@joewolf... @blindskwerri was actually responding to me when he...

@joewolf... @blindskwerri was actually responding to me when he mentioned the .81 support level. I initially responded to him as if I was talking about SEC, rather than GC1. But i corrected that in my next post. You mentioned that you werent as unhappy as "you" seem to be, but I didnt know if you were referring to me or the visually impaired one (tic). I agree in principle with what you say, but not totally. We pay fund managers to make investment decisions on our behalf. I guess thats the problem that once you pay your money, you takes your chances. I dont mind a little bit of spice and risk in an LIC. What I do object to, is having a stock which has sufficient risk built into it that it can go to zero and significantly affect the NTA of the fund (such as Axsess). I agree that as an investor, we invest to get a dividend and some capital growth. You seem to be targeting APT as a high flyer and a stock that MG perhaps should NOT be investing in; yes, theres a degree of risk, but weighing up the buying cost and looking at the margin of safety, GC1 would still be a long way ahead even if it dips. Axsess it would appear was a different kettle of fish. I agree with what you say about LICs...most have lagged the market over the past and if you look at CDM...............(well dont !) One of the largest holdings in CDM was ARQ and CDM had approx 18% of the fund in that ! I have to ask you... would you have any stock (apart from CSL) constituting 18% of your portfolio ? I wouldnt... and i think thats a legitimate complaint to make against a fund manager who is taking your hard earned and is supposedly investing it professing their professional qualifications as justification for their decision. I dont know if I can knock MG for having an APT in the portfolio, but I can for having Axsess in it that went to ZERO. After all, APT is trading with sufficient volume and momentum to sell well above his buying price. You have covered so many areas and included APT as a speculative stocks and some of your comments I agree with and some i dont. But I do agree with you about this ; " LIC's are better than brokers because they are competing against each other and need performance to get their next job. they cannot just take someone money and invest in a vacuum where measurement does not exist. " At least, they are supposed to !