Woodford to return.

[XFool]

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

Or a major stake in bitcoin?

RICA?

[Gerry557]

I was a happy Woody fund holder for quite a few years until he decided to go it alone. Results were good but my thoughts at the time echo others. A forced buyer in a reletive market high trying to maintain his cult following.

I decided not to follow him thinking I might get in "later" when things turned in my favor and the high buys had run their course, hoping for an overs wing to the downside.

There is a big difference between a poor run of results and investing (illegally? ) outside his remit. Personally I won't be going back althoght from comments as a private investor, might not be able too.

I am surprised that he can continue and that the rules and or regulatory system would allow it. Sure he might have started within his remit and circumstances went against him but there seemed to be a cover up rather than so open honest debate on those circumstances and a request to change the rules or to warn investors of the change and allow free exit for those unhappy.

I suspect many would have stayed with him for the ride and the longer term view.

I hope Woody fleeces those new retail investors too, maybe then the regulator might get their act together and then the rest of us can benefit.

[SoBo65]

I see both AsleepInYorkshire and ReallyVeryFoolish are quoted in the times today:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/save ... 184454_101

[Dod101]

I see both AsleepInYorkshire and ReallyVeryFoolish are quoted in the times today:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/save ... 184454_101

This cannot be true "On The Lemon Fool bulletin board retail investors, 300,000 of whom put their money with Woodford,"?

RVF

I do not know where they got that figure but never mind, fame at last. But the substance of the article is that Woodford is said to be offering his services to Acacia Research not to retail investors, and that Woodford is still authorised by the FCA.

The Times quotes one Clifford Press of Acacia thus 'When I met Neil I knew I was in the presence of an exceptional investment manager'.

Dod

[Matchless]

OK RVF what was the cold fusion scam?

[AsleepInYorkshire]

City investors outraged at return of former stockpicking star Neil Woodford and call on Financial Conduct Authority to ban him

Another fund manager expressing incredulity at Woodford setting up a new fund asked sarcastically: "Is Andrew Bailey going to be a director?"

AiY

[AsleepInYorkshire]

From the past

Neil Woodford: disgraced money manager and partner took £13.8m dividends before fund collapsed

Chief executive Craig Newman picked up £4.8m. The pair also bagged £36.5m the previous year

AiY

[Alaric]

This cannot be true "On The Lemon Fool bulletin board retail investors, 300,000 of whom put their money with Woodford,"?

I presume they were trying to say that there were 300,000 retail investors in Woodford funds, some of whom commented on The Lemon Fool.

[Matchless]

Is this the sort of thing to expect if we venture into this alligator infested swamp we play in - what about Tesla and Bitcoin should any investment connected these be avoided?

[AsleepInYorkshire]

This cannot be true "On The Lemon Fool bulletin board retail investors, 300,000 of whom put their money with Woodford,"?

I presume they were trying to say that there were 300,000 retail investors in Woodford funds, some of whom commented on The Lemon Fool.

I wasn't in Woodford, thank goodness. However, my "justice gene" runs deep and I find the behaviour of some irks. Mr Woodford could scale down his own personal wealth, buy a preowned van and lawnmower and offer to cut the lawns of those who have lost money due to his actions.

AiY

[absolutezero]

Fund manager: A person to whom you give money who then loses it on your behalf.

TLDR:
Do it yourself.

[yorkshirelad1]

I see both AsleepInYorkshire and ReallyVeryFoolish are quoted in the times today:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/save ... 184454_101

To me, that just smacks of lazy journalism: copy/paste something off the web/forum, and the misunderstanding inherent in the Times text says it all

On The Lemon Fool bulletin board retail investors, 300,000 of whom put their money with Woodford,

For the full quote of where the Times quotes TLF, for those that don't have access through the paywall (register for one free article a day etc):

On The Lemon Fool bulletin board retail investors, 300,000 of whom put their money with Woodford, said that he “should not be allowed near the investment area again”. One, calling themselves ReallyVeryFoolish, said: “I am annoyed that this charlatan isn’t being locked up. He made millions. Only the little guys lost money. Woodford coming back into the game is appalling.” A posting by AsleepInYorkshire, said: “He hasn’t got any sympathy for those he persuaded to invest with him. He betrayed trust.”

(If the Times can quote TLF, then TLF can quote the Times....)

[AsleepInYorkshire]

I see both AsleepInYorkshire and ReallyVeryFoolish are quoted in the times today:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/save ... 184454_101

To me, that just smacks of lazy journalism: copy/paste something off the web/forum, and the misunderstanding inherent in the Times text says it all

On The Lemon Fool bulletin board retail investors, 300,000 of whom put their money with Woodford,

For the full quote of where the Times quotes TLF, for those that don't have access through the paywall (register for one free article a day etc):

On The Lemon Fool bulletin board retail investors, 300,000 of whom put their money with Woodford, said that he “should not be allowed near the investment area again”. One, calling themselves ReallyVeryFoolish, said: “I am annoyed that this charlatan isn’t being locked up. He made millions. Only the little guys lost money. Woodford coming back into the game is appalling.” A posting by AsleepInYorkshire, said: “He hasn’t got any sympathy for those he persuaded to invest with him. He betrayed trust.”

(If the Times can quote TLF, then TLF can quote the Times....)

I hope Stooz is getting the royalties for this

My bad

AiY

[richfool]

Yes, what happened to copyright? I'm surprised that the Times is freely accessing and quoting material from TLF, yet I am expected to pay to access articles in the Times.

I didn't realise that material on TLF was freely readable by the public. Though I suppose I did, if I stop and think about it! But surely, they ought to have to join the forum before being able to read forum content.

And yes, I concur, I don't think Woodford should be allowed near investments again, other than his own.

[bungeejumper]

Yes, what happened to copyright? I'm surprised that the Times is freely accessing and quoting material from TLF, yet I am expected to pay to access articles in the Times.

I haven't seen the Times references, but speaking as a meeja type, I'd imagine that they would fall under the fair use provisions. https://www.bl.uk/business-and-ip-centr ... explained# . Basically, a publisher can quote a "reasonable" extract from another source:

1) If it is used for the purposes of criticism, review or quotation;
2) Where it is utilised for the purposes of reporting current events (this does not apply to photographs)

The rules are a bit squishy, and they vary from one country to another, and the courts are the final arbiters, but the general gist of them is that you shouldn't quote more than 10% of your quotee's material, and you shouldn't print spoilers, etc, that will completely deprive the quotee of everything he was trying to say. There are special rules for satirical quotation (which is generally exempt). And thank goodness, too.

Having said that, a journalist who quotes an anonymous bulletin board member's opinion is clearly running on empty, and presumably has a wordcount to fill before teatime. That won't stop the papers from Twitter quoting, of course.

BJ

[richfool]

So, AiY and RVF having been quoted by the Times, will no longer be able to use the expression, - "IMHO", - "In My Humble Opinion".
Henceforth, they will have to use the expression: "IMEO", - i.e. "In My Esteemed Opinion"!!

[yorkshirelad1]

Sharesoc have blogged:

"Woodford says “I’m sorry” – I don’t accept apology. WoodfordPayBack time is here."
https://www.sharesoc.org/blog/regulations-and-law/woodford-says-im-sorry-i-dont-accept-apology-woodfordpayback-time-is-here/

[Dod101]

Well RVF and AiY at least had their quotes attributed to them. Mine wasn't but I don't care.

And anyone can read the posts on TLF. They are very much in the public domain. Try it for yourself richfool, without signing in. You can only post though if you are signed in (and for some reason you need to sign in to read some of the threads).

No doubt in my mind that the FCA should ban Woodford from attempting to sell to retail investors in the UK, although I cannot imagine any retail investor wanting to buy from him anyway. It would be symbolic though and if I had lost money with him I would be spitting blood at seeing him starting up again but surely the FCA cannot do much about it if he is in Jersey dealing with some US outfit.

Dod

[AsleepInYorkshire]

So, AiY and RVF having been quoted by the Times, will no longer be able to use the expression, - "IMHO", - "In My Humble Opinion".
Henceforth, they will have to use the expression: "IMEO", - i.e. "In My Esteemed Opinion"!!

Sir AiY will do - thank youp (My bad )

I think it shows the morbid reality for Times readers though when anything I say is deemed worthy of reciting.

SAiY

[richfool]

Surely the root cause of the Woodford problems were that he had invested too much into the illiquid "off-piste" holdings, in contravention of the rules of the fund/trust. Then when withdrawals increased and those proportions worsened, the Directors were obliged to act.