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

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 partners sea • :new (mann Icor "dal*, • 1.6.61.1e

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.

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 • Uppu Cauret LeAr "dal* • 7171.1C • ;

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

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

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

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

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

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 hinged partners • dppti (maw 1pw 61 ash • 1P:0r • ; Sac

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

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%

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 tanned partners sea 10% • claw (mane BC. 1pw .r3d wilt

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% • Cava (mann Isar ad wilt • 1a..0a

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

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

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 partners • Opt* (this Len—Itito • wear • ; W SO

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

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