I don't have a particular dog in this fight one way or the...

I don't have a particular dog in this fight one way or the other, and I have never owned their shares and don't intend to buy, but being in a similar industry to BLA (albeit on a smaller scale) I do believe I have some insights into the business.

Whilst the Glaucus report was by no means 100% correct, having an understanding of market standard unlisted asset fund terms, some of the stuff that BLA have been doing has been pretty egregious. For example, charging 3-5 years' annual management fees upfront and marking up the transaction costs to include a profit margin are both pretty much unheard of. It also means that the cash crunch from not making new investments will be even more severe as they will have to pay the costs of managing their existing investments with no further cash receipts.

Also, the way they account for performance fees based upon their internal valuations that then feeds into their reported profit leaves far too much to their discretion. Having worked with "independent" valuers on unlisted/illiquid assets before, there is a very wide range of values that can be justified depending on whether you want to be conservative or aggressive. When the drive to show EPS/profit growth is so strong to maintain their high P/Es, which way do you think they will lean?

At the end of the day, being an investment manager myself, what they have been doing gives the whole industry a bad name which is not good for any of us, so that's my interest in this whole affair.