This seems a bit unfair

Shamed stock picker Neil Woodford and his partner pocketed more than £3 in every £10 of fees paid by investors even as his funds careened towards disaster – sparking calls for a crackdown on massive profits in the industry.

The fees are actually for that skill as stock picker. OK, turned out not to be all that great but still, that’s what the fees were for.

11 thoughts on “This seems a bit unfair”

  1. Bit naughty that. It’s 30% of the fees, and the broad rule of thumb is that the wage bill is around a third of costs.

    What would be more interesting is if the fees amounted to 30% of AUM.

    I, of course, can not imagine what would provoke a reputable and competent journalist to frame the issue in this manner.

  2. The syntax doesn’t make sense. He was (eg) paid £10 for his work, but only got £3? What happened to the other £7?

  3. @jgh: fees to the business, out of which (before the business fired him) came Woodford’s pay. I know this because as a loser from this affair, I’m keeping an eye on it.

  4. So was this wages? Bonus? Dividend?
    If the latter its taken out of post tax profit.

    From what I recall the problem wasn’t how much individually they were making it was the capital deciding to go elsewhere.

  5. From the article: “It triggered renewed calls for a crackdown on high fees charged by fund managers irrespective of performance”

    Or you could just… choose not to personally invest your money in a fund that:
    1. Charges too high a fee
    2. Is poor performing
    3. Both

    What further crackdown is required? And by who?

  6. Bloke in North Dorset

    If you don’t want to pay high fees you can always use a tracker fund.

    Oh, wait, Spud’s banning those as well.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *