Woodford to return.

[monabri]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... sorry-did/

"Mr Woodford is now preparing to launch a new investment firm based in Jersey, Woodford Capital Management Partners "

"After nearly two hours turning over the rubble of his collapsed investment empire, Neil Woodford begins crying. He gets up and briefly walks off camera to compose himself, leaving an empty chair at his West Country home as the star of the video call."

[AsleepInYorkshire]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/02/13/exclusive-neil-woodford-launch-comeback-fund-says-sorry-did/

"Mr Woodford is now preparing to launch a new investment firm based in Jersey, Woodford Capital Management Partners "

"After nearly two hours turning over the rubble of his collapsed investment empire, Neil Woodford begins crying. He gets up and briefly walks off camera to compose himself, leaving an empty chair at his West Country home as the star of the video call."

That's the West Country home he's sold along with all his cars and other material wealth to give something back to those who lost money. Proving just how sorry he is.

AiY

[PinkDalek]

The sub header states:

Former star manager in tearful first interview since infamous 2019 fund collapse and reveals he was forced to sell his £30m home

[AsleepInYorkshire]

The sub header states:

Former star manager in tearful first interview since infamous 2019 fund collapse and reveals he was forced to sell his £30m home

It's a paywalled report?

Did he sell his home voluntarily?

Sorry I should have been more precise - the words used are "forced" to sell.

My guess is he was living above his means and his mortgage was foreclosed.

Was the money from the sale of his home used to refund "clients" or the mortgage company?

Either way I'm not his biggest fan

AiY

[vrdiver]

Did he sell his home voluntarily?

Sorry I should have been more precise - the words used are "forced" to sell.

My guess is he was living above his means and his mortgage was foreclosed.

Looks like your guess is correct. From the Telegraph link above:

"The last pay I received was in May 2019".

Little wonder, perhaps, he is keen to get back to work. He says his troubles forced him to sell what was his main home, a £30m farm with stables near Tetbury in the Cotswolds, in December. “I don’t want to go into the details, but retail investors were not the only people who suffered financially as a result of what happened,” he says.

VRD

[monabri]

One other snippet.

"there is one crucial detail in Woodford’s comeback plan that will inevitably infuriate former investors. Since last summer he has been advising American-based Acacia Research, which last year made huge profits buying bargain Woodford stocks and rapidly selling them on."

Which I guess he got paid for?

[AsleepInYorkshire]

One other snippet.

"there is one crucial detail in Woodford’s comeback plan that will inevitably infuriate former investors. Since last summer he has been advising American-based Acacia Research, which last year made huge profits buying bargain Woodford stocks and rapidly selling them on."

Which I guess he got paid for?

No, don't be cynical. He did it for nothing to help the investors he failed. There's only one person in Neil Woodford's life that's of any importance and that's himself. He cheated and got caught. He flouted the rules more than once. And now he doesn't like the thought of living in a three bedroomed semi with a second hand Ford Focus, like the rest of us. He hasn't got any empathy or sympathy for those whom he persuaded to invest with him. If he had he would have already promised to pay back every penny no matter how long it takes. He took risks with other people's money. He betrayed trust, legal obligations and was morally reprehensible.

AiY

[Dod101]

This is the sort of scenario that the regulators ought to be covering. He should not be allowed anywhere near the financial services/investment area again. It would be quite disgusting if he were. AiY has said it all.

Dod

[ReallyVeryFoolish]

This is the sort of scenario that the regulators ought to be covering. He should not be allowed anywhere near the financial services/investment area again. It would be quite disgusting if he were. AiY has said it all.

Dod

It seems he is, Dod. But he's working his investments out of Jersey. I guess that's to avoid any comeback from anything in the UK. I am rather annoyed that this charlatan isn't being locked up and the key thrown away. The article in the Telegraph reads like a sob story. Yet he made millions out of his business and continued to take administrative fees even when his funds were suspended. Only the little guys lost money. Everyone else involved made money. Woodford coming back into the game is appalling and a travesty of justice.

RVF

[Matchless]

His mistake was timing - he started on his own at the wrong time, and because of this he was forced to make the investments he did, and events went against him, but how many investment / platform managers can we mugs really trust to get it right for us, I would suggest a lot have no more interest in our money than he had.

[Dod101]

His mistake was timing - he started on his own at the wrong time, and because of this he was forced to make the investments he did, and events went against him, but how many investment / platform managers can we mugs really trust to get it right for us, I would suggest a lot have no more interest in our money than he had.

There is quite a big difference between a platform manager and an investment manager so the two need to be separated. They both have an interest in our money because it is helpful to enrich both. Given the proven uselessness of our financial regulators, I think on the whole that these people are not dishonest. Woodford was close to be so.

I could I think name a few investment managers who are pretty good at looking after our money but I will desist from that as I would not want to be seen promoting any. However I think that in general, investment trust directors, and their investment managers as a whole, tend to be fairly attentive to the retail investor's interests. Let's not tar the entire industry by one self seeking, selfish manager.

Dod

[richfool]

I just wonder, is there a comparison to be made between Woodford's "off-piste" illiquid investments and SMT's unlisted investments? I hope not.

Whatever, I know I shan't be investing in any new projects of Woodford's, anymore than I did in his previous ones.

[ADrunkenMarcus]

I just wonder, is there a comparison to be made between Woodford's "off-piste" illiquid investments and SMT's unlisted investments?

SMT's unlisted investments are held by a closed ended investment structure, so SMT's managers will not be forced sellers. This is contrary to holding illiquid assets in an open-ended fund which is asking for trouble!

Best wishes

Mark.

[Dod101]

I just wonder, is there a comparison to be made between Woodford's "off-piste" illiquid investments and SMT's unlisted investments? I hope not.

Whatever, I know I shan't be investing in any new projects of Woodford's, anymore than I did in his previous ones.

There is I think no comparison whatever. SMT's unlisted investments are still a relatively small proportion of the total and Baillie Gifford run their ITs obviously with nominated individual managers but at the same time with groupings of managers so that there will be a house tally of the total exposure to say Tesla across all funds and then a general consensus about reducing the exposure or whatever. The same I think will apply to unlisted securities. Besides, Woodford was one individual without any checks or balances. I do not think that is the case with Baillie Gifford although of course it is incumbent on all of us to be on our guard.

Furthermore, the illiquidity to which richfool refers is much more of a problem with open funds such as OEICs than it is with a closed ended fund like an IT. It was with his OEICs that the real problem lay. ADrunkenMarcus has just made my latter point.

Dod

[scrumpyjack]

I feel so sorry for him, having to downsize from a £30m house, perhaps to one costing only £20m?

Seriously I can't understand why anyone would invest with him after what has happened.

[Dod101]

Just Googled this topic and it has thrown up an item from Money Marketing in which it says that Woodford will not be managing money for retail investors in the future but only for professionals and specialising in the unquoted biotech sector.

He also blames Link Solutions for prematurely closing his fund when the requested funds withdrawal by Kent County Council precipitated this. Had they not done so the implication is that there could have been an orderly wind down.

Anyway as we are all saying, it is surely doubtful that anyone would want to invest with Woodford in future.

Dod

[88V8]

Luckily, I was not into 'fund' investments while Woordford was in his pomp, otherwise I might gave been caught.
I did invest in New Rover Retail, one of his darlings. The were alright for a while, heyho.

But in his original incarnation, with an established team and investments built up over many years, he did OK, did he not?

I think his great mistake was setting out on his own, and trying to establish new funds with a wall of money, all of which needed to be invested quickly whilst meeting unrealistically high expectations.
I think any manager would have struggled, and it is a mark of his hubris that he did not recognise the impossibility of the task.

I would never follow a manager to a new scratch-built fund, no matter who they were.

V8

[joey]

I just wonder, is there a comparison to be made between Woodford's "off-piste" illiquid investments and SMT's unlisted investments? I hope not.

If SMT ever invest in a perpetual motion machine or cold fusion then I’ll consider it to be a “sell” signal

[PeterGray]

He also blames Link Solutions for prematurely closing his fund when the requested funds withdrawal by Kent County Council precipitated this. Had they not done so the implication is that there could have been an orderly wind down.

That merely underlines the point that holding illiquid investments in an open ended fund is madness. And Woodford should/would have been well aware. Trying to offload the responsibility for the outcome doesn't improve his reputation any.

[ReallyVeryFoolish]

He also blames Link Solutions for prematurely closing his fund when the requested funds withdrawal by Kent County Council precipitated this. Had they not done so the implication is that there could have been an orderly wind down.

That merely underlines the point that holding illiquid investments in an open ended fund is madness. And Woodford should/would have been well aware. Trying to offload the responsibility for the outcome doesn't improve his reputation any.

Don't you know? Woodford is never wrong about anything? That is a big part of "the problem".

RVF