The knives are coming out for poor old Woody.

[nmdhqbc]

He is the right guy for the wrong time.

Exactly, and investment should be long term - longer than the current "Wrong time".

[Lootman]

He is the right guy for the wrong time.

Exactly, and investment should be long term - longer than the current "Wrong time".

Perhaps so, but nobody can predict who will be right long-term. The only indicator is who has been right so far.

[Arborbridge]

Things are just not going swimmingly well for good old Woody, are they?

Hedge fund attacks Woodford Patient's top holding

http://citywire.co.uk/money/hedge-fund-attacks-woodford-patients-top-holding/a1067331?ref=citywire-money-latest-news-list

FredBloggs appears to be developing an anti-Woody obsession

[Arborbridge]

Noooooo....... I was defending him and his income fund up the thread there^^^^^. But, I don't indulge in the hero worship either [/quote]

Well, good for you on that past point - but I'd noticed a few critical posts by you which seemed to me to suggest an eye over-focussed on this one fellow. Apologies if I'm wrong.

Arb.

[richfool]

Looks like a bit more trouble for Woody:

US hedge fund Kerrisdale has launched a short-selling attack on Prothena (PRTA.O), the top holding in the Woodford Patient Capital (WPCT) investment trust.

Kerrisdale argued shares in the biotech stock could fall by as much as 80%, saying it was 'certain' of the failure of its flagship drug NEOD001, a potential therapy for AL Amyloidosis, a rare disease caused by the build-up of amyloid proteins, which can lead to organ failure. Shares in Prothena fell 7.5% on the news, while shares in Woodford Patient edged 0.4% lower to 95.6p.

Prothena is by far the biggest holding in Neil Woodford's investment trust, accounting for 16.3% of assets, and is the fourth largest in his flagship Woodford Equity Income fund, at 4.1% of the portfolio.

http://citywire.co.uk/investment-trust- ... der+Weekly

16.3% is a large proportion of one's portfolio to have in one particular stock.

[OhNoNotimAgain]

Prothena is by far the biggest holding in Neil Woodford's investment trust, accounting for 16.3% of assets, and is the fourth largest in his flagship Woodford Equity Income fund, at 4.1% of the portfolio.

And what is the yield on this stock, held by an income fund?

[compounder74]

The investment trust is not an income fund.

Happy investor with woody for about 20 years - through hot and cold patches.

[richfool]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but Woodford Income fund isn't even in the official classification sector for "income funds".Several other funds named "income" aren't either. Evenlode Income being the stand out example.

Yes, it is not an income fund:

"Woodford Patient Capital Trust" is in the UK Growth sector. (13th out of 15 over 1 year).

http://citywire.co.uk/money/investment- ... ePeriod=12

http://citywire.co.uk/money/investment- ... undID=3853

[richfool]

Ahem, clears throat............

Prothena is by far the biggest holding in Neil Woodford's investment trust, accounting for 16.3% of assets, and is the fourth largest in his flagship Woodford Equity Income fund, at 4.1% of the portfolio.

Ah yes, I see what you mean, there is an IT and a fund. Sorry if I was cross-pollinating. (I had seen that the 16% holding of Prothena matched to the IT holdings and had assumed that was what they were talking about, without appreciating that the fund referred to after the comma was a separate/different one, where the holding of Athena was 4.1%).

[OZYU]

Ahem, clears throat............

Prothena is by far the biggest holding in Neil Woodford's investment trust, accounting for 16.3% of assets, and is the fourth largest in his flagship Woodford Equity Income fund, at 4.1% of the portfolio.

Which is not an Income OEIC either, but concentrates on income and growth. Thus it is appropriate to have some holdings in it which pay no divis. Not to be confused with his newest OEIC, which does indeed seek to deliver income as its primary target as it says on the tin.

As usual NotHim... is talking from the wrong end of his anatomy.

It is NOT appropriate, imho, for him as a fund manager to repeatedly comment on other colleagues on these boards, it is a breach of understood etiquette, particuarly when he won't ever reach their shoulder in achievements and reputation, take a look at his capital destruction on his so called smart fund, taking RPI into account, on his fund since inception, without producing more than mundane income.

Ozyu

[forrado]

"Neil Woodford: Will investors keep the faith?"
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/news/neil-woodford-will-investors-keep-the-faith/ar-BBFZubK?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=mailsignout

Authored by Claer Barrett and Kate Beioley of the Financial Times following a recent FT sit-down with Neil Woodford.

While investors might well keep the faith there are no guarantees that they'll likewise keep the faith with Neil Woodford.

[scotia]

Thanks for the link forrado
I found the article puzzling
Woodford claimed that we are in an equity bubble of almost unheard of proportions.
Then he goes on to say that we are much too gloomy about Brexit and large sections of GB equity is significantly undervalued.
And one of his favoured undervalued sectors seems to be housebuilders - whose shares have been rocketing upwards in a bubble like fashion.

[OhNoNotimAgain]

Thanks for the link forrado
I found the article puzzling
Woodford claimed that we are in an equity bubble of almost unheard of proportions.
Then he goes on to say that we are much too gloomy about Brexit and large sections of GB equity is significantly undervalued.
And one of his favoured undervalued sectors seems to be housebuilders - whose shares have been rocketing upwards in a bubble like fashion.

If he really believed there is a bubble he should be telling his investors to sell.

[GoSeigen]

Thanks for the link forrado
I found the article puzzling
Woodford claimed that we are in an equity bubble of almost unheard of proportions.
Then he goes on to say that we are much too gloomy about Brexit and large sections of GB equity is significantly undervalued.
And one of his favoured undervalued sectors seems to be housebuilders - whose shares have been rocketing upwards in a bubble like fashion.

I happen to agree 100% with his general points, though I may not on specific share she holds. I think all the answers are in the article, if it is read carefully.

Two points that IMO may help resolving the apparent contradictions:

1. "bubble" has become a devalued and abused word. A share price that has been rising strongly does not constitute a bubble. If W. used the word bubble I would guess it was in reference to specific parts of the market e.g. FANG, some bonds, etc, and emphatically NOT all of UK stocks.

2. Trackers. Everyone is piling in and getting fleeced IMO. Woodford is a stock picker and believes (as do I) that this is a stock picking market. Punters do not. IMV bad stocks are being sold expensively to tracker punters and good ones bought cheaply from them. Tracker investors don't care about price, they just buy and sell their favoured indexes. They certainly care little about the price of constituents. So I believe this is creating a wonderful opportunity for pickers like Woodford.


GS

[OhNoNotimAgain]

So I believe this is creating a wonderful opportunity for pickers like Woodford.


GS

Except the evidence says otherwise.

[Raptor]

So I believe this is creating a wonderful opportunity for pickers like Woodford.


GS

Except the evidence says otherwise.

Do not understand your post? Scotia's quote states it is an opportunity for Woodford, Your reponse is meaningless to the quote.

Raptor.

[GoSeigen]

So I believe this is creating a wonderful opportunity for pickers like Woodford.


GS

Except the evidence says otherwise.

Rob, some evidence says otherwise. So what?


GS

[scotia]

ohnotimagain - you have mis-quoted me

scotia wrote:
So I believe this is creating a wonderful opportunity for pickers like Woodford.

I most definitely did not state the above - I believe it was goseigen
Please take care when cutting and pasting

[scotia]

I think all the answers are in the article, if it is read carefully.

I think all the answers are always present in any article full of contradictions. Its one way of being right all the time.

[hiriskpaul]

The evidence that index trackers beat most active management is widespread and remarkably uniform, assuming the trackers you are talking about are the whole of market, cap weighted kind and not some kind of smart beta index that worked brilliantly in back test. SPIVA is an example that is regularly updated - http://us.spindices.com/spiva/#/. This paper is a good starting point as well if you want to dig deeper https://personal.vanguard.com/pdf/s296.pdf.

This outcome is not actually very surprising when you consider that in aggregate professional fund managers look after most of the shares sitting outside cap weighted trackers and so in aggregate they should perform in line with the market before fees*. But as the fees of active managers are higher than that of the market, they must lag the market in aggregate. Great video from Warren Buffett on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxLthF103w0

* Years ago it is likely that professional active fund managers were able to outperform due to a large tranche of shares being ineptly managed by private investors and their stock brokers, but this group has become largely irrelevant as professional fund managers now own most of the market. This may change with the rise of smart-beta indexes, which by definition do not track the whole market. So in future active managers may in aggregate be able to outperform if the smart-beta sector becomes a significant size and in aggregate underperforms the market.