Ann: Change in substantial holding for GDC, page-3

I've often wondered the same thing myself since WAR was listed. I think the strategy had a genuine chance of doing something unique that 1. Had previously been a bit of a WAM calling card in agitating for value at underperforming LIC's and 2. Gave investors exposure to something that we couldn't individually do ourselves e.g we can all buy LIC'S that are trading at an NTA discount but it's pretty difficult for the average retail shareholder to force a strange of strategy or fund wind up etc. whereas WAR has the ability and expertise to do that.

It also exists in pretty much the perfect moment for a fund like this where LIC NTA discount's are wider than they've ever been and fund managers are under pressure as there is plenty of media coverage about this problem.

But the weird thing is WAR has been listed for two years and for the majority of that time has sat with 50 percent of the portfolio in WGB (inherited from the Templeton merger) and cash which would suggest they haven't really seen many opportunities. I've also never seen anything in the press about anything changing at any of the LIC'S they are invested in.

If WAR is just going to be a passive fund of funds collecting dividends then that eliminates the key strength and point of difference for investing in the fund in my opinion. The whole thing has been very interesting to observe and I question whether the reduction in corporate activism might be partially due to the serious underperformance of both WGB and WAR in recent years. It's probably a bit easier to grill other fund managers when the funds within the Wilson stable are flying as they were a few years ago.