Ann: Change in substantial holding for GDC, page-18

Earlier in the thread I think I mentioned instead going directly in 8 discount to asset plays that WAR holds instead.

When you say you are ok to get 80% of the NTA growth with regards to the performance fee it might be more like 65%. For every 10% of growth a year say if WAR achieves you lose 2% to a performance fee but also 1% fixed fee and maybe another 50bps other expenses (I haven't checked their expenses though just a guess).

If the look through NTA gimmick that WAR advertises appeals, maybe GVF might be a better alternative. it might be close to that anyway, and at least they seem to be active with their investments and their fees are not quite as bad.

not advice of course! Interesting to get your feedback and notice that the look through NTA is appealing to some.

only time will tell you may well have picked the better option all the best!