Interesting note by AMATI on liquidity in OEICs, and why they consider that they do not have Woodford's problem
http://amatiglobal.com/press.php?date=20190620
Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators
Thanks to Anonymous,bruncher,niord,gvonge,Shelford, for Donating to support the site
amati response to the woodford problem
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 3578
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:43 pm
- Has thanked: 2388 times
- Been thanked: 1951 times
-
- The full Lemon
- Posts: 10978
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:17 pm
- Has thanked: 1505 times
- Been thanked: 3050 times
Re: amati response to the woodford problem
Thanks for the pointer. An interesting read.
One thing in particular struck me with reference to Woodford:
Woodford Patient Capital factsheet tells us WPCT acquired some illiquid assets from the troubled open-ended fund back in February - a timescale that could very well coincide with firefighting by the manager. WPCT paid for those assets by issuing new WPCT shares to the fund. Sounds like a rather similar wheeze to that described in the quote from Amati, yesno?
One thing in particular struck me with reference to Woodford:
In 2008 there was a range of open-ended funds called Arch Cru which held only unlisted investments, but did so by packaging these investments up into cell companies listed on the Channel Islands Stock Exchange.
Woodford Patient Capital factsheet tells us WPCT acquired some illiquid assets from the troubled open-ended fund back in February - a timescale that could very well coincide with firefighting by the manager. WPCT paid for those assets by issuing new WPCT shares to the fund. Sounds like a rather similar wheeze to that described in the quote from Amati, yesno?
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 3578
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:43 pm
- Has thanked: 2388 times
- Been thanked: 1951 times
Re: amati response to the woodford problem
Possibly also worth reading the note on the HL site on the Woodford problem
https://www.hl.co.uk/news/articles/wood ... expect-now
where HL indicate that they were concerned in November 2017 about the proportion of small and unquoted assets in the Woodford Equity Income Portfolio. And they maintain that the Woodford fund promised to inform HL if the UCITS guidelines were breached - but they did not report such breaches in February and March 2018.
I would have thought that any concern HL may have about a fund should automatically have resulted in it being dropped from their Top 50 picks.
Whatever happens (and I'm fortunately not a holder of any Woodford investments), I have learned from this experience to be extremely wary of any fund that uses the dodge of Channel Islands registered investments to cover up extremely illiquid investments. And returning to the AMATI note, I would like to see the Bucket Table becoming a necessary disclosure for all funds.
https://www.hl.co.uk/news/articles/wood ... expect-now
where HL indicate that they were concerned in November 2017 about the proportion of small and unquoted assets in the Woodford Equity Income Portfolio. And they maintain that the Woodford fund promised to inform HL if the UCITS guidelines were breached - but they did not report such breaches in February and March 2018.
I would have thought that any concern HL may have about a fund should automatically have resulted in it being dropped from their Top 50 picks.
Whatever happens (and I'm fortunately not a holder of any Woodford investments), I have learned from this experience to be extremely wary of any fund that uses the dodge of Channel Islands registered investments to cover up extremely illiquid investments. And returning to the AMATI note, I would like to see the Bucket Table becoming a necessary disclosure for all funds.
Re: amati response to the woodford problem
As I understand it, the agreement for HL to be notified, by Woodford, of any breach of the 'unquoted' level, only applied to the month-end data. As such there were no reported breaches of their agreement.
-
- Lemon Slice
- Posts: 310
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:53 pm
- Has thanked: 163 times
- Been thanked: 202 times
Re: amati response to the woodford problem
One sentence caught my eye "If there are lots of sellers, but no buyers, then the stock is liquid for buyers but not sellers, and vice versa." since I have read on TLF many times that for every seller there is a buyer. Maybe Amati's knowledge of the markets needs some fine tuning!
Pendrainllwyn
Pendrainllwyn
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 3578
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:43 pm
- Has thanked: 2388 times
- Been thanked: 1951 times
Re: amati response to the woodford problem
Pendrainllwyn wrote:One sentence caught my eye "If there are lots of sellers, but no buyers, then the stock is liquid for buyers but not sellers, and vice versa." since I have read on TLF many times that for every seller there is a buyer. Maybe Amati's knowledge of the markets needs some fine tuning!
Pendrainllwyn
I think what is meant is "if there are lots of want-to-be sellers". But they won't have much luck selling - hence there is no liquidity for sellers.
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 3578
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:43 pm
- Has thanked: 2388 times
- Been thanked: 1951 times
Re: amati response to the woodford problem
StOmer wrote:As I understand it, the agreement for HL to be notified, by Woodford, of any breach of the 'unquoted' level, only applied to the month-end data. As such there were no reported breaches of their agreement.
The devil's in the detail! Sailing close to the wind comes to mind.
Return to “Investment Trusts and Unit Trusts”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests