I cannot follow your reasoning about the fee and your...

I cannot follow your reasoning about the fee and your application of it being a percentage of the shareholding of the family. The family would have been paid the $1.5m as their portion of the investment fee whether they held shares or not. I do understand your claim that the fees seem exorbitant but I would not express them as a percentage of the fact that they hold shares in the company - you might imagine what that percentage would be had they only owned 10 shares in SNC - besides it is not mandatory that they need to own any in fact although I and other shareholders I am sure like to see some skin in the game so to speak. Like all other LICs which have performance fees the performance remuneration usually allows fees on unrealised gains in any one tax year. It would be preferable if that was not the case. However it is general that the share price of the LIC lifts accordingly to the unrealised value of retained shares in their invested companies and shareholders have the ability to exit at that time to receive the benefit of that increased value despite the charge of the performance fees. They do always look outrageous in retrospect when the market tanks along with the LIC share price. I have always expected that those companies which take strongly contrarian positions in companies where they consider that they can actively improve the companies value or can forecast catalysts which others may not be able to see and engage with the company's board to actively turn things around deserve something more than those who simply stockpick where they think a company is undervalued. I do not think that SNC's increase/decrease in NTA is altogether just related to market sentiment - it has the ability to actively improve the value of its investments beyond the general market trend under its mandate and charter. However when markets tank, sentiment is low and uncertainty abounds the SNC share price will almost certainly follow the trend.