Woodford > LF Equity Income Fund > Class actions

BananaRepublic

ZingPowZing said:

Sorry to read that, Banana Republic. It wasn’t my intention to keep labouring the point but as you had quoted me in your preceding post, I felt entitled to counter.

Come to that, Sir, you may wish to reflect on what that post says about you.

After due reflection I am convinced that my post says that I am not averse to using an analogy. Did you do your homework?

[Deleted User]

BananaRepublic said:

ZingPowZing said:

Sorry to read that, Banana Republic. It wasn’t my intention to keep labouring the point but as you had quoted me in your preceding post, I felt entitled to counter.

Come to that, Sir, you may wish to reflect on what that post says about you.

 Did you do your homework?

Ah, the condescending tone, the patronising post, anyone would think Banana Republic an authentic spokesperson for the financial services industry. 
I still have homework to do in accepting people like Peter Hargreaves and Phillip Green as just guys who happen to own firms when things have gone wrong for other people. But this may help:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6ddSA9lrkc
Extra homework awaits in later series.

While it is nice for some posters to indulge their "inner billionaire" on this board, most should remember that they have more in common with a homeless person.

[Deleted User]

Still on my "homework."
Just a shout out to the board's "keyboard billionaires":
As a shareholder, Tina Green *was* entitled to a £1.2billion dividend payout from Arcadia, wasn't she?
Ian Grabiner is CEO of Arcadia. It's his fault things have gone sub-optimal for their staff, right?

MarkCarnage

Did I miss something above, or has ZingPowZing declared that he had a lengthy dispute with HL which was not upheld on review by the Ombudsman? Not that this would influence his views on the matter.....

[Deleted User]

Ah, the ad hom attack. 
Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a term that refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue. The most common form of this fallacy is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong".

Well done.

Nobody posting on this forum is impartial. Only some pretend to be.

MarkCarnage

Merely being consistent with your own position.....of criticising another for a conflict of interest. 
There was no attack, only a question as to whether you had declared that position. 
I am required to declare any conflicts of interest before giving any opinion on a matter as a pension fund trustee. Aren't you?
Disclosure: I use HL platform, I have no other financial interest in them, have criticised them for the level of fees in some circumstances, and have no financial interest in any Woodford fund as I've never held them. I have never thought his philosophy and process to be particularly robust. 

[Deleted User]

I dislike Hargreaves Lansdown. 
In particular, I dislike Peter Hargreaves.
And to be more granular, I dislike the forelock- tuggers who rush to his side. 

And to be more general, it is worth a reminder that
"Cutting your costs, fighting your corner."
refers to the consumer, not the financial services industry.

[Deleted User]

" I spent most of my career as an institutional investment manager, and latterly wider aspects of strategic pension fund management for a very large fund. Therefore, I was able to engage with my IFA  on a 'fast track' basis on some aspects of it, and was very aware of what information he would need to get the work done....and what things I needed to say"
Ninety second search on Mark Carnage profile.
See what I mean? No one is impartial. 

MarkCarnage

I fail to see your point. 
I am certainly no 'forelock tugger' for Peter Hargreaves nor his company. However, I think it is only fair and transparent to declare where you have had a previous issue. I'm also not sure what your second post is intended to add. It has nothing to do with the issue in this thread. I merely pointed out how I was aware how the system worked. Nothing to do with impartiality, particularly in relation to this. 

[Deleted User]

MarkCarnage said:

I fail to see your point. 
No he doesn't. What he hoped was other readers would not see the point and I could not articulate it. The point is this: 
Mark Carnage joined to thread to impugn my motive.
I am certainly no 'forelock tugger' for Peter Hargreaves nor his company.
Nobody said he was, so irrelevant.
However, I think it is only fair and transparent to declare where you have had a previous issue.
No, he is saying my perspective is coloured by my business with HL. Which I may not be the best person to judge but - as shown by a 90 sec search on his profile - everyone has a personal interest to promote on this board, transparent or not.
 I'm also not sure what your second post is intended to add. 
Nor yours; nor your first.
 It has nothing to do with the issue in this thread.
Ditto.

..............