Updated perspective on PAC Valuation (ex-GQG) - $8.375 is revised price, page-7

As a side note, does anyone else wonder why PAC insist on calling our investees Tier 1 and Tier 2 in all corporate presentations? Doesn't this practice run the risk of offending any investee we categorise as Tier 2? Surely there is a more sensitive way to achieve this categorisation.

I look at it this way; if you're a fund manager and you've invited someone into a business that you've founded with great passion and personal risk/sacrifice, and that investor (PAC) is a relatively passive partner, would you and your team be pleased to be continually referred to as Tier 2 (which can imply 2nd rate, or less important)? It could be variously perceived (depending upon personalities) by our business partners as displaying insensitivity, disinterest or arrogance.

IMO good relations with our investee businesses are vital and there's absolutely ZERO upside to continually committing this faux pas...it would cost nothing for the PAC board to change this categorisation to something less offensive like "larger" and "smaller" or something like that, which doesn't imply anything about quality or importance. It may seem like a small thing, but if there's no upside and only potential downside, why keep doing it? I'd be interested in other's thoughts.

By the way,, I've never seen Pinnacle (PNI) or Bennelong or Fidante or any other boutique incubator refer to any of their investee boutiques in such a fashion, so I really scratch my head wondering why PAC continually does so...it just seems dumb.