Woodford fund, bizarre BBC article

masonic

coyrls said:

dunstonh said:

Middle_of_the_Road said:

dunstonh said:

MK62 said:

As it's for reference, do you have a link?

The monthly Governance reports are a service provided commercially to IFAs.   You would need an FCA number and around £3800 to get access to it.

Is this an annual cost, or a one time payment? Either way, I would imagine it's part and parcel of the costs involved in providing this service.

Its a single user annual licence.   It actually a bit more than that as its a bolt on service for other things.

Hmmm, so why would you expect a DIY investor to be aware of it's content?

I never said they would.  I was referencing it, and you need to note that it took its information from published data from the fund house.   Anyone was free to read that data and make their own mind up. 

As I've stated though, I accept that there were concerns and flags raised over WEIF before it's suspension, but it appears even the FCA were unaware of the full story then....so hardly surprising that many DIY investors were equally unaware of that full story either.

The regulator has pretty much always been behind the curve.   They knew about PPI decades before deciding to intervene.  They knew about unregulated investments but took another decade to intervene.  They knew about mini bonds but didn't want to intervene.

I think this discussion would be more convincing if investors whos IFAs didn't move them out of the Woodford fund were fully compensated because of inappropriate advice but I don't believe that was the case.  It seems perfectly possible to not DIY and to still have lost money through investing in the Woodford fund.

I cannot see how the FOS could fail to award compensation for the full losses of any advised client who was not moved out of the fund following that governance report. The adviser would probably know this and offer full compensation rather than paying a case fee on top. But the client would need to know enough to complain to the adviser.

dunstonh

masonic said:

coyrls said:

dunstonh said:

Middle_of_the_Road said:

dunstonh said:

MK62 said:

As it's for reference, do you have a link?

The monthly Governance reports are a service provided commercially to IFAs.   You would need an FCA number and around £3800 to get access to it.

Is this an annual cost, or a one time payment? Either way, I would imagine it's part and parcel of the costs involved in providing this service.

Its a single user annual licence.   It actually a bit more than that as its a bolt on service for other things.

Hmmm, so why would you expect a DIY investor to be aware of it's content?

I never said they would.  I was referencing it, and you need to note that it took its information from published data from the fund house.   Anyone was free to read that data and make their own mind up. 

As I've stated though, I accept that there were concerns and flags raised over WEIF before it's suspension, but it appears even the FCA were unaware of the full story then....so hardly surprising that many DIY investors were equally unaware of that full story either.

The regulator has pretty much always been behind the curve.   They knew about PPI decades before deciding to intervene.  They knew about unregulated investments but took another decade to intervene.  They knew about mini bonds but didn't want to intervene.

I think this discussion would be more convincing if investors whos IFAs didn't move them out of the Woodford fund were fully compensated because of inappropriate advice but I don't believe that was the case.  It seems perfectly possible to not DIY and to still have lost money through investing in the Woodford fund.

I cannot see how the FOS could fail to award compensation for the full losses of any advised client who was not moved out of the fund following that governance report. The adviser would probably know this and offer full compensation rather than paying a case fee on top. But the client would need to know enough to complain to the adviser.

You would expect any IFA using that research and due diligence company would have removed that investor following that monthly governance report.  Otherwise, what is the point of paying for it.     IFAs not using it would have to rely on their chosen supplier....if they have one.

masonic

dunstonh said:

masonic said:

coyrls said:

dunstonh said:

Middle_of_the_Road said:

dunstonh said:

MK62 said:

As it's for reference, do you have a link?

The monthly Governance reports are a service provided commercially to IFAs.   You would need an FCA number and around £3800 to get access to it.

Is this an annual cost, or a one time payment? Either way, I would imagine it's part and parcel of the costs involved in providing this service.

Its a single user annual licence.   It actually a bit more than that as its a bolt on service for other things.

Hmmm, so why would you expect a DIY investor to be aware of it's content?

I never said they would.  I was referencing it, and you need to note that it took its information from published data from the fund house.   Anyone was free to read that data and make their own mind up. 

As I've stated though, I accept that there were concerns and flags raised over WEIF before it's suspension, but it appears even the FCA were unaware of the full story then....so hardly surprising that many DIY investors were equally unaware of that full story either.

The regulator has pretty much always been behind the curve.   They knew about PPI decades before deciding to intervene.  They knew about unregulated investments but took another decade to intervene.  They knew about mini bonds but didn't want to intervene.

I think this discussion would be more convincing if investors whos IFAs didn't move them out of the Woodford fund were fully compensated because of inappropriate advice but I don't believe that was the case.  It seems perfectly possible to not DIY and to still have lost money through investing in the Woodford fund.

I cannot see how the FOS could fail to award compensation for the full losses of any advised client who was not moved out of the fund following that governance report. The adviser would probably know this and offer full compensation rather than paying a case fee on top. But the client would need to know enough to complain to the adviser.

You would expect any IFA using that research and due diligence company would have removed that investor following that monthly governance report.  Otherwise, what is the point of paying for it.     IFAs not using it would have to rely on their chosen supplier....if they have one.

Even if they didn't receive this or any other report, they had an obligation to their client to be across the information contained within.

Bostonerimus1

coyrls said:

dunstonh said:

Middle_of_the_Road said:

dunstonh said:

MK62 said:

As it's for reference, do you have a link?

The monthly Governance reports are a service provided commercially to IFAs.   You would need an FCA number and around £3800 to get access to it.

Is this an annual cost, or a one time payment? Either way, I would imagine it's part and parcel of the costs involved in providing this service.

Its a single user annual licence.   It actually a bit more than that as its a bolt on service for other things.

Hmmm, so why would you expect a DIY investor to be aware of it's content?

I never said they would.  I was referencing it, and you need to note that it took its information from published data from the fund house.   Anyone was free to read that data and make their own mind up. 

As I've stated though, I accept that there were concerns and flags raised over WEIF before it's suspension, but it appears even the FCA were unaware of the full story then....so hardly surprising that many DIY investors were equally unaware of that full story either.

The regulator has pretty much always been behind the curve.   They knew about PPI decades before deciding to intervene.  They knew about unregulated investments but took another decade to intervene.  They knew about mini bonds but didn't want to intervene.

I think this discussion would be more convincing if investors whos IFAs didn't move them out of the Woodford fund were fully compensated because of inappropriate advice but I don't believe that was the case.  It seems perfectly possible to not DIY and to still have lost money through investing in the Woodford fund.

Anyone, IFA, DIYer etc who buys into the financial delusions peddled by active managers deserves what they get - or maybe I should say don't get. The difficulty is that many financial professionals actually believe the rubbish that comes out of their mouths because of a combination of long term brainwashing and self interest so I think intent would be hard to prove. I use index funds to avoid such people and as soon as I heard about Woodford and his new fund the alarm bells went off.

dunstonh

masonic said:

dunstonh said:

masonic said:

coyrls said:

dunstonh said:

Middle_of_the_Road said:

dunstonh said:

MK62 said:

As it's for reference, do you have a link?

The monthly Governance reports are a service provided commercially to IFAs.   You would need an FCA number and around £3800 to get access to it.

Is this an annual cost, or a one time payment? Either way, I would imagine it's part and parcel of the costs involved in providing this service.

Its a single user annual licence.   It actually a bit more than that as its a bolt on service for other things.

Hmmm, so why would you expect a DIY investor to be aware of it's content?

I never said they would.  I was referencing it, and you need to note that it took its information from published data from the fund house.   Anyone was free to read that data and make their own mind up. 

As I've stated though, I accept that there were concerns and flags raised over WEIF before it's suspension, but it appears even the FCA were unaware of the full story then....so hardly surprising that many DIY investors were equally unaware of that full story either.

The regulator has pretty much always been behind the curve.   They knew about PPI decades before deciding to intervene.  They knew about unregulated investments but took another decade to intervene.  They knew about mini bonds but didn't want to intervene.

I think this discussion would be more convincing if investors whos IFAs didn't move them out of the Woodford fund were fully compensated because of inappropriate advice but I don't believe that was the case.  It seems perfectly possible to not DIY and to still have lost money through investing in the Woodford fund.

I cannot see how the FOS could fail to award compensation for the full losses of any advised client who was not moved out of the fund following that governance report. The adviser would probably know this and offer full compensation rather than paying a case fee on top. But the client would need to know enough to complain to the adviser.

You would expect any IFA using that research and due diligence company would have removed that investor following that monthly governance report.  Otherwise, what is the point of paying for it.     IFAs not using it would have to rely on their chosen supplier....if they have one.

Even if they didn't receive this or any other report, they had an obligation to their client to be across the information contained within.

Absolutely agree.    The adviser is responsible for knowing what they are advising on and takes liability for it.   That is the whole point of using one.       I had a look at some FOS decisions and it appears that early sales (pre 2017) with small weightings are getting rejected but post 2017 sales are being upheld.   

coyrls

dunstonh said:

masonic said:

dunstonh said:

masonic said:

coyrls said:

dunstonh said:

Middle_of_the_Road said:

dunstonh said:

MK62 said:

As it's for reference, do you have a link?

The monthly Governance reports are a service provided commercially to IFAs.   You would need an FCA number and around £3800 to get access to it.

Is this an annual cost, or a one time payment? Either way, I would imagine it's part and parcel of the costs involved in providing this service.

Its a single user annual licence.   It actually a bit more than that as its a bolt on service for other things.

Hmmm, so why would you expect a DIY investor to be aware of it's content?

I never said they would.  I was referencing it, and you need to note that it took its information from published data from the fund house.   Anyone was free to read that data and make their own mind up. 

As I've stated though, I accept that there were concerns and flags raised over WEIF before it's suspension, but it appears even the FCA were unaware of the full story then....so hardly surprising that many DIY investors were equally unaware of that full story either.

The regulator has pretty much always been behind the curve.   They knew about PPI decades before deciding to intervene.  They knew about unregulated investments but took another decade to intervene.  They knew about mini bonds but didn't want to intervene.

I think this discussion would be more convincing if investors whos IFAs didn't move them out of the Woodford fund were fully compensated because of inappropriate advice but I don't believe that was the case.  It seems perfectly possible to not DIY and to still have lost money through investing in the Woodford fund.

I cannot see how the FOS could fail to award compensation for the full losses of any advised client who was not moved out of the fund following that governance report. The adviser would probably know this and offer full compensation rather than paying a case fee on top. But the client would need to know enough to complain to the adviser.

You would expect any IFA using that research and due diligence company would have removed that investor following that monthly governance report.  Otherwise, what is the point of paying for it.     IFAs not using it would have to rely on their chosen supplier....if they have one.

Even if they didn't receive this or any other report, they had an obligation to their client to be across the information contained within.

Absolutely agree.    The adviser is responsible for knowing what they are advising on and takes liability for it.   That is the whole point of using one.       I had a look at some FOS decisions and it appears that early sales (pre 2017) with small weightings are getting rejected but post 2017 sales are being upheld.   

That's good to hear (I assume you mean complaints upheld).

Bostonerimus1

dunstonh said:

masonic said:

dunstonh said:

masonic said:

coyrls said:

dunstonh said:

Middle_of_the_Road said:

dunstonh said:

MK62 said:

As it's for reference, do you have a link?

The monthly Governance reports are a service provided commercially to IFAs.   You would need an FCA number and around £3800 to get access to it.

Is this an annual cost, or a one time payment? Either way, I would imagine it's part and parcel of the costs involved in providing this service.

Its a single user annual licence.   It actually a bit more than that as its a bolt on service for other things.

Hmmm, so why would you expect a DIY investor to be aware of it's content?

I never said they would.  I was referencing it, and you need to note that it took its information from published data from the fund house.   Anyone was free to read that data and make their own mind up. 

As I've stated though, I accept that there were concerns and flags raised over WEIF before it's suspension, but it appears even the FCA were unaware of the full story then....so hardly surprising that many DIY investors were equally unaware of that full story either.

The regulator has pretty much always been behind the curve.   They knew about PPI decades before deciding to intervene.  They knew about unregulated investments but took another decade to intervene.  They knew about mini bonds but didn't want to intervene.

I think this discussion would be more convincing if investors whos IFAs didn't move them out of the Woodford fund were fully compensated because of inappropriate advice but I don't believe that was the case.  It seems perfectly possible to not DIY and to still have lost money through investing in the Woodford fund.

I cannot see how the FOS could fail to award compensation for the full losses of any advised client who was not moved out of the fund following that governance report. The adviser would probably know this and offer full compensation rather than paying a case fee on top. But the client would need to know enough to complain to the adviser.

You would expect any IFA using that research and due diligence company would have removed that investor following that monthly governance report.  Otherwise, what is the point of paying for it.     IFAs not using it would have to rely on their chosen supplier....if they have one.

Even if they didn't receive this or any other report, they had an obligation to their client to be across the information contained within.

Absolutely agree.    The adviser is responsible for knowing what they are advising on and takes liability for it.   That is the whole point of using one.       I had a look at some FOS decisions and it appears that early sales (pre 2017) with small weightings are getting rejected but post 2017 sales are being upheld.   

I'm sure many sales of the Woodford fund were done on the basis of his previous success and advisory reports could easily have been dismissed as being to conservative. Indeed if the Woodford fund was a small percentage of a portfolio it can easily be argued that it was "a bit of a punt"...that seems to be the rationale for many satellite funds...or to say it differently within a well reasoned risk/return strategy. In the whole Woodford saga I don't see anyone committing fraud, just foolishness and hubris. Woodford was too full of himself and his previous success; H&L, IFAs and the DIYers believed the hype; and the IFA clients chose badly and didn't ask enough questions. People at every level are to blame.

LHW99

Bostonerimus1 said:

coyrls said:

dunstonh said:

Middle_of_the_Road said:

dunstonh said:

MK62 said:

As it's for reference, do you have a link?

The monthly Governance reports are a service provided commercially to IFAs.   You would need an FCA number and around £3800 to get access to it.

Is this an annual cost, or a one time payment? Either way, I would imagine it's part and parcel of the costs involved in providing this service.

Its a single user annual licence.   It actually a bit more than that as its a bolt on service for other things.

Hmmm, so why would you expect a DIY investor to be aware of it's content?

I never said they would.  I was referencing it, and you need to note that it took its information from published data from the fund house.   Anyone was free to read that data and make their own mind up. 

As I've stated though, I accept that there were concerns and flags raised over WEIF before it's suspension, but it appears even the FCA were unaware of the full story then....so hardly surprising that many DIY investors were equally unaware of that full story either.

The regulator has pretty much always been behind the curve.   They knew about PPI decades before deciding to intervene.  They knew about unregulated investments but took another decade to intervene.  They knew about mini bonds but didn't want to intervene.

I think this discussion would be more convincing if investors whos IFAs didn't move them out of the Woodford fund were fully compensated because of inappropriate advice but I don't believe that was the case.  It seems perfectly possible to not DIY and to still have lost money through investing in the Woodford fund.

Anyone, IFA, DIYer etc who buys into the financial delusions peddled by active managers deserves what they get - or maybe I should say don't get. The difficulty is that many financial professionals actually believe the rubbish that comes out of their mouths because of a combination of long term brainwashing and self interest so I think intent would be hard to prove. I use index funds to avoid such people and as soon as I heard about Woodford and his new fund the alarm bells went off.

I seem to remember that "Cold fusion" was something Woodford was into at one point - the point I thought to myself, stop looking and go elsewhere.

masonic

LHW99 said:

Bostonerimus1 said:

coyrls said:

dunstonh said:

Middle_of_the_Road said:

dunstonh said:

MK62 said:

As it's for reference, do you have a link?

The monthly Governance reports are a service provided commercially to IFAs.   You would need an FCA number and around £3800 to get access to it.

Is this an annual cost, or a one time payment? Either way, I would imagine it's part and parcel of the costs involved in providing this service.

Its a single user annual licence.   It actually a bit more than that as its a bolt on service for other things.

Hmmm, so why would you expect a DIY investor to be aware of it's content?

I never said they would.  I was referencing it, and you need to note that it took its information from published data from the fund house.   Anyone was free to read that data and make their own mind up. 

As I've stated though, I accept that there were concerns and flags raised over WEIF before it's suspension, but it appears even the FCA were unaware of the full story then....so hardly surprising that many DIY investors were equally unaware of that full story either.

The regulator has pretty much always been behind the curve.   They knew about PPI decades before deciding to intervene.  They knew about unregulated investments but took another decade to intervene.  They knew about mini bonds but didn't want to intervene.

I think this discussion would be more convincing if investors whos IFAs didn't move them out of the Woodford fund were fully compensated because of inappropriate advice but I don't believe that was the case.  It seems perfectly possible to not DIY and to still have lost money through investing in the Woodford fund.

Anyone, IFA, DIYer etc who buys into the financial delusions peddled by active managers deserves what they get - or maybe I should say don't get. The difficulty is that many financial professionals actually believe the rubbish that comes out of their mouths because of a combination of long term brainwashing and self interest so I think intent would be hard to prove. I use index funds to avoid such people and as soon as I heard about Woodford and his new fund the alarm bells went off.

I seem to remember that "Cold fusion" was something Woodford was into at one point - the point I thought to myself, stop looking and go elsewhere.

The bizarre thing was IH was actually one of the few positive contributors to returns in his investment trust... as long as you didn't stick around long enough for the 83% write-down at the end.

Bostonerimus1

boingy said:

Seems to me that lots of people were "in the know" for months/years before the collapse. Perhaps some of those people should have shared that knowledge.

On this board there were many pro and con voices debating Woodford well before its collapse and many were pointing out that the Woodford portfolio looked very risky. Of course the come back was always that Woodford had a track record of success and that seems to have blinded many people to the nature of the investments. I find it hard to criticize an IFA or DIYer who had a small percentage of their portfolio in Woodford even though I think such small, risky investments are silly, but anyone who invested large amounts in Woodford committed the cardinal sin of rank foolishness with a side helping of greed.