Member Info for ItsToast

...thought Id pop in after being away .:-) .... still in the 20's is remarkable, should be half that >>at best<< in these times, hard enough to value junk when the market is rising let alone when its tanking.
Only hope for anyone holding is that one of the unlisted biotechs in it has a C19 cure, and I sincerely hope they do.
But I strongly suspect they dont.

If thats a clear buy goodness knows what a sell would be.
Looks like after the initial (IM unwarranted) optimism, reality is setting in as the NAV continues its relentless decline.
Either the NAV is correct in which case why hasn't some big city firm just taken it over and asset stripped it, or Shroders just sold off parts to get the 52p, whereas its actually at least double and maybe triple what its really worth and you'd still do best to get out. Good luck anyone holding this.
is IH still being valued at > 0 ? If so that speaks volumes for the quality of the rest of the valuations
All those who held on in teh high 30's and were crowing are probably wondering why they didnt sell

If they are winners, they will be winners irrespective of government action.
Government action wont change a fraud into a company that "can break the laws of physics" , an overhyped AI company into one with real prospects, or single product drug companies whose product failed trials, magically work.

It would seem the only reason its up is that there are enough delusional people like you that believe that a change of ticker name means the underlying fundamentals have changed and are buying.
Let see if this holds or is another temporary blip as what happened when it was announced Shriders were taking control. Up 10 in a few days and then back down to where it started over the next week or two.
And I stand by my point, if you think they really replaced all the garbage unsellable shares in a few days, you are delusional. Do you really believe they sold IH? BenAI? etc?

YOU need to understand that the NAV is a fictitious number made up by Link. Every day there's a new disclosure and something is downrated or more dirt comes out and the "NAV" drops again. - mavic has now had its accounts not agreed for FOUR years in a row by the auditors, so who knows how much thats worth, could easily be nothing
IH is currently valued at something, which is clearly a lie. And so it goes on. If you invest in this on the basis of the NAV you are a mug.

Doug, if you really think "the dead wood has been weeded out" you are, and i choose the word carefully, delusional.
They haven't even had time to get rid of a few twigs and no one wants the trunk as its rotten.

"The Discount looks very attractive"
The discount to a fictional asset value? Seriously?
Discounts you'll see on most ITs are to a NAV that can be objectively measured by looking at the value of the underlying investments.
With WPCT, there's nothing but opinion about value, not facts, from a company with a staggeringly and proven bad ability to measure valuation. Valuations routinely rise and fall by a few hundred million or a billion at a stroke with little facts behind them.

"Schroders will turn this around"
Why not buy the Shroders small cap UK fund then? Decent performance and you wont have to wait you'll get immediate results, with no need to wait for more bad news here.Because its clear there's no good news (although 80p in the Pound on current biotech stocks is a pretty good deal but that knocks maybe 10-15% off the current (overstated) NAV.

"Once they weed out all the dead wood this will fly."
Why think the dead wood will be weeded out? What they will sell be be the companies that have good prospects because why would anyone buy the dead wood "thats holding it back"? Who would buy it if its junk?
Much more likely they will instead be left with unsellable and cash, eg starting again. Its already in the news they are selling off most of the biotech (but not BenAI, eg "dead wood"
Would you buy IH?
If it will fly when the dead wood is all gone, wouldnt it be simpler to buy that from WPCT, put that into an existing or new Schroder fund, and shut the rest down?

I dont blame you. No doubt though you would have said the same about Woodford 3,2,1 years ago?
Or even a month ago (otherwise you'd have sold up?)
I wish you all the best, i have no dog in this hunt, whether it goes up or down wont affect my pocket.
It seems to be a day traders playground at the moment though. Very unpredictable.

"Schroders know what they are doing"
Well, true, they have a small cap UK fund which has a good performance. Already presumably full of good companies, and with a believable NAV. So, why wouldn't you sell WPCT and buy the Schroder equivalent rather than wait for all the garbage in WPCT to be dealt with?
Sure, the NAV of WPCT *might* be worth more than its current price - but then again maybe its worth substantially less. When Shroders revalue theres certainly going to be a big shock coming thats for sure, so if you hold you'd better hope its well above the current price (not NAV). Flip of a coin you might say. I'd say they will be harsh so they can get an upside later. Harsh coudl easily be lower than current price.
Depends if you are an investor or a gambler i suppose. Good luck whatever you do.

ODONNELL, I suggest sell one share and buy a keyboard that isn't stuck in CAPS

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?

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.

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?

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.

The exit sign was about 4 years ago, not 1.
When they bought IH it was obvious they could be conned into buying anything.
And the second exit sign was a year ago when IH was uprated 3.5x at that point it was clear something beyond dodgy was going on since that was a company with a literally impossible product.
PB at least was just a company that did *something* and it was open to debate if it would be disruptive.
The only disruption possible from IH was to the credibility of the analysts within WPCT / WIM which brought into question what else they were buying.

@bestintown theres a big difference between uber/netflix etc and WPCT.
The former are valued on the basis that their underlying business models will produce money.
WPCT is valued on the basis that its individual components business models will make money.
So you need to take the valuation of each one and add them all up. One, IH, is clearly to anyone but a dupe, worthless, so why trust the valuations of the other components when you know that one at least is clearly valued by people who've been duped, another, Benevolent, has clearly been wildly overvalued, and Proton doesn't look as if it will be profitable so why trust any of the other valuations the same people have made?
I dont think WPCT is the "high risk component of a balanced portfolio" because you dont just want a high risk element by itself. The high risk shoudl be balanced with a probability that their would be a correspondingly potential big payoff. Theres nothing now in WPCT to sugegst that big payoff is there as a possibility. Maybe there was 2 or 3 years ago. When they bought IH, they made it clear how competent they were at valuing companies future prospects, eg not at all.

@bestintown " but do have a belief in the integrity of independent valuers."
Integrity does not equal competence
Go back to what happened with IH.
It was uprated a year ago, with zero news from IH before or since, by 3.5x.
Then it was downrated, from memory by half, again with zero news from IH before or since.
Buying it involves a belief that pretty much everything we know about modern physics aint so. Not just a few bits but pretty much all of it because if IH worked as said then a whole lot of stuff that we know works, wouldnt.
And bear in mind, IH essentially was started up on the back of the word of a twice convicted fraudster who wont let anyone closely examine his work or devices, and which if it worked would be out there now pulling in money like nobodies business since you could just use it to produce essentially free electricity. Why isn't it out there just doing that?
So, given the "people of integrity" fell for that like a cheap magic trick, what about all the other startups, what did they promise and why do you think those valuers are competent again, (I dont question their integrity but their competence) to judge those?
Results aka company failures have shown they werent very good at choosing many of the biotech startups and even one that undeniably works, Proton or whatever its called, now may not actually make money.