Mark Dampier: Behind the scenes of the Hargreaves/Woodford media frenzy

“You and your wife will have priority for any 999 calls you make on your phones.”

So began a security briefing to me by a police officer five years ago.

What kicked this off? The Neil Woodford saga.

You may need to excuse a degree of self-indulgence in this column, but I felt it might help to straighten the facts (they are the first to bend in a headline-grabbing news story) and to give you an idea of what it’s like to be caught up in a negative media frenzy.

I should start by saying I would not wish this event on anyone, and I’m very sorry for investors whose investment did not go the way they — and we at Hargreaves Lansdown, where I was head of research at the time — had hoped.

The power to tell a story should be a privilege. Journalists should always seek the truth

I care considerably less about those in the financial services industry who used Woodford’s downfall to try and further their own means.

And I care even less for those journalists who never bothered to check facts before going to print; or, indeed, to correct false information after they had discovered the truth.

Rise and fall

Woodford had been one of the most successful UK fund managers of his generation, starting in 1988 at Invesco Perpetual.

Leaving in 2013 to set up his own company — Woodford Investment Management — initially Woodford saw his success continue, with the flagship Equity Income fund managing more than £10bn of investors’ money at its peak.

The demise of the fund in 2019 was complicated but broadly started with what turned out to be some poor stock picking. Given Woodford’s high profile, it wasn’t long before every mistake was magnified by the media.

The fact we were given a hotline to the police should be an indication of the degree of vindictiveness

Investors pulled out in droves and those left were stuck when the fund was suspended, then shut down, by its administrator, Link Fund Solutions.

Hargreaves came under fire for having promoted the Equity Income fund.

Broken relationship

As a professional in the industry, I have been dealing with the media for more than 40 years.

I was one of several people in the early years who decided to go straight to the press with interesting investment stories, and I built many relationships — indeed, friendships — with some of those with whom I shared this information.

I would say the truth always matters — but what does it tell us about the headline-grabbing stories of today if mere facts are so unimportant?

I gave journalists my personal mobile number, enabling them to obtain an immediate response to any questions they had at any time.

However, once I became, in their eyes, part of the negative media outcry, it turned into a different story. I was never contacted and articles were written that weren’t factually correct. In the frenzy, few bothered to check.

It became near impossible for me to perform at least one role, of talking to the media, and other colleagues at Hargreaves had to take over. I am immensely grateful to them for the unenviable task they undertook.

The function of news media is inherently short term, exacerbated by the internet, which demands a constant flow of new content to satisfy readers. Something has to give in the pursuit of those all-important headline-grabbing statements and clicks — and that seems to be checking whether something is true before reporting it.

All these so-called facts continued to be repeated over the years, despite the news outlets being told they were untrue

This short-termism is at odds with the much longer-term nature of investment.

Now, five years on, much of the untrue information I read about myself at the time is still repeated. Does it matter? To many, probably not. But, to me, absolutely.

Made-up news

Being on the inside of a media frenzy has shown me something that is far too important to not share: how much ‘news’ is made up to add fuel to a fire. Here are some of the banal and ridiculous things written about me (please note, many are more to do with a supposed lifestyle than with the genuine story — make of that what you wish).

In the weeks following the gating of the Woodford fund, I read that I lived in a country manor in the Mendips. A newspaper showed an old, but cleverly shot, photograph of my wife and me from a time when papers used to like taking photos beyond the normal workplaces.

I actually live in a four-bedroom, semi-detached house, with a small garden and no garage. We have lived there for more than 30 years.

Being on the inside of a media frenzy has shown me how much ‘news’ is made up to add fuel to a fire

I appreciate that I am fortunate enough to own another house, in Devon, which was purchased 12 years ago, so one tabloid thought that it, along with our ‘yacht’, might be worth a photograph. It’s a terraced house by the water and, while we do have a boat, it’s certainly no yacht.

Don’t get me wrong — we feel lucky to have these things. But they have come about by saving and investing, being careful and patient; the very things personal finance journalists preach and write about all the time.

None of it has anything to do with Woodford, either before or after the saga, yet my personal life was spread across the newspapers. In fact, I had personally invested in the Woodford funds. I did not sell my units before the gating. I did not inside deal. I lost money too.

Fact checking

I did know Woodford, because we were in the same business. Hardly a surprise; I know many fund managers.

But we had never been what the papers called “longtime friends”.

I was never contacted and articles were written that weren’t factually correct. In the frenzy, few bothered to check

All these so-called facts continued to be repeated over the years, despite the news outlets being told they were untrue.

Other than from the few journalists who have asked after me (thank you, you know who you are), not a single call has been forthcoming to check on anything.

Why should this matter to anyone other than me, my family and my friends? The fact we were given a hotline to the police should be an indication of the degree of negativity and vindictiveness we received.

Headline grabbing

I would say the truth always matters — but what does it tell us about the headline-grabbing stories of today if mere facts are so unimportant?

Two topics that I think are very important are energy transition and climate — both subjects that are virtually closed for any debate. The media are constantly misleading and misinforming the public about them.

Billions of pounds are being misallocated to energy and climate policies, helped by a media that can’t be bothered to put the work in and question anything.

Recently, I suggested to a personal finance journalist a story on renewables, explaining that there was another angle to explore.

I did not sell my units before the gating of the Woodford funds. I did not inside deal. I lost money too

His answer was illuminating: “I almost certainly won’t get that past my editor.”

Perhaps it’s no surprise that trust everywhere appears to be in short supply.

That the media can be a force for good could be seen clearly in the recent Post Office fiasco. But the power to tell a story should be a privilege.

Journalists should always seek the truth, and ignoring the facts should always be avoided.

Mark Dampier is an independent consultant and can be found tweeting at @MarkDampier

This article featured in the September 2024 edition of Money Marketing. 

If you would like to subscribe to the monthly magazine, please click here.