Woodford to return.

[GeoffF100]

Was converting the open-ended fund to an investment trust ever a doable option?

That would have been great from Woodford's point of view. He would get his fat percentage in perpetuity. The investors who wanted out would not have been happy. They would have to sell at a discount to get out. They would much prefer to get out at par, and let those who were less nimble take the pain.

[scotia]

Was converting the open-ended fund to an investment trust ever a doable option?

Best wishes


Mark.

Woodford also ran an IT - the Woodford Patient Capital Trust.
Woodford Patient Capital Trust plc has been renamed Schroder UK Public Private Trust plc and is now managed by Schroders.
Currently its share price is around 36p.
Had I been a Woodford Investor, I think I would have preferred the 70p from the OIEC than the 36p from the IT!

[MikeDennis]

I see that a second legal firm has now initiated legal action against Link who were the ACD for the Woodford Equity Income Fund, so it looks like there IS a credible case for compensation for those who invested in the fund. I think the basic thrust of the case is that Link did not appropriately enforce Woodford to keep within the commitments in the fund's prospectus - in particular, that liquidity in the fund should be appropriate to its redemption policy - ie: "...to invest in transferrable securities to the extent that their liquidity does not compromise the ability to redeem units". I think its also notable that ShareSoc have endorsed the Leigh Day group claim because they believe it has a good chance of success and provides a no-win no-fee assurance to investors.

So, I have now registered with Leigh Day as a claimant because I reckon I have lost about 30% of my original investment which, fortunately, was only about 1% of my portfolio at the time. I did very well out of Woodford in his old Perpetual days but I'm glad I stopped buying in his new fund very early doors and should have sold but, rather stupidly, left my original investment stuck in the fund until it was gated.

[CliffW8]

re
#388512 by terminal7 » February 21st, 2021, 7:13 pm
Indeed, methinks that given the closeness of the relationship between Woodward and the HL senior high profile analyst (I think we all know who we are talking about here), HL should have picked up details of the astronomic remunerations received by Woodward/Newman and highlighted this in their fulsome praise of WIM on the HL site. Did they miss this year after year?

Answer....

I think the fees were set by the ACD as a % of AUM and HL negotiated a big discount. However HL charged their clients 0.45% of AUM as a platform fee, so clients did not get a great deal on price. The rates charged to HL were not untypical. So I think WIM will have a defense to the arguments of Terminal7.

I do agree however that £100m paid to WIM is egregious, for what has turned out to be no better than a monkey sticking pins in a list of shares and has ultimately turned out to be far worse. The whole asset management industry and its charging practices needs a substantial rethink and a re-base to a much lower level, IMHO.

[Steveam]

I have no skin in this game - never invested with Woodford or followed Hargreaves’ recommendations but there is an interesting book review in the FT “Built on a Lie by Owen Walker” about the Woodford saga.

Essentially a story of hubris and offering fund liquidity while investing in illiquid investments. I hadn’t realised that a third of Hargreaves’ clients invested nor that Hargreaves received £40M in commissions.

Best wishes,

Steve