Woodford anyone?
Discussion
Interesting - I did sign up on the basis of having written off the loss then getting anything back - even 70% - was probably acceptable based on me doing nothing.
I’m assuming all investors have to agree this compensation ( which presumably they will ) but can LD and others now go after HL anyway as well ?
Even if 77% returned as such that of course is of the original investment as such so assuming people invested in the equity fund from its inception in 2014 then allowing for say a 5% return pa cumulatively that return of 77% is actually nearer 50%.
I’m assuming all investors have to agree this compensation ( which presumably they will ) but can LD and others now go after HL anyway as well ?
Even if 77% returned as such that of course is of the original investment as such so assuming people invested in the equity fund from its inception in 2014 then allowing for say a 5% return pa cumulatively that return of 77% is actually nearer 50%.
The 77% is based on the value of an individual’s holding when the fund closed. It depends when you got in to the fund as to how much of a loss the represented.
If you got in early then the gains made in the first few years gave you a buffer that made the later losses not so bad. If you got into the fund in its last couple of years then you would have lost a huge chunk of your investment even before it closed due to woodford’s appalling stock picks.
Personally I have a theory that the gains in the first few years was primarily because of the money flowing in to the fund - as the money came in then he bought more of his initial target income-bearing funds, which of course would have driven up the price.
Of course ultimately he bought all the available stock in his target funds and that’s when he went off piste. He should have closed the fund to new money at that point, on the basis that he couldn’t invest it according to the principles on the fund factsheet. Bit as he got paid as a % of the fund size, he wasn’t going to turn away the extra cash, was he? Just needed to start bending a few rules…
As an example of the VC he ended up doing, he bought into a cold fusion startup with a patent which on peer review “violated the laws of physics”.
If you got in early then the gains made in the first few years gave you a buffer that made the later losses not so bad. If you got into the fund in its last couple of years then you would have lost a huge chunk of your investment even before it closed due to woodford’s appalling stock picks.
Personally I have a theory that the gains in the first few years was primarily because of the money flowing in to the fund - as the money came in then he bought more of his initial target income-bearing funds, which of course would have driven up the price.
Of course ultimately he bought all the available stock in his target funds and that’s when he went off piste. He should have closed the fund to new money at that point, on the basis that he couldn’t invest it according to the principles on the fund factsheet. Bit as he got paid as a % of the fund size, he wasn’t going to turn away the extra cash, was he? Just needed to start bending a few rules…
As an example of the VC he ended up doing, he bought into a cold fusion startup with a patent which on peer review “violated the laws of physics”.
LD can of course go after HL and they certainly have questions to answer - like recommending investors stay in at the same time they were selling. Advice which of course got them a better price. I believe the FCA are still investigating HL over this matter. What’s interesting about that of course is that HL have got far bigger assets than Link for any potential fines.
PhilboSE said:
LD can of course go after HL and they certainly have questions to answer - like recommending investors stay in at the same time they were selling. Advice which of course got them a better price. I believe the FCA are still investigating HL over this matter. What’s interesting about that of course is that HL have got far bigger assets than Link for any potential fines.
Yes I was always curious why LD chose at the time not to go after HL but presumably now it might make sense to do just that. I’m acutely aware that some people lost an awful lot of money and for some it represented a large part of their investments so I really feel for them.
RSpiston said:
Well I've received a load of stuff via Hargreaves L. regarding the Woodford fund.....
Can't say it makes much sense to me. The proposed settlement is unclear but would like me to vote on something !
Is it clear to anyone else or are the waters just as muddy ?
Were you part of the LD or other claims ?Can't say it makes much sense to me. The proposed settlement is unclear but would like me to vote on something !
Is it clear to anyone else or are the waters just as muddy ?
I also got the HL email which basically just repeats what my latest email from LD said.
It did give the original share details which of course I already knew.
LD are going to issue a further email this week and at that point their advice will be given in terms of how to vote.
Fwiw my take is still that the compensation offered is poor.
alscar said:
Were you part of the LD or other claims ?
I also got the HL email which basically just repeats what my latest email from LD said.
It did give the original share details which of course I already knew.
LD are going to issue a further email this week and at that point their advice will be given in terms of how to vote.
Fwiw my take is still that the compensation offered is poor.
Cheers for this ! In answer to your Qu - No - not part of the LD or other claims.I also got the HL email which basically just repeats what my latest email from LD said.
It did give the original share details which of course I already knew.
LD are going to issue a further email this week and at that point their advice will be given in terms of how to vote.
Fwiw my take is still that the compensation offered is poor.
( Luckily I did not have a huge amount with Woodford - 5.6K in total ( ISA limit back in the day ). Have looked back through the cash rounds and received a total of 3.4K back with a paltry 48 quid left in my HL ISA account ).
The HL stuff isn’t very helpful. It’s just links to the official stuff which is pretty impenetrable. My interpretation: HL are trying to distance themselves as much as possible from the process in the hope of making out they were just an innocent middleman - rather than being involved in “selling” Woodford to investors at the same time they were bailing.
Anyway, what you are being asked to vote on is the proposal from Link to return a few more p in the £ to you as a final settlement. They’re doing this by selling some of the parent group assets. If the vote is “no” then the parent company will withdraw its (voluntary) offer to sell assets and investors will get less money - because the subdivision of Link with responsibility is legally ringfenced for liabilities from the parent.
So basically you need to vote “yes”, or get less money.
It’s basically the Link directors exercising a Get Out of Jail free card - buying off investors so they dont ask any more awkward questions if them (this is a final settlement deal).
This is all to do with the fire sale of Woodford assets by Link at below market value after the fund closed. It’s not directly related to the mismanagement of the Woodford fund while it was active.
Anyway, what you are being asked to vote on is the proposal from Link to return a few more p in the £ to you as a final settlement. They’re doing this by selling some of the parent group assets. If the vote is “no” then the parent company will withdraw its (voluntary) offer to sell assets and investors will get less money - because the subdivision of Link with responsibility is legally ringfenced for liabilities from the parent.
So basically you need to vote “yes”, or get less money.
It’s basically the Link directors exercising a Get Out of Jail free card - buying off investors so they dont ask any more awkward questions if them (this is a final settlement deal).
This is all to do with the fire sale of Woodford assets by Link at below market value after the fund closed. It’s not directly related to the mismanagement of the Woodford fund while it was active.
PhilboSE said:
The HL stuff isn’t very helpful. It’s just links to the official stuff which is pretty impenetrable. My interpretation: HL are trying to distance themselves as much as possible from the process in the hope of making out they were just an innocent middleman - rather than being involved in “selling” Woodford to investors at the same time they were bailing.
Anyway, what you are being asked to vote on is the proposal from Link to return a few more p in the £ to you as a final settlement. They’re doing this by selling some of the parent group assets. If the vote is “no” then the parent company will withdraw its (voluntary) offer to sell assets and investors will get less money - because the subdivision of Link with responsibility is legally ringfenced for liabilities from the parent.
So basically you need to vote “yes”, or get less money.
It’s basically the Link directors exercising a Get Out of Jail free card - buying off investors so they dont ask any more awkward questions if them (this is a final settlement deal).
This is all to do with the fire sale of Woodford assets by Link at below market value after the fund closed. It’s not directly related to the mismanagement of the Woodford fund while it was active.
I've tiny sums left in my ISA & my son's JISA so it's pretty irrelevant how I vote but wonder if there's a box to tick to lynch Woodford? Or at least lay a claim on the man & his property?Anyway, what you are being asked to vote on is the proposal from Link to return a few more p in the £ to you as a final settlement. They’re doing this by selling some of the parent group assets. If the vote is “no” then the parent company will withdraw its (voluntary) offer to sell assets and investors will get less money - because the subdivision of Link with responsibility is legally ringfenced for liabilities from the parent.
So basically you need to vote “yes”, or get less money.
It’s basically the Link directors exercising a Get Out of Jail free card - buying off investors so they dont ask any more awkward questions if them (this is a final settlement deal).
This is all to do with the fire sale of Woodford assets by Link at below market value after the fund closed. It’s not directly related to the mismanagement of the Woodford fund while it was active.
I think LD and maybe others are still looking into the chances of going after Hargreaves’s.
The original letter from Hargreaves suggesting investing into Woodford was pretty strongly suggesting it to be a good idea.
I will wait for the further articulation from LD but as Phil as said voting yes appears to be the only answer as far as the claim against Link is concerned.
It will be be a majority decision so even if you don’t vote it may still go ahead.
The original letter from Hargreaves suggesting investing into Woodford was pretty strongly suggesting it to be a good idea.
I will wait for the further articulation from LD but as Phil as said voting yes appears to be the only answer as far as the claim against Link is concerned.
It will be be a majority decision so even if you don’t vote it may still go ahead.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff