> I mean, by your logic if the fund holds a public stock that doubled in the past month but the fund went down, then you'd have to mark down the public stock, i

> I mean, by your logic if the fund holds a public stock that doubled in the past month but the fund went down, then you'd have to mark down the public stock, in this case I'm using a public stock as we know exactly what its worth. This is not my logic at all and it makes no sense. Why would the fund need to mark down public stock when the value of that stock is already explicitly known? The fund's NAV is, by definition, a summation of the values of its holdings. The liquid holdings such as public stocks have clear values that are readily available. Thus any other change in the NAV of the fund would come from its illiquid investments, no? I agree my comment wasn't exactly correct in that the NAV is a summation of the liquid asset values and estimates of the illiquid asset values, not the other way around as I perhaps implied. But what I mean is that the valuation process for illiquid assets is difficult and imprecise and the valuation committee will naturally tend to assume that the value of illiquid equities generally move with the rest of the market in the absence of other new information. It would take a strong conviction in your illiquid investments to say that they maintained their value while nearly all of the liquid investments lost 10%, 20%, etc.