We want to make investing with us simple and straightforward for all of our clients.
Please select your investor type from the options below.
Alternatively you can register or log in to an existing account.
15 October 2019Est. reading: 1 min read
Home > Words > Blog > Woodford Equity Income Fund to wind up
Fund to wind up
Link has continued to consider the future of the Fund over the period of its suspension from 3 June 2019 and has decided not to re-open the Fund and instead wind it up.
To continue using the site you need to read the revised version and agree to the terms.
At Woodford1 we are committed to safeguarding and preserving your privacy.
This Privacy and Cookies Policy (together with the website Terms and Conditions) explains what happens to any personal data that you provide to us, or that we may learn about you while you visit our websites2, attend Woodford events, visit our offices, use our services or invest in one of the funds discretionary managed by us. This notice also informs you about your privacy rights and how the law may protect you.
We update this Policy from time to time, so please do review it regularly.
Please read the following carefully to understand our views and practices regarding your personal data and how we will treat it.
How and from where we may receive personal data
From you
When you contact or correspond with us (for example, by phone (including during recorded calls), e-mail or otherwise) for any other reason (for example, to request services from us);
When you use our Website, post comments on our Website or via social media;
When you report a problem with the Website;
When you:
register to receive information from us;
meet with us;
attend our events;
interact with us at third party events;
hand us your business card;
subscribe for blog alerts and bulletins;
sign up to receive news and updates from us;
participate in our surveys, competitions, questionnaires etc.; or
When you provide us with feedback, opinions and / or comments regarding the Website or our services.
Data from other sources
Like many other businesses, we may receive personal data from many sources. This section seeks to list various places from where we may receive personal data about you.
Data we indirectly gather about you:
When you use the Website, details of your usage (including the date, time, location or duration of the usage);
If you visit the Website, certain technical information, for example, the type of device (and its unique device identifier) you use to access the Website, the Internet protocol (IP) address used to connect your device to the Internet, your login information, browser type and version, time zone setting, browser plug-in types and versions, operating system, mobile network information and platform; and
Information about your visit to the Website including the full Uniform Resource Locators (URL), clickstream to, through and from the Website (including date and time), pages you viewed, page response times, download errors, length of visits to certain pages, page interaction information (such as scrolling, clicks, and mouse-overs), and methods used to browse away from the page.
Data we may receive from third parties
Companies that introduce you to us (such as financial advisers)
Financial advisers
Investment platforms through which you access our clients (investment companies and funds)
Investment fund administrators or shareholder/unitholder registrars
Social networks (e.g. google, twitter – see below for further details and our cookies policy below)
Public information sources such as Companies House or the Financial Conduct Authority’s Register
Market researchers/Data providers who collect and provide personal data from many sources for the specific and approved purpose of sharing such data with businesses like ours to help with our internal analysis (including assessing market trends, fund distributions statistics etc).
Marketing partners engaged to help distribute content on us and our services through any medium
Agents, consultants and advisers. These can be specialist companies who advise us on ways to develop and improve our services and products. These can also be types of firms that help us to prevent, detect and reports unlawful acts and fraudulent behaviours, in particular with regards to financial crime.
Government and law enforcement agencies
Purpose and legal basis for processing your data
Purpose of processing
Type of personal data
Legal basis for processing
To enable us to check your identity
Name, address, date of birth, passport details, driving license details and any other information you may provide us with
Legal obligation
To enable us to complete anti-money laundering checks to prevent financial crime and guard against market abuse activities
Name, address, date of birth, passport details, driving license details and any other information you may provide us with
Legal obligation
To deal with any enquiries, correspondence, concerns or complaints you have raised
Name, phone number, email address and details of the enquiry raised
Legitimate interests – to enable us to improve our services and the Website
To process any relevant payments
Bank, credit or debit card details
Performance of a contract with you
To enable us to process a referral from a third party (for example, a financial adviser)
Name, address, telephone number, email address, details of the referral and details of the third party making the referral
Legitimate interests – to enable us to process the referral
To compile internal reports and statistics of usage of the Website and our products and services
Name, details of any products or services purchased and the technical information mentioned above
Legitimate interests – to enable us to develop and manage our brands, products and services
To process your registration made via our Website to enable you (whilst acting on behalf of your company) to access the Woodford services
Your name, email address and company details (if applicable)
Legitimate interests – to enable us to provide you (where you have registered on behalf of your company) with Woodford online services
To send you our news items, marketing materials, product information, blog posts, insights and articles via email
Your name and email address
Legitimate interests – to enable us to communicate with business contacts
or
Consent – where we contact you in your personal capacity, for example where you are a user of our Website
To provide you with information, products or services that you request from us or which we feel may interest you
Your name and email address
Legitimate interests – to enable us to communicate with business contacts
or
Consent – where we contact you in your personal capacity, for example where you are a user of our Website
To assess how people use our products and services
Technical information as mentioned above
Legitimate interests – to enable us to improve our products and services
For our internal operations, including data analysis, testing, research, statistical purposes and troubleshooting
Technical information as mentioned above
Legitimate interests – to enable us to improve our products and services
As part of our efforts to keep the Website safe and secure
Technical information as mentioned above
Legitimate interests – to enable us to improve our products and services
To communicate with you if you wish to post on our Website
Your name, contact details, details of the post you wish to make and technical information as mentioned above
Legitimate interests – to review your request
To invite you to Woodford events
Your name, email address and details of the event
Legitimate interests – to allow us to obtain attendees for Woodford events
To enable us to host an event
Your name, email address, details of the event and any applicable dietary requirements (including relevant medical information)
Legitimate interests – to allow us to host Woodford events for attendees
The legal basis for processing any medical information to ensure we adhere to your dietary requirements and allergies will be consent.
To enable us to comply with our health and safety obligations when hosting an event (such as fire marshal duties)
Your name and details of the event you are attending
Legal obligation
To administer any quizzes and prize competitions we may run
Your name, email address, telephone number and your prize competition entry or quiz entry
Legitimate interests
To run polls in which you may choose to participate, for example via Twitter. We may then use the results of our poll (including your views) to inform our market insight or articles we may write
Your Twitter handle (or other relevant social media handle), the IP address associated with you (if relevant) and details of your response to the poll
Legitimate interests – collecting and analysing information for market analysis purposes, which you submit voluntarily
To receive feedback on our corporate governance and performance, including any views of investors in the funds that we manage
Your name, email address, telephone number and details of the feedback provided
Legitimate interests – collecting and analysing feedback on our performance and the performance of funds that we manage
To personalise the content you may see from us online (either on our Website or the websites of our online partners) if you have agreed to targeted advertising cookies
Your IP address and your consent to the use of targeted advertising cookies
Consent
To share your details (where you are an independent financial adviser business contact) with suppliers who carry out market analysis and information relating to IFAs, to enable them to take you into account in their research and analysis
Your name
Legitimate interest of the supplier – to carry out research and analysis on IFA market activity and publish information a directory of such activity – we would contractually require suppliers to whom we provide data to comply with data protection laws in their use of that data
Where we have a legal basis to use your personal data without consent (as we have described above), this Privacy and Cookies Policy fulfils our duty to process personal data fairly and lawfully and in a manner that you would expect given the nature of our relationship with you, by giving you appropriate notice and explanation of the way in which your personal data will be used.
Where consent is required for our use of your personal data as described above, we will request your consent. Typically, we would collect your consent by you performing an action such as ticking the appropriate consent box or otherwise communicating your consent to us (for example, by email or by you providing us with non mandatory information), you consent to our use of that personal data as set out in this policy.
You can always change your mind about our processing of your personal data. If you change your mind you can contact us by email at info@woodfordfunds.com, or in respect of marketing messages you can unsubscribe by using the unsubscribe link at the bottom of our marketing messages.
Cookie policy
Like most other websites, our website uses cookies. Cookies are small text files stored on your computer or mobile device by your browser. Cookies can be used to store certain preferences on a website or track if you have visited that site before.
No cookies used by Woodford store personally identifiable data such as:
Names
Phone numbers
Email addresses
Mailing addresses
Financial data
If you would like to limit or block the usage of cookies, you can do so in your browser settings. These settings differ between browsers.
By clicking “I Agree” on the cookie consent banner when you first access the Website and by using this site without changing your cookie settings, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
If you choose not to allow cookies, the quality of your browsing experience may be reduced and you may not be able to access all or parts of the Website. You can opt out of some individual cookies as described below.
For more detailed information about cookies and how they can be managed and deleted, please visit www.allaboutcookies.org.
Retaining personal data
We will retain the personal data we receive or collect about you for the period reasonably required for us to use it in accordance with this Privacy and Cookies Policy or in accordance with our legal rights and obligations. To determine the appropriate retention period for personal data, we consider the amount, nature, and sensitivity of the personal data, the potential risk of harm from unauthorised use or disclosure of your personal data, the purposes for which we process your personal data and whether we can achieve those purposes through other means, and the applicable legal requirements.
Your rights
You have the following rights with regard to your personal data:
Access: You have the right to access data we hold about you. This enables you to receive a copy of the personal data we hold about you and to check that we are lawfully processing it.
Rectification or erasure: You have the right to request that we rectify or delete any personal data that we hold about you (unless we have the legal right to retain it). If you request that we erase any personal data that we require in order to provide our products and services to you, you may no longer be able to use it. This right does not extend to non-personal data. It is likely to be necessary for us to retain your personal data to enable us to carry out a contract with you, and your rights under applicable law to request erasure may be limited accordingly. This means your rights under applicable law to request erasure may be limited accordingly.
Data portability: You have the right to obtain personal data we hold about you, in a structured, electronic format, and to transmit such data to another data controller if the legal basis for processing such personal data is consent or on the basis of performance of a contract.
Restriction: You also have the right to restrict us from processing your personal data if the data is inaccurate, the processing is unlawful or we no longer need to your personal data for the purposes for which we hold it.
Object / Change of preferences: You have a right to request that we stop processing your personal data where we are relying on a legitimate interest (or those of a third party). You also have the right to object where we are processing your personal information for direct marketing purposes. For example, if you have given your consent to receive updates from us about new products or services, but have changed your mind, you have the ability to opt out from receiving such communications going forward by contacting us using the details provided below or clicking the relevant link in any communications you receive. Please note, if you submit a request for us to stop processing your personal data in a certain way and this type of processing is required in order to provide you with our products and services, you will no longer be able to use our products and services following your request for us to stop the relevant processing.
Complaints: If for any reason you are not happy with the way that we have handled your personal data, please contact us. If you are still not happy, you have the right to make a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office.
Please note that if you ask us to stop processing your personal data in a certain way or erase your personal data, and this type of processing or data is needed to facilitate your use of any of our products or services you may not be able to use them as you did before. This does not include your right to object to direct marketing, which can be exercised at any time without restriction. Please allow at least 5 working days for your request to be actioned.
Please note that the rights mentioned above do not extend to non-personal data. Please also note that it is likely to be necessary to retain your personal data for the purposes of assessing and verifying data that is submitted by you and to manage our products and services, so therefore your rights under applicable law to request erasure may be limited accordingly.
If you would like to exercise any of the rights mentioned above, please contact us at info@woodfordfunds.com.
Disclosure of your personal data
investment funds/trust or companies (including their agents or service providers) discretionary managed by us, such as the LF Woodford Equity Investment Fund;
other companies in the Woodford Group and their agents;
service providers (for example, IT services), business partners, suppliers and sub-contractors for the performance of any contract we enter into with you, and for processing of our data on the basis of our legitimate interest (as we have explained in this policy) including providing you with marketing communications or developing and tailoring products. Such service providers may help us to update your records, carry out marketing fulfilment services (such as distributing our materials and reports) and help us analyse data for our own internal purposes;
analytics, market researchers, data partners and search engine providers that assist us in the improvement and optimisation of the Website, our services, our products and their distribution;
government or other law enforcement agencies, in connection with the investigation of unlawful activities or for other legal reasons (this may include your location information);
in the event that we sell any business or assets or receive investment into our business, in which case we may disclose your personal data to the prospective buyer or investor;
if we or substantially all of our assets are acquired by a third party, in which case personal data held by us, including your personal data, will be one of the transferred assets; and
if we are under a duty to disclose or share your personal data in order to comply with any legal obligation, or in order to enforce or apply the Terms and Conditions for our website or any other contract between you and us;
or to protect the rights, property or safety of Woodford, our users, and others.
Storing your personal data and transferring data outside of the EEA
In operating our website and our services it may become necessary to transfer data that we collect from you to locations outside of the European Economic Area (EEA), such as the US and Australia, for processing and storing. By providing your personal data to us, you agree to this transfer, processing or storing. This may involve the transfer of data by electronic media, including the internet.
There is no adequacy decision by the European Commission in respect of the US or Australia which means that the laws of these countries are not deemed to provide an adequate level of protection to your personal data. However, to ensure that your personal data receives an adequate level of protection we may implement any mechanism that is approved under data protection laws to ensure that your personal data is treated by those third parties in a way that is consistent with EU and UK laws on data protection. These measures could include the following:
EU-US Privacy Shield; and/ or
EU standard contractual clauses.
If you would like to find out more about this or obtain a copy of the relevant standard contractual clauses, please contact us at info@woodfordfunds.com.
Our Website can also be accessed and used worldwide, which means your data may be processed outside the EEA. Please note that the country from which you are accessing personal data may not provide an adequate level of protection for your personal data.
Security
All information you provide to us is stored on secure severs. We will use appropriate technical and organisational measures to safeguard your personal data.
Where we have given you (or where you have chosen) a password, you are responsible for keeping this password confidential. We ask you not to share your password with anyone.
We maintain (and ensure that anyone we share your personal data with maintains) appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure that an appropriate level of security in respect of all personal data we process. Unfortunately the transmission of information via the Internet is not completely secure. Although we will do our best to protect your personal data, we cannot guarantee the security of your data transmitted via the website or any of our services; any transmission is at your own risk. Once we have received your personal data, we will use strict procedures and security features to try to prevent unauthorised access or inadvertent disclosure.
Third party links
On occasion we include links to third parties on this website. Where we provide a link, we are not responsible for the collection or use of your personal data from these third party websites. You should review their privacy policy before sending them any personal data.
Letting us know if your information is incorrect
If any of the information which we hold about you is incorrect, please tell us and we will amend it. You can write to us at Woodford Investment Management Ltd, 9400 Garsington Rd, Oxford, OX4 2HN or email us at info@woodfordfunds.com.
How to complain
This section tells you how you can contact us to complain about our data privacy processes and how you can contact appropriate government regulators.
Please let us know if you are unhappy with how we have used your personal data. You can contact us using info@woodfordfunds.com.
You also have the right to complain to the regulator, and to lodge an appeal if you are not happy with the outcome of a complaint.
In the UK this is the Information Commissioner’s Office. Find out on their website how to report a concern.
How to withdraw your consent and implication of not providing personal data
This section explains what to do if you no longer want us to hold or use your personal data. This section also explains the effects of not choosing to provide personal data.
Withdraw consent
You can withdraw your consent at any time. Please contact us at info@woodfordfunds.com if you want to do so.
This will only affect the way we use information when our reason for doing so is that we have your consent.
If you withdraw your consent or do not provide minimum personal data (like contact details), we may not be able to
provide information on certain products or services to you;
keep you informed on our business developments;
contact you regarding your desire to post on our website; or
report back to you on the status of any complaints you have made.
Contacting us
Please contact us if you have any questions relating to this Privacy and Cookies Policy at info@woodfordfunds.com.
If you have views or questions, you can get in touch with Link on 0333 300 0381 or you can email at equityincome@linkgroup.co.uk
I also believe this is a very poor decision. Having an outside company crystallize my losses for me is not one I appreciate. My main concern now turns towards the Income Focus Fund, which I am also invested in and was hoping to stick with. Will this suffer the same fate? or are Woodford Investment Management going to look to continue the running of the fund. As an investor it would be good to know. I think this also happened at a time that the fund could have been turned around, a poor decision by Link. Also the bad press coverage did not help the situation, putting as much fear into investors as they could.
Is it possible to challenge the decision?
It’s a terrible decision on Links behalf
Yes terrible decision must be challenged.
A disgraceful decision by Links!! This is our money, our choice. This can not be allowed to happen!!
A bad decision and precisely the wrong time. What on earth are they thinking??
For the record…if the board of WPCT read any of this, please don’t take Woodford off PCT.
I have been very pleased with how the board has stepped up since the suspension at the equity income fund and I would hate for Mr Woodford to be removed. The NAV has only fallen 35%. It’s not a catastrophe. Just hold your nerve please.
WIM would have no income to manage WPCT. It’s impracticable to keep WIM as manager.
I think the managers in charge here should seriously consider if they can ever hold a financial position in any company ever again. This is outragious and clearly not in investors best interests at all. The FCA need to stand up NOW and put a stop to this daylight robbery at a time when market turmoil is at its highest inflection point in modern history – ie Brexit imminent. I was advised by a financial advisor to invest in this fund, accepting that a 5 year time frame was needed. That was 3 years ago!!!! No one knows which way the market will go, I suspect those responsible for this decision today will make money either way. Disgraceful!!
I agree that this is a terrible decision. I should like to decide when to crystallize my losses and would prefer for Woodford to be given time to work this out. This is a particularily precarious time with Brexit uncertainty, changes in currency Values etc. Links need to reconsider,
What right does Link have to unilaterally decide to close the fund?
Surely it is up to the majority of the investors to make that decision?
You made some very strange decisions in my time invested here Sir, I’m just relieved I reassessed my decision in early 2018 and made my redemption when I did, it saved me a fortune
This is a disgraceful decision, time should be given to Neil Woodford to rectify the situation, I do not feel this should be Links decision to make. Arranging for outside companies to liquidate holdings in my opinion will make further losses certain. There should be consultation with investors before this happens
On what basis has this disgraceful decision been made ? To change the Manager is one thing but to summarily close the fund causing losses to investors without providing the opportunity for a replacement Manager to recover the situation , much of the damage having been caused by adverse media coverage , is extremely difficult to understand and accept . Links needs to reconsider , appoint a replacement Manager , and allow the Fund to continue with a name change which I understand was proposed at one point . Investors can than decide what to do with their investment rather than having Links make the decision for them .
Totally agree with your comments.Im guessing the guys appointed to do this will be getting a pretty penny for their services.The whole situation is a fiasco. Woodford for straying outside the parameters of the fund, Hargreaves Lansdowne for continually pushing the man and fund as top drawer and Links as betraying us investors.( in our best interests indeed).The one thing they all have in common is FINANCIAL GREED AND GAIN for themselves.The lot of them have no morals at all and sadly they will all get away with it Scot free at OUR EXPENSE.
Links and its management were never highly rated by employees it seems.
https://www.glassdoor.co.uk/Reviews/Employee-Review-Link-Asset-Services-RVW21465103.htm
I couldn’t agree more!
I really don’t understand why:
Investors views weren’t taken into consideration
Some kind of consultative exercise undertaken
I await the reasons to be clearly set out
My view is this will just be rich pickings for the “wind up” team
I don’t see how this can be justified in Investors best interest
Paul Knight, totally agree – investors should be consulted before such a significant decision is taken
If you read a lot of the media reports today they use words like ‘refund’, and ‘returning your money’. If this is done via Links methods we all know we are not getting nowhere near our money back. I was happy to let the Woodford team try and turn this fund around (and I believe they would have done). I would like to know what Link will gain from this, along with the other companies having a hand in winding the fund up. This is not in our interest, but I know it is in theirs.
Agree that Link operating without the interests of investors being considered.
Need to have a vote from all investors.
Link Completely disgracefull ! the wrong thing to do. PRA look into the wider picture please … ! The people who have made this dicision are victims of media brain washing. Due to this lack of sound judgment from the funds administrators , now we are all to loose.
For Woodford Investment Management this represents the final part of the very obvious co-ordinated industrial sabotage .from start to finnish ..
Mr Woodford I personaly am very sorry for the way you have been treated. Time will prove you right .. that much i do know. Stick with us. Mr Williams – Investor
I agree this is a terrible decision which goes against the best interest of private investors in the fund. My workplace pension is invested in this fund and I do not want it wound up at the worst possible time crystallising significant losses which I cannot recover from. Please think again and at the very least freeze the fund for another year until Brexit is done and the UK focussed companies in it have time to recover. I for one do NOT give my permission for this action to be taken to my investment. If everyone rallies round and protests to LINK maybe something can still be done before its too late.
Has anyone thought to ask the investors views? I, for one, am totally horrified by this decision and looking at other comments, I am clearly not the only one.
All funds have issues periodically but historically recover in time – time is what is required here!
I’m sure I am not the only person concerned with losing money on the whim of Link?
Totally outrageous!!
This does not seem to be the best time to be taking this course of action. I thought that these funds were supposed to be looking Towards long term growth, so the effect of volatility was minimised.
I invested with Neil Woodford, not Link or BlackRock.
If the fund is closed down now everyone will lose (Except them).
Can this be stopped?
I agree it is outrageous that an outside company not of my choosing should take this decision. Surely there must be a process to appeal this. I invested for the long term not to let some chancer take over to tell me what is in my best interest.
If Neul had made some efforts reduce the exorbitant fees he was charging then I might agree with some of the early comments. As it is,I think this is the best outcome if the winding up is done slowly and carefully.
This is an idiotic decision . We will be selling shares just at the wrong time. I think I’m right in saying that Birkshire Hathaway shares have lost 50% of their value twice since its conception. But the value of the company never changed. I would agree that this was the wrong structure for these shares in hindsight. But we are where we are. This is the wrong time to panic. As Warren Buffett says it’s the stomach that is much more important than the IQ. Please reconsider the decision that link has made.
Phillip Attfield, you are correct – this Fund is traded at NAV and individual investors should be allowed to either stay in or get out.
I’m sure it’s not worth spending a second looking at the documents to see if Link have the power to do this because they will have spent plenty of our money getting expensive legal advice.
The problem with this approach is that what is legal may well not be just. It seems to me that there’s no moral justification for having an outsider chuck the toys out of the pen, rather than let the management team we effectively chose do their best with achieving best value without the democratic choice of investors being tested.
Referenda are all the rage, but surely our opinions should be tested
To develop my thoughts further, why can’t we have the option to retain our investment and just let Link sell a proportion of each holding to be paid to those who want out?
I’m extremely happy to hold on for the Woodford team to look after my bit of the ongoing fund
Fully agree with your suggestion that we as investors should have a say and must have a right to decide to stay or sell. To challenge their decision does not make sense as lawyers would like it with us picking up the cost.
Winding up will lead to extorted costs by the appointed companies i do not trust. Having had the Equitable Life experience, this looks going the same way.
Ridiculous timing and a terrible decision. FCA force a contrarian focused fund to liquidate and for retail investors to take a very big loss. Blackrock will make some very nice fees for doing me this favor and i get no choice in the matter.
This is absolutely disgraceful what the hell are they playing at ?
This is an absolute disgrace to close the fund. I firmly believe the fund will bounce back once Brexit has been decided. I have been with Neil for over 30 years and I believe in his ability to return the fund to profitability.
Link’s decision may or may not be wrong here but the heart of the issue is Neil Woodford’s own management of Equity Income Fund, in my opinion.
Last Friday, on the back of a glimmer of optimism about Brexit, Barratt Developments rose 11.52%, Bovis Homes 11.67%, Crest Nicholson 11.69%, Taylor Wimpey 10.83% and Provident Financial 7.36% – all top 10 holdings in the Woodford Income Focus Fund. As a consequence the fund rose 5.08% that day.
The possibility of a no-deal Brexit cannot be ruled out. However, it is remote. JP Morgan yesterday assigned a 5% probability of a no-deal Brexit i.e. 95% of another outcome.
In the event of a deal, the domestic facing stocks in which Neil has invested are likely to rocket. Combine that with a strengthening currency and overseas investors will quickly realise they need to increase their exposure to the UK. In doing so further propelling prices upwards.
Why have investors in the fund not been given the opportunity to have their say in this decision?
How can the FCA expect investors to remain calm and invested ‘for the long term’ when that decision is taken away from them?
I have been an investor in Neil’s funds for 30 years and have therefore experienced the up’s and down’s that he has experienced during that time only to be pleased to have hung on and not panic and sell when all looked rather bleak as I accepted that he is a high conviction investor and somewhat contrarian .
This latest period of poor performance is hugely disappointing/ frustrating and is perhaps due to his over conviction and with hindsight some poor stock selection ( he is not alone ) which has not worked out well and thus I can see why other investors have sold out or indeed want to – perhaps because they have too much exposure to the fund.
For my part I do not think that the decision by Link is the right one as it would be better to leave the fund open and give Neil more time to reposition the fund, as he has been doing to some good effect it would appear in the last few days due to the rise in the value of domestic stocks which he favours ,which if Brexit works out well could be very positive but who knows!
It has all been said, a bad decision, they need to hang in there and give it more time. What is their motivation in suggesting winding up. Hopefully that’s what it is, a ‘wind up’.
As is often the case with these unwieldy organisations the collective decision influenced by all the wrong elements will prove to be a mistake .
Correct decision, they would not have been able to raise enough cash for everyone to get out who wanted to get out. You would be left with thousands of private investors and no institutional money backed by unlisted securities and 9% of Patient Capital for whatever that’s worth.
Link and anyone associated with it wouldn’t have been able to make their money in that position so they correctly are putting it out of its misery.
Timing is ludicrous….exactly when domestic stocks ready to rebound. Plus a massive overhang on patient capital. Link should be hauled in front of FCA.
Has anyone called Link to complain or ask about whether this is set in stone or it’s possible this isn’t the final outcome?
I believe people at this firm may be outraged too, this was completely the wrong decision to make( I’m not an investor in this fund btw but I’ve followed Neil since the inception), I believe this fund will likely strongly rebound in the next year or two and to wind up the fund now is a sell-out of all investors
Tony, you can get in touch with Link on 0333 300 0381 or you can email at equityincome@linkgroup.co.uk
Thank you, Jon. But I’m not an investor of the fund so would I have any effect complaining to them?
I would love to change their decision just for the people in this firm and it’s investors
Sadly now Woodford is closing there is no real point asking them to reverse their decision. If they do it will just go to another fund manager who we can probably ready get exposure to. If Woodford were to keep the fund(s) then that’s a different matter.
I truly hope that Link will reverse their decision as from reading the various comments already posted, not one agrees with them, including me. My understanding is that the role of Link is to project the investors but the investors have not been consulted on Links decision. In my view it is totally the wrong time to take such a decision.
Ditto the above; this is absolutely the worst possible solution to the fund’s problems. Keep the fund closed, but keep it running. Woodford Investment Management need to tell its investors what it can do to stop this.
Absolutely fuming, we the investors should at least have a say in what we do with our investment. This is all wrong. Links don’t care about us investors they should have the decency to ask us what we think.
The fund will eventually turn, not happy with what happened but it will turn the corner.
Thank you Jon for the email address we should all email Link and complain.
Certainly not a good idea for Link to wind up the fund.
I was in for the long term and with Link dipping in an already depleted pot it will not give us, the private investor, any chance of making up the loss from a management that I trust if we are paid out now. Defer for another 6 months at least.
Fair decision in the end, this should have been wound up many months ago. It seems the emperors new clothes took some time to see through. Some poor investing which has lost people money year on year. I feel very sorry for those in company/council schemes who did now know their money was in these funds and will now lost money. I am sure Neil will not lose much sleep with all his cash in the bank!
This is an outrageous decision. As a private investor in the fund I’m aware of the risks and comfortable that Neil and the team need more time to do their jobs. This is the worst possible time to sell off the shares and counterintuitive given the mandate of the underlying fund. Does Link even understand the investment thesis?
I rather agree with the decision of Link, although it does appear that I am in the minority.
As do I Dean. I was dreading the unlocking of the fund for the inevitable ‘fire sale’ that was to follow. I find it interesting that this article is open for comments while others have been closed though.
I would have preferred them not to close it but suspect their only other option was a much longer period of no access which would have meant no access for individuals to their investment. Almost every one I know with a holding in the fund (although not me) was planning to use the re-opening to get out and I do not believe they could ever have judged just how much immediate liquidity was needed.
Letter to Link
Dear Sirs
I am shocked at your decision to wind up the Woodford Equity Income Fund without a full and detailed explanation of your reasoning?
You need to evidence beyond doubt that this action is in the best interests of the unit holders and not in the best interests of Link.?
I need you to advise me of the winding up costs in total and the time period expected before funds are turned to unit holders?
Please confirm that this winding up is in accordance with the Trust Deed or other arrangements governing the administration of the fund.
Has this action been proved by the FCA or PRA?
I look forward to hearing from you ASAP
BILL blevins
Bill – please get in touch with Link on 0333 300 0381 or email at equityincome@linkgroup.co.uk
I don’t agree with the closure. Unless Link can absolute guarantee they will give me more money back than if Neil was able to run the fund himself (WHICH THEY CAN’T), then they have no business doing this. Absolute disgrace from Link. Sorry it ended up like this, Neil. If you open another fund, I’ll still support you.
Thanks for your support Taha
Is it not possible that, regardless of Link’s decision, Neil Woodford should share the blame for his poor management of the fund?
I have emailed the below to link.
Good Afternoon
May I say that the decision to close the fund is wrong
You have chosen the very day that the fund would begin to change due to the way the fund was invested and to my investment requirements. Why today. Why not just change the manager if you feel you must be seen to be doing something. You have been motivated by the press probably in your defence you felt that was the only recourse however I strongly disagree with you.
What a terrible decision! Neil Woodford has an enviable record of investment management. Link should not be allowed to simply steamroller everyone in order that others (external managers) can benefit, whilst unit holders loose out.
I have emailed Link stating that as an investor this does not reflect my wishes. I don’t believe selling out now is the right thing to do if you believe in the macro view the Woodford team takes which is why I’m invested. Not sure if we have any rights with Link as investors, I’ve asked for details of a complaints procedure.
I am shocked and disappointed at this unreasonable decision, particularly as there has been no input by investors. Like others I was content to wait out the 5 year period under Neil’s control of the fund. I am convinced that that is a better option than paying all those engaged in winding up the fund. I hope we will fight this.
I’m also gutted at this decision. How can this possibly be allowed, when we have not been asked for our opinions.
I also would far prefer to wait and see, as winding the fund up means I instantly lose my money. Surely this should be put to a vote?
Exactly what metrics are Link using to make this decision? At the beginning of June they decided to give Woodford 7 months to reposition the fund. They’ve now made this decision after only 4.5 months! It would appear that the regulator (FCA?) needs to approve this decision. In my case I’ll be contacting them to expalin that Links decision is NOT in my interests. (FCA contact:Call us on 0800 111 6768 (freephone) or 0300 500 8082 from the UK and consumer.queries@fca.org.uk).
I have logged a complaint with the FCA
I’ve now had confirmation, as if any were needed, that investors (in my case Hargreaves Lansdown) were not consulted.
I’ve also had a response from Link saying they have forwarded my request for information to Northern Trust. Why would that be when I was specifically asking about their, Link’s, decision making.
I think this decision by Link is the worst outcome for share holders. Woodford should be given time to turn things around. He is a contrarian investor and has based the investments on those that he feels will do well post brexit. When looking at today and over the past week many of the top 10 holdings share prices have had one day moves of 3-5% due to positive mood music in regards to brexit and wider trade deals. Hence, when these situations are more definite many of these stocks should rise in line with Woodfords thesis.
I would much prefer Woodford to sort things out as he has skin in the fund both financially and in terms of saving his reputation. In the case of a third party selling the lot and lining their pockets in the process only their profit motivates them-thats for sure- crystallizing other peoples losses does not hurt.
Link should be stopped from taking control of other peoples money and crystallizing their loses without their consent. This stinks, if it was going on in an other county the UK would be shouting state interference- banana republic.
I didn’t realise it was April Fools Day. What a ridiculous scenario, as everybody has commented on, the fact that Link Fund solutions have taken this decision not Neil Woodford,this is not in the best interest of investors and surly the FCA should step in and overule this decision. I feel sure given time we would see this fund turned around.
If you look at lots of other funds which have made losses does it mean that they can be wound up in the same manner. There did seem to be a vendetta on Citywire giving very adverse articles and allowing people to comment some of which were so revolting I asked citywire to close my account and remove one persons comments which as always was posted anonymously, it would be interesting to find out the identity of these people and see what they stand to gain from Neil Woodfords present predicament.
I have emailed link to tell them what they are doing is not in the interest of long term investors. These actions are to please the people who are in the Daily Mail articles saying they need their money for their holiday or house deposit. These people are short term investors who wanted a quick return and put their money in the wrong place. If enough people email link it might make them reconsider.
Everyone at Woodford i feel for you all at this time. So sad to see the wpct is going as well. I am sorry the British media has ripped your company to shreds and ruined an amazing investor and company with a vision.
Thanks for your support Lee.
What email address did you use, I will email accordingly.
Hi James
equityincome@linkgroup.co.uk
Appears now to be game over – for all of it. I had a core holding in Equity Income, plus much smaller stakes in WPCT and Income Focus. I was more-or-less resigned to taking a hit on all of them, but can’t but agree with other posters that Link’s timing and lack of consultation with investors has been atrocious. They supposedly represent our interests, yet, as far as I can tell, have taken absolutely no steps to ascertain what we consider our interests to be. I had accepted that any outcome was likely to take the form of (at best) loss mitigation, rather than gain, but I certainly wouldn’t have supported winding up ASAP and paying somebody for the privilege. The only very scant consolation is I’ve been relieved of the burden of deciding what to do once it reopens, but is that really a plus? Taking the decision for them is what you do with children.
I am both an investor in the fund and Financial adviser who has recommended this fund to in the region of 150 plus of our clients. Neil Woodford was out of favour with the city in 1999 when he called the dot com bubble and said don’t invest, it will fall. He was proven to be correct. In mid 2005 he warned of the banking crisis, was again out of favour with the city, yet again was proved correct. This occasion he said that when Brexit was completed the fund will rise. It had just started to do so having been the 2nd best fund of 8000 in the uk last Friday having risen 4,2% on the day, so glimmers of green shoots coming through as suggested. I am sure he is right that it would recover, however the powers that be are stopping him doing what he should be able to do and we investors are going to pay the price. I would ask are Link & the FCA going to pay the difference to the now disadvantaged investors for the difference between the unit purchase price and the sale price as they are not allowing the fund to recover, as I am sure it would had this announcement not happened. This is affectively causing a fire sale which will potentially damage the asset values and instead of protecting the investors inside the fund, which is what Neil Woodford was trying to do, it will have the reverse effect. Great regulation guys? The freedom of the fund manager to do what is best for the investors has effectively been taken away!
Awful news. There were many ways of dealing with this better, certainly from the point of view of a long term investor. I would rather have had a fund or IT built upon illiquid stock for the next 30 years than to crystallize a loss during the brexit bargaining/implementation period.
Agree with the above and those investors that feel it is the wrong decision. Surely Link should be putting this to an investors vote???
This is disgraceful. Who is Link to make a decision on my behalf. Investors should be consulted. The FCA should step in and stop this ridiculous decision. And then they talk about long term investing! FCA will damage its reputation if they allow this stupidity to go ahead. I cannot understand how this action can be legal allowing some third party company to sell my units without my consent. I invested with Neil not with Link whoever they may be.
As a private investor I’m well aware of the risks. I’m not retiring for another 10 years and I’m happy for Neil and his team to carry on with their turnaround plan. I have full trust in them. And if I lose money so be it, it’s my choice. I’m disgusted that because of Link I’m now going to lose more money. This should be stopped. Back off and let Neil do his job. This is the worst decision for private investors.
I will email my dissatisfaction to both Link and FCA.
You did invest with Link. They’ve always been the ACD for WEIF (initially under their previous name of Capita). Link contracted out the investment management to Woodford Investment Management. Under the terms in the prospectus they are entitled to terminate that arrangement as they have done.
You can argue about the rights and wrongs of that decision, but it was their’s to take.
This decision doesn’t do anything to resolve the fundamental problem of the illiquid assets; they still need disposing, therefore, it appears to solve nothing.
It has always been clearly promoted as a long-term investment so I have been content to wait for the fund to re-open and to trade in or out at times of my own choosing. Link has now denied me this reasonable expectation.
Link’s very questionable and unwelcome decision has ruptured the natural investment relationship between the fund manager and investors. We should be choosing the risks we take, and taking the market consequences. Link’s intervention seems like yet another opportunity for the professionals, investing or otherwise, to line their pockets by corrupting my legitimate investment choice.
The trouble is that the value of the fund still continues to fall, if Woodford had managed to reverse the decline it may have been worth continuing but in the circumstances it is probably better to give us back our investment as soon as possible. After all the more liquid assets are now according to reports mainly in FTSE100 stocks so this portion might as well be returned.
Link have said that the remainder in private companies will be sold over a much longer period to get full asset value – that has to be the best idea.
Also we don’t know how many investors have already decided to withdraw their funds so closing the fund might have been the only option anyway.
What an idiotic decision by Link funds, who I did not invest with. My investment was with woodFord funds and while Neil woodford has not covered himself in glory and neither did they waive off the fees while the fund was suspended. This is not the right decision. Such decisions only line up somebody else’s pockets using my money. Surely more time for woodford funds or another manager is the right way forward. Is FCA sleeping at the wheel again?
Agree, Link closing this down without consultation is an outrage.
The fund will get eaten up by Black Rock’s fees as get get their nose into the trough.
Additional short sellers will have a field day on the stocks
Hopefully there will be a class
Action for negligence
Link’s decision is NOT in my interest. Link have given no consideration to investors interests in this situation as a winding up of the Fund will result in a greater losses for investors. Additionally I cannot understand how Link can be allowed to take such a decision without giving investors any say in this matter.
I am sending this response to
consumer.queries@fca.org.uk, and equityincome@linkgroup.co.uk
I am in receipt of “investor-letter-regarding-the-winding-up-of-the-lf-woodford-equity-income-fund” from Link Fund Solutions Ltd dated 15 October 2019
I hold 5,074 units in Woodford Equity Income.
I need you to know that I do not want to have my assets liquidated at this time by strangers.
I already have a contract with Neil Woodford to look after these assets. I will hold the Financial Conduct Authority and Link Fund Solutions Ltd responsible for all losses I anticipate you will cause me if you go ahead with this ill-timed proposal.
Likewise I have emailed Link – To state that their decision is not in the interest of the small investor. Neil Woodford should be allowed time to stabalize the situation.
The small investor should not be forced into taking a loss, and they should look for alternative solutions.
About 6 months ago I was drinking wine in a neighbour’s garden and I met a fund manager. In conversation they claimed that some people were targeting “Woodford” stocks. Was this just the usual conspiracy theorising or is something like this possible?
Absolutely
It is absolutely no secret that Muddy Waters (no, not THAT Muddy Waters – a professional short-seller) deliberately targeted Woodford holdings, so no conspiracy theory, but recorded fact.
do you think it’s worth us starting a Woodford Investors facebook group to support each other / get a shared voice. I’m happy to help although not a social guru
Phil, I support your idea 100%. Would like to see an investors committee and possibly call an investors meeting. Sadly I don’t have the IT ability to get it se up. any volunteers with the IT skills?
Disappointing result to a disappointing situation. I am not sure Link winding up and getting a lot of fees for Blackrock and financial community at the expense of investors is a good thing. Though keeping an equity income fund that cannot hit its income target, cannot be withdrawn or invested in is of no interest to anyone. I understand the 1p per quarter and 4p overall was a target not a requirement but with the income factor in the name I would have expected this to grow with the fund and the income focus fund does not seem to have performed either.
Surprised Mr Woodford has not stuck to his convictions of publicising the fund, sticking through the hard times but has decided just to quit as the going has got very hard and rather than just raking easy money in now would have to work hard and prove his critics wrong and maybe take a salary cut and deal with the challenges of business that can’t just support a billionaire lifestyle but he gets to retire in comfort and sold out most of his holding in WPCT and likely the other funds before the rubbish hit the fan.
When WPCT had holdings such as AZN at ~£40 now at ~£70 balancing out some of the risks it looked like a clever thing, but selling out all the cash generating solid companies to end up with 10%+ in utter drivel such as Industrial Heat holdings would seem to show that belief in their own hype rather than any coherent and well though investment strategy that was out of favour maybe it is a good thing.
While some companies woes ESL etc could be put down to bad luck and the Brexit uncertaintity there does seem be a lot more bad calls than good.
Would be wonderful to know exactly where the restructuring of the portfolio and true performance is at the date of the announcement !and before neil decided to shut up shop in an arraogant I’m taking my ball away. Unfortunately due to the excuse that if others know what we are doing they will get short sold doesn’t quite wash as if the companies are so great and doing so well then it would be dangerous to short them.
I am both an investor in the fund and Financial adviser who has recommended this fund to in the region of 100 plus of our clients. Neil Woodford was out of favour with the city in 1999 when he called the dot com bubble and said don’t invest, it will fall. He was proven to be correct. In mid 2005 he warned of the banking crisis, was again out of favour with the city, yet again was proved correct. This occasion he said that when Brexit was completed the fund will rise. It had just started to do so having been the 2nd best fund of 8000 in the uk last Friday having risen 4,2% on the day, so glimmers of green shoots coming through as suggested. I am sure he is right that it would recover, however the powers that be are stopping him doing what he should be able to do and we investors are going to pay the price. I would ask are Link & the FCA going to pay the difference to the now disadvantaged investors for the difference between the unit purchase price and the sale price as they are not allowing the fund to recover, as I am sure it would had this announcement not happened. This is affectively causing a fire sale which will potentially damage the asset values and instead of protecting the investors inside the fund, which is what Neil Woodford was trying to do, it will have the reverse effect. Great regulation FCA and Link? The freedom of the fund manager to do what is best for the investors has effectively been taken away!
This shows you have absolutely no idea what Neil Woodford’s investment thesis was and how it would work once our politicians were concentrating on domestic issues again after Brexit
Andrew, The scavengers have moved in for the feeding frenzy, selling off assets at fire sale prices, awarding contracts to manage the winding up process to their mates whilst our pathetic FCA and politicians stand by wringing their hands. I know nothing of the intricacies of the finance world, but a see a gigantic scam afoot which will greatly profit a few whilst impoverishing the small investors. We need to get organised, call a meeting at which Link Asset, BlackRock, Northern Trust, Park Hill, Hargreaves Lansdown, FCA can have their feet held in the fire and explain to investors what fees and charges they are earning, why they have created a Fire Sale and what exactly they are doing to protect private investors. Perhaps Neil Woodford would also attend? I have written to Link, Hargreaves et-al asking if they will advise/circulate all investors to gauge the interest in a meeting. I have yet to receive an acknowledgement let alone a response. I would also like to know why Woodford could not continue selling off the assets, is that not what we have been paying for in the £60K/fees?
We also need to form a small investors committee of people with legal and financial knowledge to represent us; any volunteers as the Scavengers seem unwilling or unable?
We need to move quickly before the carcass is stripped leaving only dry bones for the investors.
A controversial decision on WEIF by Link. Nevertheless, as a WPCT shareholder I am disappointed that Neil Woodford abandoned his patient investors. I was counting on him to be in it for the long run…
I don’t believe Neil had any real choice. Link’s decision made the business untenable. So I don’t see it as “abandonment”. But yes, I was in it for the long haul, and would have liked to see if it came good in the end. Neil only needed to back one or two winners for the fortunes to be reversed. I wonder if history will vindicate him – but too late for him (and us).
It’s hard to get the full picture from the outside, so I do hope Neil will explain this particular decision in more detail. I would have expected Woodford to continue their WPCT mandate, perhaps on a more frugal basis, out of loyalty to their investors and as a way to “prove the market wrong” in the longer run.
Appointing a new manager is a significant risk for WPCT, as there will be a major discontinuity in performance baseline and likely much higher annual fees. One should also hope that the board appoint a patient portfolio manager who doesn’t feel the need to prove himself through some massive repositioning.
The key to Neil’s legacy, in my view, lies with Industrial Heat…
I have written to Andrew Bailey, CE of the FCA, to complain about the lack of investor consultation on the disposal of their shares and asking him to step in to rectify that. It must be right that investors have a say in what happens to their money. Copies of the letter have been sent to Nicky Morgan MP and to Link. I suggest other investors do the same.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the fund. Its a wonderful opportunity for Link to make a shedload of money utilising other people’s money. The timing is interesting, immediately prior to a possible Brexit deal. Consequently the opportunity may pass and Link needed to act before market circumstances changed. There are fewer crooks in Pentonville than with Link. An outrageous decision. Now watch how Link rob investors blind with their fees, charges, and exceptional one off costs. Crooks.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the fund. Its a wonderful opportunity for Link to make a shedload of money utilising other people’s money. The timing is interesting, immediately prior to a possible Brexit deal. Consequently the opportunity may pass and Link needed to act before market circumstances changed. There are fewer crooks in Pentonville than with Link. An outrageous decision. Now watch how Link rob investors blind with their fees, charges, and exceptional one off costs. Crooks, all of them.
Amendment: for Nicky Morgan MP read Catherine McKinnell MP
John Mann MP appointed interim Treasury Committee Chair – 03.09.19 – https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/treasury-committee/news-parliament-2017/interim-treasury-committee-chair-appointed-17-19/
Unfortunately sustained poor performance spelled the end for the fund. Link was left with no choice.
I have written to the FCA and to Link to formally complain about this arbitrary decision.
As an informed private investor in WEIF i object to my considered and researched investment decisions being removed from me by Link who are simply erroneously (in my view) trying to cover their backside. The ill timed decisions of other WEIF investors (who had plenty of opportunity to understand the strategy and the fund) to run for the exit should not mean my loses are crystallised. I invested in this fund for a contrarian value style, which by definition takes longer to work out than a momentum strategy.
Its another sad display of how amateurish so many industry participants and those that oversee it actually are.
I have done the same and also written to the treasury committee.
Is there anyone representing the investors in this process so we have a voice in what happens and it’s not just left in the hands of those taking a huge fee out of the winding up process.
Andy, I believe that the FCA are supposed to be looking after our interests, but from what I read they are like rabbits caught in the headlights! I have asked the FCA if they will call an investors meeting which would perhaps give us the opportunity to hold Link Asset and the army of organisations appointed to dispose of our assets to justify themselves. No response yet!
perhaps many of you contributing to this discussion may not be aware that this website is now controlled by Link and Northern Trust, the liquidators. we private investors no longer have a voice?
It’s still a Woodford website Ian.
Poor Neil I feel for him he just needed abit more time for the market to catch up with the value he saw. Link just haven’t given the strategies long enough after all he was investing for the ultra long term we all knew that and always expected to lose massive amounts in the first 5 years. Shame we can’t now Invest further with him as the business will close.
I have just read that Link has purchased shares in Purplebricks on the same day this week that Woodford announced they had cut their holdings in Purplebricks to less than 5%. It seems they have purchased the same amount that Woodford sold on the very same day. Anyone else find this strange?
On another point there is no reason that Link could not find another Fund Manager for the Focus Fund, this is a perfectly good fund and I agree with what Neil said it has very good medium to long term investment opportunities. If Link winds this fund down this will not be in the best interest of any investor. They are doing what they want with 3.5bn of savers money and it appears there an no authorities to stop them. This is the time that the investors should come together and stop other companies skimming off the back of our bad situation.
I believe that written petitions are the way forward. I have contributed this to equityincome@linkgroup.co.uk
I am in receipt of the winding up notice of 15 October 2019. I disapprove of the proposal and wish you to desist.
I am confidently a “HOLD” today, and do not expect to be a “SELL” on 17th January. If some stakeholders have suficent power to force liquidation, I would prefer a solution where “HOLD” unit-holders could retain some assets in a new format.
If there is a rump of like minded investors I would have an interest in buying assets at liquidation, first refusal, at open market price.
A new closed ended fund would seem acceptable.
This suggestion offers a benefit to “SELL” unit-holders, creating a market for some assets will avoid a total fire-sale.
“SELL” unit-holders would receive a similar or better outcome than the current proposition.
“HOLD” unit-holders should retain part of their holdings, without potential fire-sale losses, without their money out of the market for an unknown time and without expenses to third parties.
I believe you hold a duty of care to poll for declared “HOLD” unit-holders, to get a reliable estimate of their proportion of the Fund and publish it.
I have written an open letter to my local MP and the interim chair of the Treasury Select Committee:
Honourable and Right Honourable Members of Parliament,
It is with regret I have to write to you but I am hoping you may be able to help all those investors who have had a poor decision forced upon them by Link Fund Solutions in the case of the Woodford Equity Income Fund decision to wind up the fund before it had time to reopen.
I not only fear that investors will be severely damaged by the negligent and careless decisions taken by Link Fund Solutions, but I also fear that there will be a damaging and long lasting impact on our financial services industry as a result.
I have followed up with the FCA and the Treasury Committee this morning following news reported within the Times and Sunday Times.
Please find below and attached my letter of complaint and subsequent relevant information.
I also appreciate you may be a little busy right now and this might not be on the top of your list of priorities. If nothing else, I felt the need to bring this urgent issue to your attention.
Best regards