Thanks hobbes. I was a Dixon client for a couple of years until...

Thanks hobbes. I was a Dixon client for a couple of years until the extent of their conflicts became clear to me. Thankfully I exited as a client and sold all of my Dixon related products, except the CD series, a couple of years before things really went south.

My thoughts are:

1. I do not trust E&P to act in shareholders best interests (many of the relevant Dixon's players remain in E&P), so would like to have them replaced as a matter of priority.

2. The discount to NAV is problematic, although not at all an unusual problem in the current market.

3. While I would like to see the investment become more liquid (and valued properly), I would not be in favour of secondary transaction or otherwise liquidating 'quickly' if that would result in a significant decrease in the longer term return.

Right now, if people can sit tight and wait for the realisations in the normal course of events (I accept that some may not be in a position to do that), the return is quite good. This is a better position than being in a more reputable evergreen fund that trades at a discount to NAV for long periods of time (as a very large number do at the moment).

Ie I agree with nearly everything you put forward, but question whether it is realistic to expect a quick liquidation (even with a willing and able RE) without significantly impacting returns. If it is not realistic, then it may be worth re-evaluating the cost-benefit analysis of voting 'no'. In any case, I agree though that we should be organising to get the best deal possible.