5
Shared Docs
5
Same-Page
5 / 5
Mentions
c, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Republic of Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
mber 30, 2017). The SOF Funds present comparatively strong Net IRR, DPI and TVPI across each vintage year. Exhibit 2: SOF Funds performance versus Cambridge Associates Secondary Fund Benchmark34, 35, 36, 37 In Exhibit 3, each of SOF, SOF D, SOF II and SOF III is benchmarked against its vintage group of top quartile buyout fund
c, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Republic of Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
mber 30, 2017). The SOF Funds present comparatively strong Net IRR, DPI and TVPI across each vintage year. Exhibit 2: SOF Funds performance versus Cambridge Associates Secondary Fund Benchmark34, 35, 36, 37 In Exhibit 3, each of SOF, SOF D, SOF II and SOF III is benchmarked against its vintage group of top quartile buyout fund
c, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Republic of Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
mber 30, 2017). The SOF Funds present comparatively strong Net IRR, DPI and TVPI across each vintage year. Exhibit 2: SOF Funds performance versus Cambridge Associates Secondary Fund Benchmark34, 35, 36, 37 In Exhibit 3, each of SOF, SOF D, SOF II and SOF III is benchmarked against its vintage group of top quartile buyout fund
c, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Republic of Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
mber 30, 2017). The SOF Funds present comparatively strong Net IRR, DPI and TVPI across each vintage year. Exhibit 2: SOF Funds performance versus Cambridge Associates Secondary Fund Benchmark34, 35, 36, 37 In Exhibit 3, each of SOF, SOF D, SOF II and SOF III is benchmarked against its vintage group of top quartile buyout fund
c, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Republic of Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
mber 30, 2017). The SOF Funds present comparatively strong Net IRR, DPI and TVPI across each vintage year. Exhibit 2: SOF Funds performance versus Cambridge Associates Secondary Fund Benchmark34, 35, 36, 37 In Exhibit 3, each of SOF, SOF D, SOF II and SOF III is benchmarked against its vintage group of top quartile buyout fund
Entities connected to both Malta and Cambridge Associates Secondary Fund

Cyprus
LOCATION
Luxembourg
LOCATION
Denmark
LOCATION
Finland
LOCATION
Ireland
LOCATION
Norway
LOCATION
Hungary
LOCATION
Belgium
LOCATION
Estonia
LOCATION
Latvia
LOCATION
Bulgaria
LOCATION
Slovenia
LOCATION
Czech Republic
LOCATION
Slovakia
LOCATION
Romania
LOCATION
Croatia
LOCATION
Lithuania
LOCATION
United Kingdom
LOCATION
Liechtenstein
LOCATION
Northern Ireland
LOCATION