Podcast Summary
Woodford's Challenges After Leaving Invesco Perpetual: Despite Woodford's value investing approach and success in the biotech sector, managing a £10 billion fund led to poor performance and liquidity issues, raising concerns about the risks of investing in smaller, unlisted companies and the importance of understanding a fund manager's strategy and risk tolerance.
Neil Woodford, a renowned UK fund manager, faced significant challenges after leaving Invesco Perpetual to launch his own firm, Woodford Investment Management, and the Woodford Equity Income Fund. Known for his value investing approach, Woodford aimed to invest in undervalued companies, particularly in the biotech sector. However, as the fund grew to £10 billion, it became increasingly difficult for him to manage and sell large stakes in smaller companies, leading to poor performance and liquidity issues. The fallout from Woodford's missteps has raised concerns about the reputational damage to the entire fund industry and the risks associated with investing in smaller, unlisted companies. While Woodford's situation serves as a cautionary tale, it also highlights the importance of understanding a fund manager's investment strategy, risk tolerance, and the potential challenges that come with investing in smaller companies.
Neil Woodford's investment fund faced redemptions and shrinking size, leading to suspension: Neil Woodford's fund suspension highlights the importance of diversification and potential risks of investing in a single manager or fund.
Neil Woodford's investment fund faced a massive redemption wave, forcing him to sell larger company shares to meet demands. This led to a shrinking fund size and a skewed focus towards smaller companies. The situation came to a head when Kent County Council pulled out over £200 million, leading to the fund's suspension and leaving investors unable to withdraw or add funds. This high-profile failure has raised questions about industry relationships and the need to rebuild trust. For average investors with money in Woodford Equity Income, their investments continue to be managed, with companies being shuffled behind the scenes. They cannot sell or move their funds until the suspension is lifted. While this may not affect all investors significantly, it highlights the importance of diversification and the potential risks involved in investing in a single fund or manager.
Be wary of short-term access to stock market funds: Investors should have cash reserves for short-term needs and consider risks before investing in funds promising dividend income, as market volatility can impact access to funds. Some fund managers may continue to take fees during suspensions, leaving investors feeling unfairly locked in.
Investors should be cautious about relying on short-term access to funds invested in the stock market, especially those that promise dividend income. The recent suspension of Neil Woodford's Equity Income Fund highlights the risks associated with this, as some investors may need the money for retirement income or other expenses and could be left unable to access it when the market experiences volatility. The situation is particularly contentious because the fund's managers, Neil Woodford and Craig Newman, have continued to take significant fees from the fund while it is suspended, leaving some investors feeling they have been unfairly locked in. Additionally, platforms like Hargreaves Lansdown that recommend such funds to investors have faced criticism for not warning investors about the potential risks and alternative investment options. Overall, investors should consider having cash reserves for short-term needs and carefully consider the risks and potential alternatives before investing in funds that promise dividend income.
The Woodford investment controversy and its implications: The Woodford controversy underscores the importance of transparency, accountability and effective regulation in the investment industry. Investors must closely examine their investments and regulatory bodies should monitor fund managers to prevent similar situations from arising in the future.
The Woodford investment controversy highlights the importance of transparency and accountability in the investment industry. Neil Woodford, a well-known fund manager, faced criticism for his underperforming fund and the large percentage of unquoted holdings. During a press conference, he and his team were grilled by investment journalists for hours over their investment decisions. The controversy led to a loss of trust among investors, particularly those who had been advised to keep investing in the fund despite its poor performance. The incident has raised questions about the risks associated with unquoted holdings and the role of regulatory bodies in monitoring fund managers. It also underscores the need for investors to closely examine their investments and for the industry to learn from past mistakes to prevent similar situations from arising in the future.
Criticisms of financial authorities' reactive approach to investment fund risks: Despite past crises, financial authorities have been criticized for their reactive approach to potential risks in large investment funds, such as lack of proactive regulation and scrutiny, and the question of whether some funds are too big for one person to manage.
The financial authorities, including the FCA and the Treasury Select Committee, have been criticized for their reactive approach to the potential risks in large investment funds, such as the Woodford fund. The issue of investment funds' liquidity and the potential for mass redemptions causing difficulties in returning investors' money has been a concern since the financial crisis. The industry has seen instances where funds had to close their doors due to redemption pressures, particularly in the case of commercial property funds. Despite these past lessons, there seems to be a lack of proactive regulation and scrutiny, with authorities only paying attention when crises occur. The question of whether some investment funds are too big for one person to manage such large sums also arises. The FCA, as the regulatory body, holds the responsibility to prevent such situations and ensure the industry's stability.
FCA's Focus on Investment Banking Overshadowed Risks in Asset Management: The FCA needs to proactively regulate the asset management industry, align fees with performance, and investors should consider risks and rewards of actively managed funds versus trackers.
The financial regulatory body, the FCA, has focused too much scrutiny on investment banking in the past, neglecting the risks in the asset management industry. This oversight came to light during the recent market turmoil, and it's crucial for the FCA to be proactive rather than reactive. The asset management industry, which sees large sums of money being made, should also reflect on its practices and consider reforms, such as aligning fees with performance. Additionally, investors must weigh the risks and potential rewards of actively managed funds versus tracker funds. The recent market downturn serves as a reminder of the importance of understanding the complexities of the financial industry and the need for effective regulation and self-reflection.
Rebuilding trust in the fund industry: To rebuild trust, the industry should separate fees from best buy lists, make them available for independent scrutiny, and increase passive fund representation.
Despite the expertise and knowledge of fund managers, they can still make mistakes and underperform. The recent crisis involving Neil Woodford's fund has raised questions about the future of the fund industry and the role of best buy lists. To rebuild trust, the industry should consider separating fees from buyer lists, making them available to independent scrutiny, and increasing the representation of passive funds on these lists. This will help ensure that recommendations are based solely on merit and not influenced by commercial incentives. These changes, along with increased scrutiny on best buy lists, are likely to be implemented in the future.
Downsides of actively managed funds vs passive trackers: While actively managed funds may offer potential advantages, their volatility, difficulty in purchasing, and potential misalignment with investors' interests should be considered before investment. Past performance and fund size are important factors to evaluate.
While some investment platforms recommend actively managed funds over passive tracker options, there are potential downsides to this. Hargreaves Lansdown, for instance, has faced criticism for the potential volatility and difficulty in purchasing funds once they're popular, leading to a rush in buying and inflated prices. In contrast, Interactive Investor allows access to both actively managed funds and trackers. However, investors should consider what added value an actively managed fund brings over a passive tracker before making a purchase. Additionally, the fund management industry's focus on its own success may not always align with the best interests of its customers. It's crucial for investors to consider a fund's size and the potential impact on its ability to make effective calls, as well as its past performance. Ultimately, a focus on the customer's needs and interests could lead to improvements in the industry.
Diversify portfolio and stay informed: Investors should diversify their portfolio and stay informed about their investments to avoid significant losses, as seen in the Woodford scandal. Passive funds may outperform active ones in large, established markets, but regular monitoring is crucial.
Investors should not put all their eggs in one basket and should always diversify their portfolio. The recent Woodford scandal serves as a reminder that even the most successful funds can face significant risks and losses. Additionally, the asset class being invested in plays a role in determining the potential value an active manager can add. For large, established markets like US equities, passive funds tend to outperform active funds. Lastly, it's crucial for investors to be aware of what their money is being invested in and to regularly check on their fund manager's activities. Despite Neil Woodford's transparency in disclosing his investments, many investors failed to pay attention, leading to significant losses. The industry, investors, and journalists should learn from this situation and strive to make informed decisions to mitigate risks and protect their investments.
Stay informed about fund holdings: Regularly evaluate your investments, consider large unquoted holdings, and avoid potential conflicts of interest.
Investors should be aware of where their money is invested and keep informed about the funds' holdings. This includes paying attention to large investments in unquoted companies and considering the size of the fund itself. It's essential to regularly evaluate your investment choices and ensure there are no potential conflicts of interest. Warren Buffett's approach of buying and holding investments for long periods without frequent checks might not be suitable for everyone. The recent removal of Nick Train's Linsal Train fund from Hargreaves Lansdowne's Wealth 50 list due to a perceived conflict of interest highlights the importance of staying informed and making conscious investment decisions.
Sign up for This is Money's fantasy share picking game: Join the free game for a chance to win £20,000 or weekly £500 prize by picking the best share
If you're interested in share picking and want a chance to win some money without any investment, you can sign up for This is Money's fantasy share picking game at thisismoney.co.uk/forward/game. This game is free to join and offers a £20,000 grand prize or a weekly £500 prize for the best share pick. Stay updated with the latest money news by visiting the website or downloading the app. Additionally, don't forget to rate the podcast on iTunes to help others discover it. Lastly, consider opening a Junior ISA for your little ones with This is Money and NS to give them a head start on their financial future.
