Woodford and Hargreaves Lansdown

I'm badly affected by the Woodford disaster. I hope the man is permanently banned from the financial sector. As the main fund is suspended, we have to wait to see how much the damage is.
Partly my fault as when I invested in Woodford at his own start, I thought I was buying the likes of BP, Diageo, BAT. But more and more low price crap got included which I should have spotted.
I also have lots invested in the Hargreaves Multi-Manager Funds, and am now shocked how much Woodford is part of EVERY HL-MM fund. Examples: HL-MM Income and Growth: 14% Woodford HL-MM Equity and Bond: 10.2% Woodford HL-MM Balanced Managed: 4.8% Woodord.
As Woodford's Patient Capital went down, he used his main fund to buy and shore up Patient Capital - and at an INFLATED price (NAV - which is lower than trading price.). This resulted in Woodford's main fund and the HL-MM funds being invested in crap that differs from the fund name "style".
I have just (2 days ago) sold half of my HL-MM Income and Growth and half of my HL-MM Equity and Bond. Despite the Woodford suspension these sales went through. SO HAVE I BEEN PAID ZERO for the Woodford element? I should at least get an IOU for the Woodford element. I will try to determine this tomorrow
If this carry-on was in the US, there would be a class-action lawsuit both on Woodford and HL. (think Madoff). I will also be calling the Financial Ombudsman and FCA for some opinions.
Any views or opinions?
Fred
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

My sympathies. Technically the fund's investment policies say (in the KIID):
"To seek to invest at least 70% in shares of UK listed companies. It may also invest in unlisted companies, overseas entities and derivatives. It is not anticipated that the use of derivatives will have a significant adverse effect on the risk profile of the fund."
So only when it goes above 30% unlisted companies (or 30% non-UK) would this be a justification for calling them out for mismanagement. (there may be other reasons, of course)

No, you sold XXX units of a HL-MM fund. The HL manager is forced to fund that somehow. Since Woodford cannot currently be sold, they would have to fund that by selling other investments the fund holds.
In practice, that means everyone remaining now holds a higher proportion of Woodford than they did before.
This was precisely the problem Woodford Equity Income had when there was substantial selling - they were forced to sell the easy to liquidate holdings, leaving everyone holding more and more unlisted stocks, which caused the performance to become worse (the market expects people will soon want to unload those stocks hence their price falls), which caused more people to sell, etc.
This is a hazard of open-ended funds. If it was a closed-ended structure (like the Woodford Patient Capital investment trust) then the price would fall but there wouldn't be this kind of selling death spiral, because there would never be a need to sell underlying holdings to meet redemptions.

There are certainly questions to answer about the close relationship between HL and Woodford...
Theo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Theo, Thanks for your excellent reply.
KIID:

I expect that was violated.

That sounds like the Woodford Fund experience being repeated in the HL-MM funds. A selfish response is I hope that was true, but it's Woodford and HL that I want in the dock. (I am aware that if all bank depositors form a line and demand cash out, a bank cannot pay.)

There is something particularly dodgy here. As the demand for Patient Capital dried up, he loaded it into the main fund to shore up the PC price (and hence also the HL-MM funds).

Interesting selling of HL stock a few months ago by HL's Dampier and Guardhouse.. They knew this was coming, yet only days ago removed Woodford from the Wealth Top 50 list.
Do you believe the guilty will be punished, and their fines allocated to the affected?
Fred
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10 Jun 2019 12:48:34 +0100 (BST), Theo

A bit reminiscent of the way they (HL) pushed Anthony Bolton's China Special Sits in which I (and Bolton) got "burnt". Well it's recovered somewhat since but lesson learnt and I ignored everything being thrown at me regarding Woodford. There's investing and there's gambling and he seems to have got caught up with too much of the latter.
What's he getting? I think I heard ?100,000/day.
--
AnthonyL

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

BeanSmart.com is a site by and for consumers of financial services and advice. We are not affiliated with any of the banks, financial services or software manufacturers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.

Tax and financial advice you come across on this site is freely given by your peers and professionals on their own time and out of the kindness of their hearts. We can guarantee neither accuracy of such advice nor its applicability for your situation. Simply put, you are fully responsible for the results of using information from this site in real life situations.