Woodford anyone?

Author
Discussion

williaa68

1,528 posts

167 months

Monday 3rd June 2019
quotequote all
I see Hargreaves Lansdown still have it as one of the Wealth 50 funds so that must mean its ok....

Skyedriver

17,997 posts

283 months

Tim330

1,135 posts

213 months

Monday 3rd June 2019
quotequote all
What do folks think this will trade at in 28 days?

bedonde

567 posts

231 months

Monday 3rd June 2019
quotequote all
Just had an email through from HL to say they’ve pulled it from their Wealth 50 and trading now suspended for 28 days. Hadn’t kept an eye on it recently and I’m still invested in it. Not the nicest news...

croyde

23,079 posts

231 months

Monday 3rd June 2019
quotequote all
I bought a Woodford fund a couple of years ago. £3k.

Dropped to £2.5k and stayed there.

Recently used that money and some extra to buy Fundsmith and I've got that £500 back. Within weeks.....

For now

bitchstewie

51,894 posts

211 months

Tuesday 4th June 2019
quotequote all
Be interesting to see if it has any "panic" effect.

I've placed a sell on a fund I'm in but I was going to do it anyway, but I suspect Woodford is one of the few names the average investor might just know?

red_slr

17,366 posts

190 months

Tuesday 4th June 2019
quotequote all
Whats their AUM? Is it really £4bn?

98elise

26,824 posts

162 months

Tuesday 4th June 2019
quotequote all
Tim330 said:
What do folks think this will trade at in 28 days?
Surely it should still be the value of its underlying investments?

Fortunately I got out early on when they started to go down. Went onto Fudsmith and LTGE which more than recovered my loss.

CaptainSlow

13,179 posts

213 months

Tuesday 4th June 2019
quotequote all
I'm still in for a few k. I've been in for 2 years so down 20%, fortunately I put in an equal amount into Fundsmith at the same time which is up 30%.

Should have put in Premium Bonds.

walm

10,609 posts

203 months

Tuesday 4th June 2019
quotequote all
98elise said:
Tim330 said:
What do folks think this will trade at in 28 days?
Surely it should still be the value of its underlying investments?
The problem is the illiquid investments within the fund and that is why they temporarily closed it.

If you are in super liquid investments then when half your investors pull their money you can sell down those investments into cash quite quickly and return the funds without impacting the price of the investment too badly, if at all.

But if they don't trade much (illiquid) and you are a big investor then your partial exit can collapse the price dramatically.
Furthermore, funds like this tend to trade at a premium / discount to NAV (net asset value = the value of the underlying investments) and that usually reflects confidence in the fund manager to create value over-and-above the point-in-time value of the underlying.

Given what has happened any Woodford premium would now be a significant discount (more likely it was already a discount which will now widen).

Finally, even after a steady unwinding which a suspension allows, there will be a massive rush for the door on opening which will lead to the same problem that caused the suspension in the first place...

So... not pretty I suspect.

chip*

1,031 posts

229 months

Tuesday 4th June 2019
quotequote all
Looks like I made a lucky call to rebalance our portfolio back in '16. Held a fairly sizable Woodford holding still in the money, but wasn't overall happy with the performance given the high fee, so sold our entire Woodford holding.


BatForcePC

448 posts

207 months

Tuesday 4th June 2019
quotequote all
I have a few k in the LF WOODFORD INCOME FOCUS which seems to be suffering also. I trimmed my holding a year ago but kept some as the dividend has been pretty good and I've worked on the basis that my 20% loss (on paper!) will eventually be recovered by the dividend...now I'm starting to wonder whether this fund might also catch a cold...

Is anyone else in this situation?

Tim330

1,135 posts

213 months

Tuesday 4th June 2019
quotequote all
walm said:
The problem is the illiquid investments within the fund and that is why they temporarily closed it.

If you are in super liquid investments then when half your investors pull their money you can sell down those investments into cash quite quickly and return the funds without impacting the price of the investment too badly, if at all.

But if they don't trade much (illiquid) and you are a big investor then your partial exit can collapse the price dramatically.
Furthermore, funds like this tend to trade at a premium / discount to NAV (net asset value = the value of the underlying investments) and that usually reflects confidence in the fund manager to create value over-and-above the point-in-time value of the underlying.

Given what has happened any Woodford premium would now be a significant discount (more likely it was already a discount which will now widen).

Finally, even after a steady unwinding which a suspension allows, there will be a massive rush for the door on opening which will lead to the same problem that caused the suspension in the first place...

So... not pretty I suspect.
I sold half my investment last month after the poor performance. I'd been invested since shortly after launch. Its in a sipp so 30 years or so to try and recover the losses. I realise that in a very, very small way I was a contributor to this problem.

WindyCommon

3,388 posts

240 months

Tuesday 4th June 2019
quotequote all
walm said:
...funds like this tend to trade at a premium / discount to NAV (net asset value = the value of the underlying investments) and that usually reflects confidence in the fund manager to create value over-and-above the point-in-time value of the underlying.
Walm - the suspended fund is the daily-priced one, so this premium / discount question doesn't apply. The fund trades (or not!) only at it's NAV.

BoRED S2upid

19,759 posts

241 months

Tuesday 4th June 2019
quotequote all
ooid said:
It's already on BBC. I wonder how many other investor's tied up into this (any pensions?)
Yes plenty of pensions.

oldaudi

1,334 posts

159 months

Tuesday 4th June 2019
quotequote all
I suspect the fall out will be pretty big. Both for holders individually and HL share price.

I’ve held the fund and still hold a larger number in various HL accounts. Including those of my children in their pensions. Lots of money now locked out. The fund is also wrapped up in many HL managed fund funds. They were also acting like a massive advert for Woodford when he launched all of these based in his previous success. I also have a copy of Mark Dampiers investment book and it features in there as a good fund to have in various types of portfolios. Of course none of this should be accepted as investment advice from them, I get that. But when it’s in their Wealth 50 even after their reduction of Wealth 150 to the new 50 you can’t help but think they should’ve completed the due diligence for us. Still there was plenty of time to get out given the poor performance but like many I saw the poor performance as an opportunity to buy more and have over 30 years to get a return. But for now I’m locked out

LeoSayer

7,319 posts

245 months

Tuesday 4th June 2019
quotequote all
It’s a unitised fund so the price will only reflect the value of the underlying investments, accruals, cash etc. Popularity of the manager isn’t reflected in the price.

The fund has been suspended to protect existing unit holders and allow the illiquid instruments to be sold in a controlled manner ie. not a fire sale.

If the redemption requests were allowed to go through then the fund would likely end up being in breach of it investment mandate regarding the proportion of illiquid instruments it is allowed to hold. If this caused a loss then it would leave the fund manager liable to being sued by remaining investors.

Depending on the level of redemption requests they get, it may be prudent to simply close the fund and then payout proceeds to unitholders in tranches.

It is not comparable to the suspension of a company’s shares on the stock exchange.

BoRED S2upid

19,759 posts

241 months

Tuesday 4th June 2019
quotequote all
oldaudi said:
I suspect the fall out will be pretty big. Both for holders individually and HL share price.

I’ve held the fund and still hold a larger number in various HL accounts. Including those of my children in their pensions. Lots of money now locked out. The fund is also wrapped up in many HL managed fund funds. They were also acting like a massive advert for Woodford when he launched all of these based in his previous success. I also have a copy of Mark Dampiers investment book and it features in there as a good fund to have in various types of portfolios. Of course none of this should be accepted as investment advice from them, I get that. But when it’s in their Wealth 50 even after their reduction of Wealth 150 to the new 50 you can’t help but think they should’ve completed the due diligence for us. Still there was plenty of time to get out given the poor performance but like many I saw the poor performance as an opportunity to buy more and have over 30 years to get a return. But for now I’m locked out
I was never comfortable with the relationship between Woodford and HL they seem like best mates. I was in Woodford at launch but quickly cashed in wasn’t it up 25% at one stage. Staggering amount of money he had in this fund at its peak with some very curious holdings that the average joe would never have heard of until they got into trouble.

walm

10,609 posts

203 months

Tuesday 4th June 2019
quotequote all
BatForcePC said:
I have a few k in the LF WOODFORD INCOME FOCUS which seems to be suffering also. I trimmed my holding a year ago but kept some as the dividend has been pretty good and I've worked on the basis that my 20% loss (on paper!) will eventually be recovered by the dividend...now I'm starting to wonder whether this fund might also catch a cold...

Is anyone else in this situation?
Yes - me.
Placed the sell order yesterday - probably get hosed on it today.

walm

10,609 posts

203 months

Tuesday 4th June 2019
quotequote all
WindyCommon said:
Walm - the suspended fund is the daily-priced one, so this premium / discount question doesn't apply. The fund trades (or not!) only at it's NAV.
LeoSayer said:
It’s a unitised fund so the price will only reflect the value of the underlying investments, accruals, cash etc. Popularity of the manager isn’t reflected in the price.
Got it - didn't realise it was unitised. Thanks!