Well as regards the water - that was what attracted me to this...

Well as regards the water - that was what attracted me to this in the first place. With the government purchasing water allocations it is a vsluable asset especially when weather patterns are normal. So right now everyone seems to hsve enough but generally it provides a good return. In my opinion Argyle are pretty good.
I didn't buy into this for the feel good factor. I wanted something different that as a retail investor you could not actually get access to. It achieves that. My issue is thst as it really is a fund of funds the 1% is a good fee to Wilson asset management. If you look at the income statement the directors take almost $200k - too much in my opinion they have in addition to that a charge for an investment committee of $90k and then the management feees and others charges which tops out over $2 million. All of this creates what I think is an expensive vehicle allways remembering that as you invest in funds those managers also take a fee.
All in all you can see tgst despite exits which would normally push up the value the NTA has been relatively flat. The money in this was made from the takeover if the blue sky fund where the share price was predicting disaster.

In fact as retail investors can access Argyle these days and the fund has said its going to keep reducing water this isnt going to be in my portfolio gor long. I only have this investment because of the discount, but really Wolson asset management does not kmpress ne at the moment. I like the fund manager whe she stood by the fund and brought it accross to Wilson - however I reckon with the correct backing this could have been run a lot more cost effectively.

To illustrate over the 3 years PE1 has increased in share price by 25%. Over the same period thus has increased by 15c over 90c so around 16%. I haven't taken it further but there would be alternative assets that have done better. In fact the Argyle water fund has achieved very closely what WMA has - you have to remember up until some yime in yhe past year it held 33% of its assets in the water fund.
Dont get me wrong this fund has performed within the context but I think it could have done better.

With it now changing I think for me its a value trap as the duscount is fully used by the expensive cost base. Maybe that is just what LIC's are - hiwever ARG, AFI run on much lower costs anc if you invest in funds then it should not be this expensive in my opinion.