The questions fallen fund boss really CAN’T get away from
AFEW thoughts on Neil Woodford and the calamitous financial accident that Woodford Investment Management is becoming. First, some experts – a number long past their sell-by-date – took exception to last week’s attempt by The Mail on Sunday to speak to Neil Woodford at his Oxford offices. They said we should never have turned up unannounced – and it was quite right that Woodford chose not to speak to us.
One tweet doing the rounds said: ‘Journalist turns up randomly at someone’s office and is surprised when he doesn’t get seen. Come on Jeff Prestridge, you can do better than this silly stunt.’
Fine, but it wasn’t a stunt. Far from it. The only reason why I went is because ever since dealings in Woodford’s Equity Income fund were suspended, he has refused point blank to speak to the Press. These are the actions of a coward.
Unforgiveably, he has not found time to meet with any of his fund investors who are worried sick about the security of their nest eggs. The mountain of correspondence I took to show him in Oxford – and he knew I had in my possession – confirmed these fears. He chose not to read them. Again, cowardly.
Secondly, for the record, I asked again last week whether I could turn up ‘announced’ and have 20 minutes with Woodford. Predictably, I was politely told to sling my hook. I will keep trying until the Treasury Select Committee gets a new chair and demands Woodford explains his actions in public before a baying nest of viper-like MPs. What theatre that will make when it plays out – better than Harold Pinter.
Thirdly, I was told for the 10th time on Friday that Woodford has no intention of waiving the fees on Equity Income – fees that are depleting the fund’s value by £65,000 a day (a figure given by Woodford). This, of course, is unacceptable and it is time someone in the City’s halfasleep regulatory establishment told him so to his face. After all, isn’t the overwhelming objective of financial regulation to protect the financial interests of investors?
MAXIMISING income from savings and investments is a goal relentlessly pursued by many readers of our personal finance pages. With savings rates scraping along the floor, it is understandable that income (dividends) from shares and equity-based investment funds remains extremely popular – despite the uncertain outlook for UK plc and share prices, and the wider global economy (spooked by trade wars and the threat of geopolitical conflicts).
For many, an income of four per cent from a basket of dividend-friendly shares is far more appealing than the measly 0.15 per cent on offer at the local branch of HSBC via instant access account Flexible Saver.
For income seekers, the latest report from financial services group Sanlam on the performance of UK equity income investment funds is well worth a butcher’s. It highlights those funds that over the past five years have produced a winning combination of income, attractive yield (income paid out, expressed as a percentage of the fund’s price) and overall return (generated on a consistent rather than sporadic basis).
THIS year, it highlights 14 funds that it says pass muster – run both by well-known investment firms (the likes of BNY Mellon, Schroder and Rathbone) and companies less renowned for their equity expertise (NFU Mutual and Santander). Copies of the report are available online at whitelist.co.uk or by ringing 01225 4460010.
Useful as the report is, it is a shame it does not incorporate income-friendly investment trusts. If it did, it would show that when it comes to delivering income growth, these vehicles have far superior records than the funds Sanlam highlights.
This is because investment trusts are allowed to squirrel away income in the good times to draw upon and top up dividend payments to shareholders when the financial backdrop is tougher.
Twenty one trusts have unbroken records of dividend growth going back at least 20 years. More details at theaic.co.uk. Enticing.
Happy income hunting.