Neil Woodford fined £46M and banned from UK Finance Leadership. What does this mean for Accountability in Asset Management?

What does this mean for Accountability in Asset Management?

In early August 2025, the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) fined Neil Woodford and his investment management firm, Woodford Investment Management (WIM), a combined total of £46 million. Woodford was also banned from holding senior roles in the UK’s Financial Services industry.

The FCA concluded that Neil Woodford:

1. made “unreasonable and inappropriate investment decisions”

2. had a “defective and unreasonably narrow understanding of his responsibilities”

3. was “not a fit and proper person” to manage retail investor funds

Woodford has appealed the decision and continues to blame the fund’s administrator, Link Fund Solutions, and the regulator itself for the collapse, noting that he and his firm “strongly disagree with the FCA’s Decision”.

In the same Press Release, Woodford Investment Management (WIM) stated that they “Believe that the appeal process will shed much needed light on the events leading to and following the Fund’s suspension, including the Regulators role in those events...”

This is akin to saying, “the truth will come out”.

Everything we do at Deception Detection Lab Ltd (DDL) is designed to empower individuals and organisations to experience the significant benefits of 'Getting to the Truth'. We only analyse the words used and ignore facts, hearsay and opinions. The statement is, in effect, our customer and reflects the verbalised reality.

The Dubai Video

Earlier this year, DDL were asked to analyse an online interview Neil Woodford gave in Dubai towards the end of 2024, entitled, “Inside Neil Woodford’s career: What Really happened?”.

Our analysis concluded that Neil Woodford was being deceptive in the sharing of his knowledge of events.

He used passive voice in saying “and then in early October, the fund was linked to a decision to liquidate the fund.” Passivity can seek to withhold responsibility and we note that the fund was liquidated not because of a decision but because it was linked to a decision.

Neil Woodford added, “Now probably not for here, but I can’t tell you what we believe really now is the motivation for that decision”. Only the “motivation” for the decision to liquidate the fund is questioned. He then says, “it’s hard to know quite what the motivation was for the decision in October to liquidate the fund.” Based on his previous answer, he has an idea of what the motivation “is” but not what it “was”.

He is unsure and lacks commitment to his statement.

Woodford then notes, “It’s a completely irrational and damaging decision but nevertheless, it wasn’t taken for liquidity reasons”.

In order to know why it wasn’t taken (i.e. for liquidity reasons) Woodford must know the reason for why it was taken. He is not telling us what he knows. Rather, he would have people believe he knows the decision wasn’t taken for liquidity reasons without verbalising why.

This is extremely sensitive for him – providing the reason could absolve him of any blame (if he were not to blame). What would cause him not to say this?

After years of investors stumbling in the dark, the light has finally been switched back on.

References:

1.       BBC News article dated 5th August 2025: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgdx0lgg28o

2.       FCA Decision Notice: https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/decision-notices/neil-woodford-2025.pdf

3.       YouTube Video “Inside Neil Woodford’s career: What Really happened?”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgZmZ61PtVA

All blog subjects are identified, validated and written by the DDL Team. See www.ddlltd.com for more on Deception Detection Lab Ltd.