5
Shared Docs
5
Same-Page
5 / 5
Mentions
Czech Republic, 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
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
Czech Republic, 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
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
Czech Republic, 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
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
Czech Republic, 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
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
Czech Republic, 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
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 Luxembourg and Cambridge Associates Secondary Fund

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