Epstein Secrets

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% ASS 1011 'S. • CIpaa Coat low ad.

performance 6 not a prediction ol the !awe performance of SOF. SOF D, SOF II. SOF III or any other Glendower fads dnd there can be no assurance that SOF rtr will achieve compared° resifts or that any target results will be achieved. but is included to demonstrate the track record of the Glendower SOF Tea

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 tended pariahs • upte. Goan.. 1pw Ern' ilt • Wax, • ; sa

erlormance 6 not a prediction ol the Uwe performance of SOF. SOF D, SOF II. SOF III or any other Glendower FifidS dnd there can be no assurance that SOF rtr will acheve comparable resifts or that any target results will be achieved. but is included to demonstrate the track record ci the Glendower SOF Tea

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 tanked partners • Um* coat Leletn1d wag • WIALIC • ; sa

performance 6 not a prediction ol the Um performance of SOF. SOF D, SOF II. SCf III or any other Glendower finds and there can be no assurance that SOF rtr will achieve comparable resifts or that any target results will be achieved. but is included to demonstrate the track record ci the Glendower SOF Te