Sound Energy #SOU provides an update on a potential farm-in and operational progress in Morocco Watch Now
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East and have access to Premium Chat. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Schroders will then declare what a stinking mess the fund is !
yes and terms of appointment re remuneration are interesting.
Yes, would expect a decent rise on the Schroder's news - could be great time to buy in.
Leigh Day are currently investigating a potential legal claim against Hargreaves Lansdown on behalf of investors who have lost money following the collapse of Woodford Investment Management
Been thinking about buying some of these but probably missed the bottom now.
£15.08k ..was the uncrossing trade value (16 :35:07)
£15000 invested after hours, someone must have a lot of faith or know more than everyone else, but perhaps just trying to level out and hoping it will pick up.
Then we may still be throwing good money after bad with this IT whatever we buy it at even 1p, as Toast suggests. This is a loser we are afraid to say. Just hopeful there may be something of value here. Lets see what happens with new management and we assume a new name and focus.
Better at the moment to add to our FFWD IT where there is a proven NAV nearly double the SP with some of their investments joining the Nasdaq at the end of this year or next year.
We are the same, from 42p we thought of adding to our very very small holding, as we mentioned a few days ago.
We may even see 20ps and even 10ps before it stops going down.
However as we may have said before, there must be some value in the companies they are invested in so at what point do we reinvest? If the NAV is 40p then there could be a nice profit eventually.
We were under the impression that the NAV was calculated by an independent company, but that may be a laugh.
NAV creeping down and re valuations are not frequent, some may be months old so it's a share price sub 30 soon and then 20.
I was considering a bet to buy when they are lower though if the NAV is realistic.
interesting read on woodford investments in City A M today
It was the Panorama programme on the BBC. You'll probably get it on the BBC iplayer and the conclusion was Woodford was just one of the many shoddy cowboys that has milked investors for years on end and will walk away with a nice handsome reward courtesy of all the investors he's fleeced over the years.
What was also really revealing and it all makes sense now was that the market commentator for the Daily Mail, Alex Brummer was absolutely seething and calling for Woodford's blood in a roundabout way, this after 'bigging him up' over the last three years in his personal finance section.
Everyday the Daily Mail Business on-line website used to run a story on Woodford and explained how your money could go a lot further if you invested in one of Woodford's funds, I could never get my head round it and gave up looking into it as I couldn't understand the logic here and had no idea what these companies were in which he invested.
Turns out Alex Brummer had tens of thousands invested in Woodford's ponzi scheme !
Oh dear, a market commentator talking up his own shares and now getting burned and crying wolf !
You couldn't make it up.
5eights, I only read your post now so missed the report on BBC. I didn't see anything listed in the newspaper - therefore I'd like to know what programme it was that featured Woodford and what was its conclusion.
….should be an interesting watch. We all knew these lot were a bunch of bandits and it was just a question of when, never mind FCA failings, they're not bothered and don't even try the Financial Ombudsman either they're all in it together .
Just had a browse through the Companies house website and noticed the floating loan arrangement with Northern Trust, hopefully we'll find out a bit more tonight !
Thanks...i will bear you comments in mind..
p.s I have no dog in this hunt, and i hope for your wifes sake it turns out OK (and i hope for your wifes sake she doenst listen to your discussion to buy more!!). I
believe though, for reasons I've posted previously, this stock is going to very low numbers, maybe single figures. I also believe there will be some action to get it shut this side of the New Year or just after because now Woodfords run away, there's no income to run it after his 3 month notice period ends.
So the only income can come from sales. And the only sales will be thinsg that can be sold (duh!) which means its going to be left with the absolute direst lowest value stuff. Things like IH, literally worthless junk. So there's not even hope for a 'moonshot" stock.
SO, after ist shuttered they will sell it and you'll get back dribs and dabs.
I am not contradicting **everything** here.
I am contradicting statements people make that are false, or most probably false that lead to them investing money they will lose and that may encourage others to also invest money since according to you no negativity is allowd. Though, AFAICS this is "Woodford Share Chat" not "Woodford Ra Ra Go Go Go chat".
If someone writes "I intend to buy share X because A, B & C are correct which means it will go up, are you saying its not allowed to state or even show that A,B and C are incorrect because that will hurt the feelings of, or crush the hope, of soemone who may buy it or has already bought it?
Is it not allowed to contradict someone's belief when they say that (for example) now Woodfords gone the shares will rise?
YOu dont think it will help anyone not to throw good money after bad?
You dont think it will help anyone to tell them not to remain invested as the price falls ?
No doubt back in say March when the price was in the whats 60's or 70's you'd have made the same arguments then ?
If your vision of investing is that whats gone down must go up (which seems to be about as sophisticated as your point is) then you shouldn't be investing at all.
Will you be phoning the BBC to complain about Panorama tonight? The FT for their articles on Woodford?
Do you only want a fluffy group where all comments are ra ra about how its all going to turn out OK?
Its Toast...i cant understand why you need to keep contradicting everything people say, i would suggest you are well under water here yourself.
Many people who have lost money are no doubt like my wife hoping there is a little light at the end of the tunnel however long that may be, people posting reasons why this may recover to some degree are welcome, like i said why you need to reply with in my opinion negative comments doesn't help anybody.
Do people know which companies remain in the portfolio?
When you say - "they will continue to trade and maybe do very well", look at the history of WPCT, many of the companies previously held by in WPCT actually stopped trading ! Some stopped just a few weeks after he put a large capital injection in.
And, most of the good companies there were in it have been sold in order to keep the show on the road, increasing the % of poor companies (most likely to 100% now)
You say "buying at around the bottom will see you at least double your money" but thats not based on anything than hope.
It could go to zero (not because theres absolutely no value at all in there but because the wind up costs could be larger than than the value)
If you want to pick a fallen fund, why this one? There must be many others. Whats special about this one?
OK it was run by an incompetent* egomaniac whose gone but whats left is the worst of the companies he bought, the fact he left doesn't help. neitherd oes teh fact whoever takes it over will need money. Woodford wasnt taking management charges from it. So, someone new immediately imposes an extra charge on it thats not there now.
You'd do better off investing in the few good ones he had to sell to keep his ship afloat, at least those have a valuation done by someone other than Link.
* incompetent at picking startups and microcaps. Provably so. What he did at Invesco bears no relationship to what he did at WIM.
It is a guessing game to a certain extent, however these companies may have a total NAV value in them that is well above the SP.
At what stage you buy again is again guesswork. We only had a small holding in the IT which has about halved in value. To be honest we WILL buy more unless there is a dramatic amount of bad news, but we will only buy when it has settled and moved up a notch or two. New management and the NAV being confirmed as about correct will have us adding. We could easily have added at 43p but we waited to see if more sellers bought the price down, which they did. We do not know what it will be when we add, it can easily be in the 20s or even the 10s. All depends on when the sellers stop. There has to be value there and buying at around the bottom will see you at least double your money. The fact the fund is very low does not affect each of the companies it is invested in, they will continue to trade and maybe do very well.
It is a gamble and at what stage you make a bet is up to each individual. How often have you looked at the news paper showing highs and lows and though, "why did I not buy at that very low price?" buying at the bottom or around it with every company will make you money, buying at the top will see you often lose money initially.
WCPT is at a well publicised and significant discout to NAV.
- Theres very little reason to believe the NAV is correct.
A lot of that discount will be attributed to being associated with Woodford.
- No, the discount is attributed to the fact theres very little reason to believe the NAV is correct or in fact anywhere near its actual value.
who has now resigned as fund manager. It is the best thing that could have happened for enabling a partial recovery in the interim.
- That is like saying that now the captain of the Titanic has jumped overboard, everything is golden.
- I suggest you check into Capita who were fined £66M for criminally negligent valuations. Capita became Link. Now look at who is providing the NAV valuations.
- As an aside, ironically, below the "post message" button here is a generic warning from the FCA saying that "posting info that is false or misleading may constitute market abuse".
Yet the FCA has been sat on its big fat lardy **** for a couple of years whilst Link (who have track record in this area) provided info, in the form of the NAV, that was provably false and misleading. False in the case of IH for example and misleading in the case of companies listed on the Guernsey stock exchange to provide fake values for the worth of various companies.
-Those here who attack the messengers and stay invested, or invest more based on believing the NAV "must be roughly right" only have themselves to blame for not fact checking the naysayers here.
Were Capita who became Link fined £66M for negligent valuations?
Is IH an impossible company based on a convicted fraudster ?
What does the fact that Woodford spent £32M on a fraud say about his competence in checking other companies
What does the fact that Link uprated IH by 3.5x say about their competence?
How does Woodford leaving change the value of the companies he bought and has left in WPCT?
The most likely action for the board now, given this company is not profitable since it has no income is to start to wind it up and gradually sell the contents (a fire sale woudl surely mean it would realise nothing after costs)
Anyone who doesn't like this, do you think you can respond on the facts not with playground level insults? Or are you so psychologically tied into your purchase you dare not face the facts? Even though at a sale price of 33p theres still currently some value there you can take?
Well I picked up some shares early today as WCPT is at a well publicised and significant discout to NAV.
A lot of that discount will be attributed to being associated with Woodford. who has now resigned as fund manager. It is the best thing that could have happened for enabling a partial recovery in the interim.
I bought in on the woodford name like most, but if the NAV report is an, thats the big question here like accurate this is not in too much danger, thats really the big question here.
I am not such a fan of investment trusts although I have a few in my portfolio. The reason being is that an IT can be trading at a huge discount to NAV and still perform poorly if there is no trading volume. The market is littered with examples, however not many are trading at the stated level of discount as this one.
Denial is not a river in Egypt.
"anything that might go up by 60% could go down by that much just as quickly."
i guess you meant that the other way round as justification for hanging on, but it doesn't work that way.
"i think this will move forward once they appoint a new manager"
The manager is not the issue any more. The people doing the valuation and the people who chose the shares are the problem. A new manager wont make Woodfords selection of rubbish companies turn golden overnight, or ever.
"if this was as bad as some are stating on here then they would have suspended trading by now"
Its an IT not a fund, it cant just be suspended it would require (as i understand) a shareholders vote first.
"Although i would like my wife to buy more"
Why dont you buy some, with your own money?
" there has got to be some decent investments in here somewhere."
Why? Seriously, why must there? And to the point, why must there be enough to make it profitable. If they can be duped to buy shares in a worthless venture for £32M (IH) what else can they be duped by? Plus theres' £110M in loans waiting to be called in. Where's that coming from?
Some posters have been warning for years to get out. Dont blame the messenger.