The one stop source for breaking news, expert analysis, and podcasts on fast-moving AIM and LSE listed shares

Join ShareProphets at less than 2p per article

> All the big AIM fraud exposés

> 300 articles and podcasts a month

> Hot share tips

> Original investigations by our experienced team

> No ads, no click-bait, no auto-play videos

Find out more

Fake News on arrogant bastard fund manager Neil Woodford from the Mail on Sunday

By Tom Winnifrith | Sunday 10 September 2017


Neil Woodford's fund management group has spent vast sums advertising its products in the financial press and has received vast amounts of slavishly positive comment in the same publications. These two facts are, of course, in no way related. And so after Woodford said sorry, in a terribly unconvincing manner, for having done so badly over the past year how does the Mail on Sunday's Alex Sebastian, himself a unit holder, spin this? With fake news natch

Alex states up front:

The point should be made that using the starting date of its launch in 2014, Woodford Equity Income is still in market beating territory with a total return of around 30 per cent.


Really? What Alex is doing here is comparing Woodford's flagship CF Woodford Equity Income funds total return ( that is the increase in the unit price plus dividends paid out) with the performance of the FTSE 100 ( which does not of course take into account dividend payments) So that is apples and oranges.

Surely a fair comparator would be Woodford's funds against all the other UK funds which promise a yield plus capital growth. As the chart below shows Woodford has actually underperformed his peer group since launch (albeit marginally) .

The truth is there is no market beating by Woodford. That is fake news. The tawdry Sebastian then goes onto quote three experts all of whom are supportive of Woodford. Oddly, across the City, there are are many who point to Woodford's reckless investment in private companies often in high risk sectors such as biotech. They mention the high profile frauds he has backed.

But in the fake news Mail on Sunday when your starting premise is, essentially, a lie there is no need to offer any balance is there?

Filed under:

This area of the site is for independent financial commentary. These blogs are provided by independent authors via a common carrier platform and do not represent the opinions of does not monitor, approve, endorse or exert editorial control over these articles and does not therefore accept responsibility for or make any warranties in connection with or recommend that you or any third party rely on such information. The information available at is for your general information and use and is not intended to address your particular requirements. In particular, the information does not constitute any form of advice or recommendation by and is not intended to be relied upon by users in making (or refraining from making) any investment decisions.


Comments are turned off for this article.

Site by Everywhen