Looking at BGM’s table in his Oct 28 post, the discount is volatile,
and that volatility itself warrants a discount.
But whether it is “structurally large” is less clear.

Whatever one thinks of its size, the reasons for some structural discount are several.

Historically the market was very thin - and tho this has changed, the spreads remain large.

It is common for US-invested closed-end funds to trade at a discount to NAV, and altho CSWC is not a closed-end fund in the operational way that RVT, GAB, etc, are, it has many of the same characteristics in an investment sense.

Much of the portfolio is valued by CSWC because there is no public market. Most of us on this board have felt the valuations reasonable or conservative - but that involves an element of trust.

Given the huge percentage of assets that are unrealized gains, it is quite rational to think about the tax consequences. The premium to NAV when NAV was net of deferred taxes showed there were buyers willing to assume holdings would continue to be held. But there is an uncertainty. Altho at one time the form 2439 data were available by late Dec so one could adjust for them, more recently it has been Jan. So a discount for not knowing what the tax consequences are going to be could be considered part of a structural discount.


Moving to “the real question”, I’d say that most of the core holdings are “robust value creators” going forward.

HLYS was a flash in the pan that may or may not sizzle again.
PHHM got into trouble when Posey got sick and died, and then the whole sector sank. (It’s more complicated than that, of course.)