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.
Neil Woodford makes a comeback
Comments
-
MaxiRobriguez said:Prism said:MaxiRobriguez said:Personally I think he should be in jail, not starting up another fund.
It's one thing "underperforming", it's another thing entirely roping in investors who believed they were investing in a large cap equity income fund, only for the fund to go bankrupt because the manager invested in frontier companies on the sly because it was more entertaining to do so and gave a sense of masculinity and bravado when (if!) it comes off.
If similar things (take investment, lie about what you're doing) happened in another industry and the sums were much less, then no doubt those people would end up in jail.
Anyone that invested in this fund and claims that they didn't know what it was invested in has only themselves to blame. Stick to index funds maybe.
1 -
MaxiRobriguez said:Prism said:MaxiRobriguez said:Personally I think he should be in jail, not starting up another fund.
It's one thing "underperforming", it's another thing entirely roping in investors who believed they were investing in a large cap equity income fund, only for the fund to go bankrupt because the manager invested in frontier companies on the sly because it was more entertaining to do so and gave a sense of masculinity and bravado when (if!) it comes off.
If similar things (take investment, lie about what you're doing) happened in another industry and the sums were much less, then no doubt those people would end up in jail.
Anyone that invested in this fund and claims that they didn't know what it was invested in has only themselves to blame. Stick to index funds maybe.
He could have frozen the management payments whilst the funds was in complete disarray but he chose to kept extracting that wealth from a failed fund.
The guy is a crook. There should have been regulatory lessons learned from this episode.The fascists of the future will call themselves anti-fascists.1 -
Moe_The_Bartender said:MaxiRobriguez said:Prism said:MaxiRobriguez said:Personally I think he should be in jail, not starting up another fund.
It's one thing "underperforming", it's another thing entirely roping in investors who believed they were investing in a large cap equity income fund, only for the fund to go bankrupt because the manager invested in frontier companies on the sly because it was more entertaining to do so and gave a sense of masculinity and bravado when (if!) it comes off.
If similar things (take investment, lie about what you're doing) happened in another industry and the sums were much less, then no doubt those people would end up in jail.
Anyone that invested in this fund and claims that they didn't know what it was invested in has only themselves to blame. Stick to index funds maybe.
He could have frozen the management payments whilst the funds was in complete disarray but he chose to kept extracting that wealth from a failed fund.
The guy is a crook. There should have been regulatory lessons learned from this episode.
0 -
Moe_The_Bartender said:MaxiRobriguez said:Prism said:MaxiRobriguez said:Personally I think he should be in jail, not starting up another fund.
It's one thing "underperforming", it's another thing entirely roping in investors who believed they were investing in a large cap equity income fund, only for the fund to go bankrupt because the manager invested in frontier companies on the sly because it was more entertaining to do so and gave a sense of masculinity and bravado when (if!) it comes off.
If similar things (take investment, lie about what you're doing) happened in another industry and the sums were much less, then no doubt those people would end up in jail.
Anyone that invested in this fund and claims that they didn't know what it was invested in has only themselves to blame. Stick to index funds maybe.
He could have frozen the management payments whilst the funds was in complete disarray but he chose to kept extracting that wealth from a failed fund.
The guy is a crook. There should have been regulatory lessons learned from this episode.
Linbus system, power train unit, ECU...most people can't make head nor tail of what is under the bonnet of their car.
Are you really saying if something goes wrong, it's the owner's fault?
2 -
ZingPowZing said:Moe_The_Bartender said:MaxiRobriguez said:Prism said:MaxiRobriguez said:Personally I think he should be in jail, not starting up another fund.
It's one thing "underperforming", it's another thing entirely roping in investors who believed they were investing in a large cap equity income fund, only for the fund to go bankrupt because the manager invested in frontier companies on the sly because it was more entertaining to do so and gave a sense of masculinity and bravado when (if!) it comes off.
If similar things (take investment, lie about what you're doing) happened in another industry and the sums were much less, then no doubt those people would end up in jail.
Anyone that invested in this fund and claims that they didn't know what it was invested in has only themselves to blame. Stick to index funds maybe.
He could have frozen the management payments whilst the funds was in complete disarray but he chose to kept extracting that wealth from a failed fund.
The guy is a crook. There should have been regulatory lessons learned from this episode.
Linbus system, power train unit, ECU...most people can't make head nor tail of what is under the bonnet of their car.
Are you really saying if something goes wrong, it's the owner's fault?
Much like your car example, a poor quality car from a previously decent manufacturer would be recalled and fixed but you would likely lose value on the car over time and the same manufacturer would likely try and release a new model at a later point. You don't have to buy it and in fact if the first model was seriously bad I bet very few people would.
0 -
Arguably, but Moe The Bartender is saying something else, he says it is the buyer's responsibility to look under the bonnet, check the electronics and, if it goes wrong, blame herself. If investors were held to that level of expertise, there would be no need for a list of recommendations on the Hargreaves Lansdown website, by which most private investors in Woodford were netted.
Hargreaves Lansdown has a lot to answer for for their part in the Woodford funds fiasco.0 -
There were several years of under performance before it closed and plenty of time to jump out. I sold when it was ~10% down from peak, ftse was rising during this time, other income funds were not similarly falling, stories started about money being pulled out, and analysts were openly giving sell opinions, so made 30% in three years. If you are told that funds may fall and that historic performance does not mean future performance etc, surely that is some degree of caveat emptor. The biggest reputation fail should be HL putting it in their own funds and "wealth whatever the number was at that time" up to the last minute it actually failed, but it hasn't appeared to harm them at all, and like failed politicians, Woodford keeps his head down for a time and just comes back as if nothing untoward has happened. Life is good at the top.1
-
MaxiRobriguez said:Personally I think he should be in jail, not starting up another fund.0
-
MaxiRobriguez said:Personally I think he should be in jail, not starting up another fund.0
-
Exactly the same strategy as before.
"When Woodford left Invesco and started his own firm he simply bought the same companies again, taking roughly 20% stakes in many of the same illiquid companies. He bought 30% in these companies at Invesco and 20% of these companies at his own firm. No wonder these stocks went up and no wonder his performance looked so good. Woodford managed £32bn at Invesco and £16bn at his own firm. The sheer weight of money going into the same stocks drove up their prices.
We all now know what happened when the money stopped flowing in and flowed out; the process reversed. When Woodford started selling his stakes, the hype went out of valuations and having Woodford on a shareholder register became Kryptonite to the stock price, compounding the underperformance of the fund."
The Telegraph interview (his first for years) would have been the choice of Woodford himself, and the names of the stocks he dropped into the conversation didn't happen by accident. There were tears, reportedly. Whether Woodford once more intends to circumvent regulations by listing holdings on the Guernsey Stock Exchange wasn't broached in the interview afaik.
0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454K Spending & Discounts
- 244.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.3K Life & Family
- 258.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards