3
Shared Docs
3
Same-Page
3 / 3
Mentions
peer group SOF and SOF 0 performance is not included m the data se teed to calculate the tenclvnark data Note that the performance fumes in respect el SW and SOF D have not been audried and should be reed and reviewed in conmiteco win Appendix 5 ImponanIPmlonnance latirmatton Past pedamance of SOF Fie
ember 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 Benchmark " 34 37 Secondary funds: Net IRR to limited partners Secondary funds: Net multiple to limited partners sow 'S. 200. " • ss, 64 • :Apt. (4an
peer group SOF and SOF 0 performance is net included in the data set used to calculate the benchmark data Note that the performance homes in reaped el SW and SOF D nave not been audited and should be read and reviewed n comma:co w1N Appender 5 impends,' PerformanCe I raismatton Past padamance of SOF F
ember 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 Benchmark " 34 37 Secondary funds: Net IRR to limited partners Secondary funds: Net multiple to limited partners sea 'S. • wee (maw 1pw Ern' ilt sac a
w peer group SOF and SOF 0 performance is net included in the data se teed to calculate the benchmark data Note that the performance fumes in reaped el SW and SOF D have not been audited and should be read and rewewed n comma:co huh Appendix 5 impOdaniParlonnanCe ratan:ton Past pedamance of SOF Finds *
ember 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 Benchmark " 34 37 Secondary funds: Net IRR to limited partners Secondary funds: Net multiple to limited partners SCSI • CON' (mane 1pw .r3d xi* • ut.0.0
Entities connected to both el SW and Cambridge Associates Secondary Fund Benchmark