PE1 is a Listed Investment Trust (LIT). See:...

PE1 is a Listed Investment Trust (LIT). See: https://pe1.pengana.com
Both LITs and LICs are Closed End investments. So unlike Open End investments they can trade at discounts or premiums to NAV.

The 3 listed CD funds are self-liquidating (constituted to return all capital) while PE1 is an evergreen fund (capital can be continually reinvested).

My point is that a Responsible Entity acting for shareholders will: "Maintain friendly negotiations with all potential bidders with a firm view to finalising a merger proposal with whoever has the best offer, as 75% of shareholders still have to vote for it. Then leave it up to us shareholders to decide!"

If the best proposal isn't more attractive than holding on to be liquidated at NAV, I doubt 75% of shareholders will vote for it. I certainly won't be and would be writing up my reasons why on the blog: https://cdprivateequityfundinsights.blogspot.com
PE1 is certainly not guaranteed to trade at premiums to NAV or near NAV. Indeed I can see multiple reasons why that might change periodically, and in a merge the CD shareholders selling out is definitely a big factor to be carefully managed.

However, the fact that PE1 trades at a premium while the CD funds are at 30-40% discounts (despite comparable or superior performance) indicates there is demand for ASX listed private equity funds (U.S. or global focus) as long as the Responsible Entity is trusted (unlike E&P after the URF debacle) and there is no history of exploiting shareholders (mis-selling the CD funds to DIxon Advisory clients).

Ever since conflicted selling fees were banned hardly any new LICs or LITs have launched on the ASX. Private equity is a natural fit. See article below:

"First, PE1 has consistently traded at a premium to its net asset value (NAV) in contrast to the vast majority of other LITs, which trade at material discounts. This may be partly related to the fact that there is, in fact, a bona fide case for giving retail investors access to unlisted private equity via a listed structure because it is the only way to access the asset-class."
https://www.livewiremarkets.com/wires/private-equity-lit-trades-at-premium-not-discount-to-nta-and-raises-money-without-selling-fees

I aim to provide useful facts and guidance so that CD fund shareholders can navigate the long and winding road to the best feasible outcome. Killing the E&P proposal to capture the funds permanently was a big success for us. Now we've forced E&P to invite others to take on the RE job as well as flag they are open to proposals regarding the CD funds. Regarding mergers, we shouldn't just want Pengana in the mix, we should want WAM / WMA and even LICs/LITs like VG1 or RF1 who've previously mentioned targeting funds at discounts.

Take note of how I ended the blog post and be patient. We want Pengana in the mix and conversation (e.g. comparing CD discounts to PE1 premium); we don't want a quick fire sale to Pengana at a chump price!

<<
Finally, I should note that as long as E&P is facilitating a transaction (rather than blocking one), time is on the side of CD Fund investors. Future realisations will certainly be much closer to current holding values than the current deep share price discounts, and these will be paid out as distributions, reducing the potential gain for the acquirer or making it have to bid higher. The steady drawdown of the CD Funds captive capital is all the impetus needed to get a deal done.
>>