Woodford, page-62

First 62 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
stayer

10,425 Posts.

221

20/10/22

11:05

Post #: 64295698
Share

Originally posted by Bootsnall ↑

Hada little read up on the Woodford issue and its more interesting than I thought.For those that are not familiar with the Neil Woodford LF income Fund it'sdiscussed here. Citywire

To summarise, as the fund administrator it closed the 3b GBP fund in 2019 andproceeded to liquidate the assets. It paid back 2.25b GBP in 2021 and still hadsome minor assets. Some of the contention is that some assets were sold at fire saleprices by LF under direction from Link and the statements by Acacia Researchlit this torch and that the fund was closed either prematurely or too latewhich resulted in abnormal profits for some and avoidable losses to the otherinvestors. The closure related to fund liquidity and is further complicated byseveral technicalities involving what seem to be tax havens.

Thecommentary also indicates that NW had a bit of a following. This may have beena concern for Link as the administrator. There is commentary that the market value of the fund wasinflated by the following buying up the on market what they could whilst some large long term placements were by their nature illiquid and thus frozen. The value of these frozen assets seems to be at the heart of issue as their ultimately realised value contributed to the loss. The value was progressively marked down in the wind up of the fund as they proved difficult to sell. The value of these was always the responsibility of LF. Link are firm in their view that they always acted in the best interests of all investors so it remains to be seen what happens. The reality is that the fund was making speculative investments.

Thisguarantee would seem to limit on the liability if indeed one exists. It goes tothe central issue of duty of care and due diligence. Clearly Link believe thatLink were compliant but people lost money hence the litigation and the 3 yearinvestigation by the British FCA.

Expand

I said in my earlier post on this thread ( in a way ) that the authorities are basically acting like parents of toddlers..and modern risk averse ones….as in another “ woke” typed infection in society…..obviously it was investing in risky assets….why then does the FCA want to go after the Link subsidiary ?? I mean they got over 2/3 of their capital back, hardly a complete disaster, especially when you see some of the disasters we’ve had here with some managed investments.

Maybe a bit of anti the “colonials” from the British establishment??

LNK Price at posting: $3.30 Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
1 Upvote

0 Great analysis

Reply

Top Stories

3DA

To make modern missiles, you need 3D Printing. And in that gold rush, Amaero is selling shovels

STM

Sunstone expands gold-copper mineralisation at Bramaderos with porphyry find

PDN

Paladin cuts back uranium production guidance for FY25 based on hiccups at Langer Heinrich

Trump is President Again: What Does This Mean for Crypto?

MKT

The ASX can overlook its Telecomm small-caps. Here’s one diversified brand with an international footprint