How long do you give a fund manager before giving up on poor performance? This is the key question faced by investors in the funds run by Neil Woodford and his Woodford Investment Management company.
Neil Woodford had a very successful record at Invesco – their High Income fund turned £10,000 into £230,000 over 25 years. In 2014 he departed to set up his own investment company and he attracted many followers to the new platform but the record since then has been very poor. For example the main LF Woodford Equity Income C Acc fund has delivered a return of -7.0 % over 3 years according to TrustNet while the stock market has in general been booming. The Woodford Patient Capital Trust which invests in smaller, early-stage companies is even worse with a share price total return of -10.7% over 3 years according to the AIC.
Woodford also run funds for Hargreaves Lansdown and St. James Place although they might have slightly different mandates. Recent articles in the FT suggest those companies still have faith in Woodford with comments about the “contrarian” approach of Mr Woodford and that it is likely to come good in the end. But will it? Has the market changed while the style of the fund manager has not? Has he simply lost his touch as a stock-picker? Over-confidence in one’s ability can be a great danger for stock-pickers. But perhaps he has just been unlucky with his stock selections?
Three years is about as long as I give fund managers before exiting completely, and I would reduce my holding in a fund before then. My decision tends to be based on my view of the investments the fund is holding. For example, the top 5 holdings in the Equity Income Fund are Barratt Developments, Imperial Brands, Burford Capital, Provident Financial and Theravance Biopharma. The last one is a one-product biopharmaceutical company with no profits, Barratt is a housebuilder when investors are fleeing the sector due to house price declines and the threat of higher interest rates, Imperial Brands is a tobacco company subject to ever tougher Government regulation, Burford Capital is a backer of law suits (a litigation funder) and Provident Financial is a consumer loans business. These are all companies that other investors might avoid so they are truly contrarian investments. The holdings of Woodford Patient Capital are even more idiosyncratic. One of the largest holdings is in Purplebricks which I have commented on negatively in the past. Investors therefore need to judge whether these kinds of investments will come good in the next year or two. I have my doubts.
Another question to be asked is whether Woodford has simply spread himself too thinly with multiple funds now under management. Does he have the same level of support from a team that he had at Invesco? Large fund managers are not one-person businesses.
One issue to look at in addition is does the fund manager have a clear investment process, i.e. do they stick to clearly stated rules or are just idiosyncratic? Is it the process that is failing or the manager’s decisions that are at fault? All fund managers make some mistakes but a look back over past investments can be a good indication of what is going wrong.
My past experience tells me that “contrarian” fund management approaches often fail. Swimming against the tide of investment trends is positively dangerous and rarely works. Incidentally I watched the Burt Lancaster film “The Swimmer” last night – a very stylish film indeed. The ending might represent the failure of dreams over reality. Perhaps Neil Woodford’s dream is fast disappearing?
Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson )