Woodford Concerns

Jonbvn wrote: »

It is pure madness that HL continue to send out this marketing (junk mail) via post.

The fact HL have made so much money suggests otherwise.
If that doesn't work, what does?

bowlhead99 wrote: »

IMHO there are some interesting businesses which aren't obvious duds, even if some are very pre-revenue or even pre-product .

Yes I know you have a bee in your bonnet about Industrial Heat for example, but that doesn't mean the emperor is wearing no clothes.

My position is that IH is a clear pointer to the quality of the research into the others, hence my scepticism of them. There may be some gems there but Is there a Theranos or three in there as well? Hard to know from the outside.
At least with listed companies there's an independent arbiter for the value rather than Link with a track record of catastrophic / inept valuations ,plus it's easier to sell to the greater fool even if they really are duds.
If you take a company in this area that has a track record of this, 3i for example, their valuations I'd be happy with. WPCT was clearly a newbie at this and has come short on multiple counts. I understand the concept of taking a flyer but this is too akin to going for the unfancied runner in the 330 at Kempton for me. Good luck to you though.

Voyager2002 wrote: »

An interesting comment. I bought 3i some time ago, thinking of it as essentially an infrastructure trust (I regard wi-fi systems and mobile telephone as infrastructure rather than 'speculative technological startups). Has it changed direction since then?

I didn't mean to imply that speculative startups is what it does, more than it has had some technological focus (though it now also has what we might deem more mainstream stuff like reinsurance and a ferry company).

Woodford seems to be trying to be in even earlier, seeding research projects even before they all succeed, get going a bit and then need capital to expand, which might be a more typical time for the venture capital to come in.

arnoldy wrote: »

Yes shameful. Hargreaves have sold out of a fund they relentlessly pushed on the poverty 50 list to small investors - further compounding losses for the direct small investor.


But I'm not surprised. The game plan now is to expunge Woodford from the HL Corporate memory. Soon he will be the "Fund Manager Whose Name Cannot be Mentioned" in HL Head Office.



Any documents appertaining to the Fund-Manager-Whose-Name-Cannot-be-Mentioned will be kept in the restricted section of the HL archives.


But HL rehabilitation into civilised Society will be a long and difficult process, after this latest demonstration of their behaviours -almost simultaneously selling to clients and getting out before themselves before their direct clients.

In a year's time they will showing stats on how the then "current" Wealth 50 has done over the last 5 years without drawing attention to then forgotten Woodford fund losses.

Jonbvn wrote: »

It is pure madness that HL continue to send out this marketing (junk mail) via post. Does anyone even read it? However, our rabbits would like to thank HL for keeping them warm:p

It's a marketing channel. HL's customers are often beginner investors, those who keep meaning to start investing but never quite getting round to it. Post is a good way to get in front of people who wouldn't otherwise pay attention (either those who don't do lots of electronic communication, or a way to get the attention of those who are already overloaded by electronic media). If you already know you want an investment platform and what you want it for, you aren't HL's target market.

Post isn't cheap, but then neither are HL.