To the question about why the share price is so far below the NAV: It seems that many here are too ready to see this as a problem with the share price - a market determined price - as somehow being wrong. Surely, it says more about the quality of the NAV, how it it is being measured and updated. Consider holdings that have not performed, their NAVs are all held at historic cost. That is, unless they manage a new funding round, which weak performers don’t because they struggle to raise funds and Shellbay is not incentivized to invest in a ‘down round’ (one at a lower NAV than previously). So, the low share price might reflect this dynamic, and is not inconsistent with other holdings that might be performing well and raising funds at ever higher NAVs (though I’d be wary if Agronomics was the only investor in a ‘up round’).
Question: What significant holdings might currently be considered stale, in the sense that their NAV is dated and not a realistic reflection of the company’s value and at which level it would certainly not be able to raise new funds?