Neil Woodford still rakes in £600k in fees despite having no funds left to manage
Neil Woodford’s defunct investment firm raked in more than half a million pounds last year.
Woodford Investment Management (WIM) pulled in £590,209 in the year to March 2021 despite having no funds left to manage following Woodford’s fall from grace in 2019. The money was generated from ‘consulting work’ that Woodford performed.
The once-feted stock picker has been advising US business Acacia Research, which bought several of the stocks from his imploded Equity Income fund. It was not clear whether Woodford personally received more cash from Acacia.
Profits: Woodford Investment Management pulled in £590,209 in the year to March 2021 despite having no funds to manage following Neil Woodford’s (pictured) fall from grace in 2019
But the fees paid to WIM are likely to anger savers who suffered massive losses when Woodford’s firm crashed.
WIM accounts show it generated an overall loss of £4.1million, after incurring £5.1million of ‘administrative expenses’.
These were mainly legal fees and other costs it was forced to pay in relation to the Financial Conduct Authority’s ongoing investigation into Woodford and his collapsed firm.
WIM finally stopped paying dividends to Woodford, 61, and his business partner Craig Newman, 51. They had bagged £113million between them since in 2014.
But it also said it was waiting for ‘contingent events’ to take place which would mean more money flowing in. City sources speculated that this would most likely be a lawsuit, possibly against
Link, the firm that was supposed to be keeping an eye on Woodford’s funds and which eventually fired him from running his fund. Link said it was not aware of any legal proceedings being brought against it by WIM.
The accounts also show a mystery party paid WIM £4million for warrants giving them the right to take a stake. One fund manager said: ‘On the face of it, investing £4million into a defunct company seems counter-intuitive.
I suspect there are strong commercial reasons why someone might have done this – possibly to fund a fight against Link.’
A source close to Woodford denied the warrants were part of a formal litigation funding arrangement.
A spokesman for Woodford declined to comment.