Will ANYONE step in to stop the torment on Cell Block Woodford?

No escape in sight before the end of the year. And the regulators just don’t seem to give a damn

ANOTHER week, another £455,000 in management fees greedily clocked up by fund manager Neil Woodford. Not for enhancing investors’ longterm wealth as per his job description, but for rectifying his own investment errors. That makes £2,730,000 of fees collected by the errant manager since he was forced last month to shut the gate on his £3.5billion Woodford Equity Income fund after a wave of redemptions threatened to overwhelm it. Money taken from those holed up in his fund like prisoners.

Shocking. Absolutely shocking, and not a twinkle of light on the horizon for the hundreds of thousands of investors with money trapped in his fund and wanting out. It is the equivalent of financial imprisonment with no release date granted – and of course no crime committed (it’s the jailer who has done all the wrongs). It could be the end of the year before the prison doors are opened and investors can escape Cell Block Woodford.

Although the Woodford Equity Income scandal is now entering its seventh week, the anger of investors remains red hot judging by the stream of correspondence we continue to receive from those feeling the impact of the fund’s closure (a big thank you to everyone who has contacted The Mail on Sunday).

Maybe, if Woodford met some of these investors, rather than confining his face-toface meetings to fawning financial advisers who religiously recommended his funds (and earned a fortune in the process), he would better understand their pain. He is unlikely to hear a bad word from advisers who still stubbornly believe he is an investment deity.

Perhaps he would even have a change of heart over his continued and indefensible charging of fees on his troubled flagship fund. An issue that makes investors’ blood boil.

After all, he’s accumulated enough personal wealth from the dividends he has already paid himself from his investment operation – Woodford Investment Management – to be able to temporarily turn off the fees tap on Equity Income while he clears up the mess he has created.

For the record, on Friday, for the sixth consecutive week, we asked Roland Cross of Four Corporate & Financial (Woodford’s external public relations adviser) whether the fallen star was minded to waive fees on Equity Income – Woodford currently refuses to speak to the Press. For the sixth time running, we were given the answer: ‘No’. We will keep on pressing. Few battles are won overnight.

The same argument – one of detachment from investors – applies to the City regulator, which so far has shown a shameful disinterest in the Woodford debacle.

Although Andrew Bailey, chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), said last month that Woodford should ‘consider his position’ on the charging of fees, the regulator has done nothing since to twist Woodford’s arm.

Having spent Wednesday night wandering around vibrant Stratford in East London, the new home of the FCA, I can see why its officials might not be interested in ensuring a fund manager based in an industrial park in Oxford some 88 miles away plays fair with his investors. The FCA, holed up in its glass fortress at Endeavour Square, is as detached from the City’s heartbeat as Woodford is from his investors and reality. It may as well be located on the moon.

The Bank of England also seems reluctant to intervene, judging by comments made last week by Governor Mark Carney, who, when questioned on whether Woodford should be forced to waive fees, passed the buck to the regulator.

‘I believe Andrew Bailey has addressed that,’ he said. Well, he hasn’t addressed it – he has merely left it to Woodford to decide whether to play fair or not. He’s ducked the issue when he should be intervening on behalf of those his regulator is meant to protect – consumers. Wake up, Mr Bailey.

CARNEY, Bailey and Woodford should get a reality check and come into our offices to read some of the emails and letters we have received on the debacle.

Indeed, we could arrange for them to speak to some of the distressed senders of these missives – just as we have been replying to them in recent weeks.

The likes, for example, of Jeff Haggi, a 62-year-old telecoms expert in Epsom, Surrey, who has a ‘few thousand pounds’ tied up in Equity Income and is hoping Woodford will ride out the storm.

He says: ‘When investors are blocked from accessing their money, they should not be charged. It is common sense and a rule the Financial Conduct Authority should enforce as a matter of urgency.’

In recent days, Woodford has been making some senior people redundant at Woodford Investment Management to reduce costs.

Jeff adds: ‘I understand Woodford has overheads to pay, but his continued charging of a fund fee sends out the wrong message. This whole sorry mess has been badly handled by Woodford and the regulator.’

Jeff is not a lone voice. Far from it. Garth Wooldridge, from Stourbridge, in the West Midlands, says Bailey and the FCA should be ‘far more proactive’ in forcing Woodford to suspend fees.

Garth, 82, suspects Woodford is being bloody-minded because he knows his name is now ‘toxic’ and that his funds business has no longterm future. He says: ‘He realises he is finished and he’s taking money from investors before it all ends.’

Michael Reade says Woodford’s grabbing of fees is a ‘dreadful example of greed’. He adds: ‘Gross