Epstein Secrets

f HI performance against one benchmark only Past performance is not a prediction ol the !awe performance of SOF. SOF D, SOF II. SCf III or any other Glendower finds dnd there can be no asswance that SOF W will achieve compared° resifts or that any target results will be achieved. but is included to demonst

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 so% 'S. 104. 20if " • n. 64 • :Apt

III performance against one benchmark only Past performance is riot a predicton ol the Volt performance of SOF. SOF D, SOF II. SCf III or any other Glendower finds and there can be no asswance that SOF W will achieve comparatle resifts or that any target results will be achieved. but is included to demons

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 linked pawners ¶00 19* • upon Urann Low .r3d wilt WC 2

SCf HI performance against one benchmark only Past performance 6 not a prediction ol the Uwe performance of SOF. SOF D, SOF II. SCf III or any other Glendower finds and there can be no asswance that SOF W vall achieve comparatte resifts or that any Impel results will be achieved. but is included to demonst

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

III performance against one benchmark only Past performance is not a predictor ol the vivre performance et SOF. SOF D, SOF II. SCf III or any other Glendower finds dnd there can be no asswance that SOF W will achieve comparable resifts or that any target results will be achieved. but is included to demons

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

III performance against one benchmark only Past performance is riot a predicton ol the Volt performance of SOF. SOF D, SOF II. SCf III or any other Glendower finds and there can be no asswance that SOF W will achieve comparatle resifts or that any target results will be achieved. but is included to demons

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 linked pawners ¶00 19* • upon Urann Low .r3d wilt WC 2

F HI performance against one benchmark only Past performance is riot a prediction ol the Uwe performance of SOF. SOF D, SCF II. SCF III or any other Glendower finds and there can be no assurance that SOF hr will achieve comparable resifts or that any target results will be achieved. but is included to demo

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 • Cava Goan.. 10410 ,64410 • 6•044 ace

III performance against one benchmark only Past performance is riot a predicton ol the Volt performance of SOF. SOF D, SOF II. SCf III or any other Glendower finds and there can be no asswance that SOF W will achieve comparatle resifts or that any target results will be achieved. but is included to demons

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 linked pawners ¶00 19* • upon Urann Low .r3d wilt WC 2

SCF HI performance against one benchmark only Past performance 6 not a prediction ol the Um performance of SOF. SOF D, SCF II. SCF VI or any other Glendower finds and there can be no assurance that SOF IV will achieve comparate resifts or that any target results will be achieved. but is included to demon

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 sod la% 1011 'S. 200. in • 53, 0%

SCf HI performance against one benchmark only Past performance 6 not a prediction ol the Uwe performance of SOF. SOF D, SOF II. SOF III or any other Glendower finds and there can be no asswance that SOF W will achieve comparatle resifts or that any target results will be achieved. but is included to demons

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 sod 1011 'S. 203. in • 53, 0% 64

SCf HI performance against one benchmark only Past performance is not a predicton ol the Uwe performance of SOF. SOF D, SOF II. SOF III or any other Glendower finds and there can be no asswance that SOF W will achieve comparable resifts or that any target results will be achieved. but is included to demons

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