeling public-spirited, but if any action is taken it will be long after the fact.

cogito

Alexland wrote: »

Without wanting to turn every thead into an active Vs passive debate the evidence against stock picking is fairly well documented and over the long term most of these investors will underperform the market.

In terms of highly concentrated mega funds hoovering up increasing proportions of certain companies then, similar to some of Woodford's positions, it will be interesting to see how they unwind themselves after they inevitably suffer poor performance and the investors all head off to the next shiny fund.

Alex

If Fundsmith owned 1% of every company in his fund, it would need to be several times its present size. Every single stock is highly liquid.

Any comparison with Woodford is absurd.