The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from WS Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
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. 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.
"The problem is that the values assigned to the unlisted stuff might be wrong...." Understatement of the year. why are you still invested in this woofer then?
The Trust Board and Woodford are one and the NAV is no good guide to the real position of the 'investment' values.
Some will be well overvalued from the transfer from WIEF.
Sold out of the WIEF and IP a couple of years ago and bought investments he did not fancy, like oil, and had no regrets. Now I have sold all WPCT even though I liked the concept, but there is no trust at all and this could be another financial mess.
Where is the proactive financial regulation.
Don't know why others could not see RNS. Good news Black Rock have increased their stake. I have already declared am not worried. Strange comment about cum and ex div. There is no yield so the terms do not apply. You cannot go ex div if there is no div!
Thanks my2penneth this looks more and more like a good value entry to buy do you not think? Everyone saying this is a disgrace it’s part of the course when putting your money in any investment.
Woodfords betting on the economy not suffering as bad as the scaremongering suggests post brexit I don’t understand people withdrawing now. It’s not his fault the politicians the run the country are useless delaying brexit, give him a chance to prove his theory then if he’s wrong judge him then
Thanks my2penneth this looks more and more like a good value entry to buy won’t do you not think? Everyone saying this is a disgrace it’s part of the course when putting your money in any investment. Woodfords betting on the economy not suffering as bad as the scaremongering suggests post brexit I don’t think defat and everyone withdrawing now. It’s not his fault the politicians the run the country are useless give him a chance to prove his theory then if he’s wrong judge him then
The only RNS I can see today is a statement on the Net Asset Value of WPCT ...which is pretty standard statement. The statement claims that if you add up the value of the holdings and divide by the number of shares you come up with a figure of 87.54p. The current share price is 64p (ish) so you are buying something at a discount. The problem is that the values assigned to the unlisted stuff might be wrong....
As there is no divi, the NAV is the same with (cum) as without (ex) consideration of paying a dividend.
Can anyone explain in layman’s terms what today’s RNS is about please? Thanks
I think you have the wrong end of the stick. All the other large holdings are not direct investments like Black Rock but uncertificated holdings on behalf of clients eg the fed up Hargreaves Lansdown and St Jamess place
All holdings over 3% have to be disclosed. But the FT site is definitive kept up to date daily. Apart from Woodford the ONLY large holding is Black Rock
Isn't that just the Top 10 IIs?
Actually about 50% acc to FT
https://markets.ft.com/data/investment-trust/tearsheet/profile?s=WPCT:LSE
That cannot possible be correct. Have you got the right company? I gave you the institutional holdings from their recent annual report. The FT website TODAY confirms there are 908.64 million shares oustanding and the free float is 879.08 million. Please give me the link for your extraordinary remark.
Remember this is an investment trust not usually held in any large way by institutions.
The IIs recognise that WPCT is not for the faint hearted. if a small percentage of the investments come good (out of the plethora in the fund) then it'll do ok. If you want boring, buy CTY.
Institutional Investors own 96% of WPCT according to SimplyWallStreet
Fot future use just put the company name and "major shareholders" in search engine. I keep having to do all the work for others.
Only one major exterior holder Black Rock with 12% of the voting rights. Woodford Investment Management (seems a bit incestuous!) 9%
Hmm.. please can you tell me where you can find if there are institutional investors? Thanks in Advance.
Gaspunter - the problem with unquoted stocks, as I'm sure you know, is their lack of liquidity i.e. if it is not listed on a stock exchange there is no liquid secondary market and very few, if any, transactions from which to gauge the current market value.
However, for this very reason, an investment in an unquoted, early stage, business (via a quoted vehicle) is in my view a far less risky long term prospect than many of the AIM scams that too many retail investors get involved with.
Most of the unlisted businesses that Woodford has invested in are also supported by several other big names in the Asset Management Industry and will continue to be supported with appropriate funding as long as the business progresses. They are not subject to any of the nonsense that goes on on AIM - no pump and dump, no constant RNS's to support endless dilutive placings to fund unrealistic BOD remuneration. Often there is little or no substance behind the business, sometimes it is downright fraudulent. If you invest along with the professionals this is far less likely to be the case. After learning lessons the hard way now my Rule #1 if I venture onto AIM is: are there any Institutional Investors ? if the answer is no then I move on. Doesn't guarantee success but cuts the failure rate dramatically.
Woodford clearly lost his marbles pumped up ego. I have a FA friend who sees him and team regularly. Woodford was doing a Trump even upto last week. Moreoess fake news attitude.
Bruce I think MAPP was questioning the unlisted stock in Patient even more risky than AIM.
What a disgrace that he paid himself tens of millions of £ last and this year while his investment decisions have been so poor. The honest thing to do would be to refund what he pocketed but that will never happen. GREED !!!!!
This may be of some comfort to investors.
I held BTG for a number of years. Woddford investments along with Invesco invested heavily a number of years ago. The company was taken over by Boston pharma six months ago. It is a pure cash offer which has yielded all long term holders with a substantial profit. Funds are due to be distributed this month . Which will Yield Woodford investments many millions. So in summary his fund should be bolstered considerably over the next few weeks. ONMHO so dyor
It performed poorly in 2017 and 2018 and had structural challenges obvious to many at the start of this year and shouldn’t have been put in the Wealth 50 at that point. HL came under criticism at the time which has proved to be accurate and fair.
er.... HL clearly put Wooford's new fund into their top 50 based on his previous long term track record at Invesco, which was generally perceived to be pretty exceptional. He is famous for making some big successful contrarian investment calls and made investors a lot of money previously. The Equity Income fund made 18% in the first year.
It has performed badly since then so now they have removed it.
What can't you get your head round ? Or do you mean; with the benefit of hindsight it has not performed well and so they should never have put it in their list in the first place ? I'm sure some of you might have spotted the flaw in that argument....
What lessons are there for investors?
This is a shock for many investors. A star of the sector is having what has been described as a "dark and terrible moment".
Some will point to this case as proof that paying charges to a "star" fund manager to try to beat the market is a waste of time and that, instead, people should invest in a passive tracker fund.
Warren Buffett, the world's richest investor, in a letter he wrote to his wife advising her how to invest after his death, suggested putting almost everything into "a very low-cost S&P 500 index fund".
What I struggle to get my head round is WHY did HL put this in their top 50 flagship funds, this needs to be investigated by the FCA because I can not see any evidence for it being supported, it has not performed and lost people money in the meantime Woodford has picked up a wage only most can dream of and then gets recommended into a flagship fund how can this be.
BBC: The suspension of Mr Woodford's Equity Income fund has hit shares in fund platform Hargreaves Lansdown, which included the fund in its flagship list of share recommendations, Wealth 50.
Hargreaves removed the fund from its recommendation list on Monday, but investors have not responded positively.