Preqin Private Equity Spotlight - March 2014 Data Pack
Thank you for downloading the Private Equity Spotlight data pack which contains the underlying charts and graphs featured in this month's report. Should you have any questions regarding the information featured then please do not hesitate to contact us using the details below.

Email: Tel (New York): Tel (London): Tel (Singapore): Tel (San Francisco):

info@preqin.com +1 212 350 0100 +44 (0)20 7645 8888 +65 6305 2200 +1 415 635 3580

.

.

.

1: LPs’ Current Level of Co-Investment Activity Proportion of Respondents Actively Co-Investing Opportunistically Co-Investing Considering Co-Investing in the Future But Have Not Co-Invested Yet Not Co-Investing and No Plans to CoInvest in the Future 40% 36% 16% 7% Fig. 2: Proportion of LPs’ Total Private Equity Portfolio Made Up of Co-Investments by Current Allocation to Private E Proportion of Total Private Equity Po Allocation to Private Equity Up to $250mn $251mnto $500mn $501mnto $1bn $1.1bnto $5bn More than $5bn Less than 2% 31% 50% 11% 25% 43% .Fig.

4: GPs’ Views on the Downside of Offering Co-Investment Rights to LPs . 3: GPs’ Views on the Benefits of Offering Co-Investment Rights to LPs Proportion of Respondents Other None Benefits the Portfolio Company Improves the Chance of a Successful Fundraise Access to Additional Capital for Deals Builds a Stronger Relationship with LPs 1% 4% 7% 44% 51% 76% Fig.Fig.

Proportion of Respondents Other Co-Investors Have More Control over the Investment Additional Costs Negative Impact on Relationships with LPs that Are Not Offered Co-Investment Rights Slows/Delays Deals Process 7% 7% 23% 33% 58% Fig. 5: Proportion of LPs’ Total Private Equity Portfolio Made Up of Co-Investments Proportion of Respondents Less than 2% 2-5% 6-10% 11-20% More than 20% 30% 22% 17% 17% 13% .

6: Proportion of LPs that Requested Co-Investment Rights During a GPs’ Most Recent Fundraise Proportion of Respondents 30% 22% 17% 17% 13% Less than 2% 2-5% 6-10% 11-20% More than 20% .Fig.

7: LPs’ Preferred Approaches to Co-Investment Opportunities Proportion of Respondents 64% 27% 7% 2% Up to 25% 26-50% 51-75% More than 75% Fig.Fig. 8: LPs’ Perception of the Performance of Co-Investments Compared to Fund Investments Proportion of Respondents 7% 16% 55% 23% Co-Lead Co-Sponsor Selective Follower Passive Follower .

Fig. 8: LPs’ Perception of the Performance of Co-Investments Compared to Fund Investments Proportion of Respondents Significantly Better Returns from CoInvestments Slightly Better Returns from CoInvestments Similar Returns from Co-Investments and Fund Investments Slightly Lower Returns from CoInvestments Significantly Lower Returns from CoInvestments 52% 33% 14% 0% 0% .

Fig. 9: LPs’ Future Plans for Their Co-Investment Activity Proportion of Respondents 52% 35% 1% 12% Increase Co-Investment Activity Maintain Co-Investment Activity Decrease Co-Investment Activity Uncertain Fig. 10: GPs’ Future Plans for Co-Investment Offerings Proportion of Respondents 31% 40% 2% 27% Offer More Opportunities Offer Same Number of Opportunities Offer Fewer Opportunities Uncertain .

11: Number of LPs in Latest Fund with Co-Investment Rights Included in Limited Partner Agreement Proportion of Respondents 29% 27% 21% 14% 9% 0 1 to 2 3 to 5 6 to 10 11+ Fig.Fig. 12: Proportion of LPs that Accepted Co-Investment Opportunities Offered by GPs in 2013 0% 1-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-99% 100% 17% 34% 21% 10% 3% 14% .

.

Fig. 1: LPs’ Current Level of Co 7% 16% 37% Up of Co-Investments by Current Allocation to Private Equity Proportion of Total Private Equity Portfolio Made Up by Co-Investments 2-5% 6-10% 26% 14% 7% 29% 16% 26% 25% 19% 29% 0% .

Fig. 3: GPs’ Views on the Benefits of Offering Co Builds a Stronger Relationship with LPs Access to Additional Capital for Deals Improves the Chance of a Successful Fundraise Benefits the Portfolio Company 7% None 4% Other 1% 0% 10% .

4: GPs’ Views on the Downside of Offering Co Slows/Delays Deals Process Negative Impact on Relationships with LPs that Are Not Offered CoInvestment Rights Additional Costs Co-Investors Have More Control over the Investment Other 0% Up of Co-Investments Fig.Fig. 5: Proportion of LPs’ Total Private Equity Portfolio Made Up of Co 35% 30% 30% portion of LP Repsondents 25% 22% 20% .

6: Proportion of LPs that Requested Co Recent Fundraise 35% 30% 30% Proportion of LP Repsondents 25% 22% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Less than 2% 2-5% Proportion of LPs Private Equity Portfolio .Proportion of LP Repsondents 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Less than 2% 2-5% Proportion of LPs Private Equity Portfolio s During a GPs’ Most Recent Fundraise Fig.

Fig. 7: LPs’ Preferred Approaches to Co 7% 2% 27% Compared to Fund Investments Fig. 8: LPs’ Perception of the Performance of Co Investments 60% 50% Proportion of LP Respondents 40% 30% .

Proportion of LP Res 20% 16% 10% 7% 0% Co-Lead Co-Sponsor Compared to Fund Investments Fig. 8: LPs’ Perception of the Performance of Co 60% 52% 50% Proportion of LP Respondents 40% 33% 30% 20% 10% 0% Significantly Better Returns from Co-Investments Slightly Better Returns from CoInvestments .

Fig. 9: LPs’ Future Plans for Their Co 12% 1% 35% Fig. 10: GPs’ Future Plans for Co 27% 31% 2% .

40%

hts Included in Limited Partner Agreement

30%

Fig. 11: Number of LPs in Latest Fund with Co Limited Partner Agreement
29% 27%

25%

Proportion of GP Respondents

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

0

1 to 2

rtunities Offered by GPs in 2013

Fig. 12: Proportion of LPs that Accepted Co
40%

35%

34%

30%

Proportion of GP Respondents

25%

20%

17%
15%

10%

5%

0%

0%

1-25%

Current Level of Co-Investment Activity

Actively Co-Investing

40%

Opportunistically Co-Investing

Considering Co-Investing in the Future But Have Not Co-Invested Yet

Not Co-Investing and No Plans to Co-Invest in the Future

Source: Preqin

Co-Investments 11-20% 14% 7% 11% 25% 21% More than 20% 14% 7% 37% 6% 7%

ws on the Benefits of Offering Co-Investment Rights to LPs 51% 44% 7% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Proportion of GP Respondents Source: Preqin .

on the Downside of Offering Co-Investment Rights to LPs Delays Deals Process 58% Are Not Offered Co- 33% Additional Costs 23% over the Investment 7% Other 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Proportion of GP Respondents Source: Preqin LPs’ Total Private Equity Portfolio Made Up of Co-Investments 17% 17% .

17% 17% 13% 6-10% 11-20% More than 20% Proportion of LPs Private Equity Portfolio Source: Preqin LPs that Requested Co-Investment Rights During a GPs’ Most Recent Fundraise 17% 17% 13% 6-10% 11-20% More than 20% Proportion of LPs Private Equity Portfolio Source: Preqin .

eferred Approaches to Co -Investment Opportunities 2% Up to 25% 26-50% 51-75% More than 75% 64% Source: Preqin n of the Performance of Co -Investments Compared to Fund Investments 55% 23% .

23% Co-Sponsor Selective Follower Passive Follower Source: Preqin on of the Performance of Co-Investments Compared to Fund Investments 14% 0% Similar Returns from CoInvestments and Fund Investments Slightly Lower Returns from CoInvestments Significantly Lower Returns from ghtly Better Returns from CoInvestments .

Future Plans for Their Co-Investment Activity Increase Co-Investment Activity Maintain Co-Investment Activity 52% Decrease Co-Investment Activity Uncertain Source: Preqin Future Plans for Co-Investment Offerings 31% Offer More Opportunities Offer Same Number of Opportunities Offer Fewer Opportunities Uncertain .

of LPs Source: Preqin n of LPs that Accepted Co-Investment Opportunities Offered by GPs in 2013 .Source: Preqin s in Latest Fund with Co-Investment Rights Included in Limited Partner Agreement 21% 14% 9% 3 to 5 6 to 10 11+ No.

21% 10% 3% 26-50% 51-75% 76-99% Proportion of LPs .

2: Proportion of LPs’ Total Private Equity Portfolio Made Up of Co Investments by Current Allocation to Private Equity 14% 7% 7% 37% 29% 14% 11% 7% 26% 19% 25% 6% Proportion of LP Respondents 14% 70% 60% 50% .the Future But Have ans to Co-Invest in the Source: Preqin 100% 90% 80% Fig.

Proportion of LP Respon 26% 40% 30% 50% 26% 25% 20% 31% 10% 16% 25% 11% 0% Up to $250mn $251mn to $500mn $501mn to $1bn $1.1bn to $5bn Current Allocation to Private Equity 76% 70% 80% Source: Preqin .

70% Source: Preqin .

Source: Preqin Source: Preqin .

More than 75% Source: Preqin .

Passive Follower Source: Preqin to Fund Investments 0% Significantly Lower Returns from Co-Investments Source: Preqin .

.

Source: Preqin Offered by GPs in 2013 .

14% 100% Source: Preqin .

Equity Portfolio Made Up of Cocation to Private Equity 7% 21% 0% More than 20% 11-20% 29% 6-10% .

6-10% 2-5% Less than 2% 43% More than $5bn Source: Preqin .

2: Average Size of Private Equity Secondaries Funds Closed. of Funds Closed 23 14 14 10 15 21 20 21 16 21 Fig.470 760 .Fig.282 519 1. 2004 .235 551 589 1. 2004 .2013 Year of Final Close 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 No. 1: Annual Private Equity Secondaries Fundraising.2013 Year of Final Close 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Average Size ($mn) 388 445 977 1.

Fig. QIC State Administration of Foreign Exchange Coller Capital Ardian Ardian Coller Capital Undisclosed Undisclosed PineBridge Investments Fig. 3: Largest Known Private Equity Fund Portfolio Sales Seller California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) Länsförsäkringar GM Asset Management Lloyds Banking Group BAML Global Principal Investments Citi Capital Advisors Lloyds Banking Group Public Sector Pension Investment Board California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) Dresdner Bank Buyer(s) Conversus Asset Management. HarbourVest Partners. 4: Top 10 Private Equity Secondary Fund Managers by Estimated Dry Powder Firm Coller Capital Lexington Partners Goldman Sachs AIMS Private Equity Firm Country UK US US . Jasper Ridge Abu Dhabi Investment Council.

Coller Capital Landmark Partners Unigestion.Ardian HarbourVest Partners Partners Group Neuberger Berman LGT Capital Partners Strategic Partners Fund Solutions Newbury Partners France US Switzerland US Switzerland US US Fig. 5: Recent Examples of Non-Traditional Secondaries Transactions Buyer Morgan Stanley HarbourVest Partners HarbourVest Partners. Sobera Capital Selling Fund/Firm FFC Partners III Electra European Fund II Absa Capital Private Equity Fund I HM Capital BayTech Venture Capital Fund I .

600 1. 1: Annual Private Equity Second 25 23 20 15 14 14 10 9 6 5 0 2004 2005 2006 2004 .2013 Fig.400 1.Aggregate Capital Raised ($bn) 9 6 14 13 7 22 9 10 21 15 Fig. 200 1.000 800 600 977 .282 1.200 Average Fund Size ($bn) 1. 2: Average Size of Private Equity Secondaries Funds Closed.

9 1.7 1.0 1.7 1.4 ated Dry Powder Estimated Dry Powder ($mn) 4.6 4.0 2.5 1.1 2.Average Fund Si 600 445 400 200 388 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Transaction Year 2008 2012 2012 2012 2010 2011 2012 2013 2012 2005 Price ($bn) 2.0 2.5 1.9 .3 3.

7 1.2 Source: Preqin Date Sep-13 Jan-14 Dec-13 Mar-13 Nov-13 Deal Type Fund Restructuring Fund Restructuring Spin-out Spin-out Direct Secondaries .1 1.0 2.3.4 3.3 1.8 1.

2004 22 21 20 21 21 21 16 15 14 14 13 10 7 10 9 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Year of Final Close vate Equity Secondaries Funds Closed.Fig. 2004 .235 760 589 519 551 .470 1. 1: Annual Private Equity Secondaries Fundraising.2013 1.

519 551 589 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Year of Final Close Source: Preqin Intermediary UBS Investment Bank Private Funds Group Campbell Lutyens Campbell Lutyens Greenhill & Co. Campbell Lutyens Cogent Partners Source: Preqin . Greenhill & Co.

The fund's life was extended by fo HarbourVest and Coller Capital bought out Barclays Africa Group's interest in Absa Capital Private Equity Fund I to complete t The energy team of private equity firm HM Capital spun-out to form new co. Tailwater Capital. completed the acquistion of a portfolio of companies from BayTech Venture Capital's f . Freeman & Co’s FF&C III fund in a deal 100% approved by the funds existing LPs. An exte HarbourVest Partners provided liquidity to around 20 investors in Electra European Fund II. backed by Unigestion. The spin-out was assisted by s Sobera Capital.Deal Description Morgan Stanley bought into Ferrer.

of Funds Closed Aggregate Capital Raised ($bn) 2013 Source: Preqin 760 .aising. 2004 .2013 21 15 No.

2013 ource: Preqin .

Tailwater Capital. The fund's life was extended by four years with allowance for two or three more deals. rm new co.Deal Description d in a deal 100% approved by the funds existing LPs. Electra European Fund II. The spin-out was assisted by secondaries firm Landmark Partners with the purchase of HM Capital's legacy of a portfolio of companies from BayTech Venture Capital's first fund. An extension to the fund's life was agreed. s interest in Absa Capital Private Equity Fund I to complete the spin out of Absa Private Equity creating Rockwood Private Equity. .

.

.

Source: Preqin . kwood Private Equity.deals. chase of HM Capital's legacy energy portfolio.

Chart of the Month: LP Plans for Co-Investment Activity by Investor Location Uncertain 14% 12% 22% 0% Europe North America Asia Rest of World .

by Investor Location Decrease Co-Investment Activity 0% 1% 0% 0% Maintain Co-Investment Activity 40% 36% 11% 38% .

Increase Co-Investment Activity 46% 51% 67% 63% Chart of the Month: LP Plans for Co 100% 90% 80% 46% 51% Proportion of LP Respondents 70% 60% 50% 40% 40% 30% 20% 0% 10% 0% Europe North America 14% 1% 12% 36% .

Month: LP Plans for Co-Investment Activity by Investor Location Increase CoInvestment Activity 67% 63% Maintain CoInvestment Activity Decrease CoInvestment Activity Uncertain 11% 0% 22% 38% North America Asia 0% Rest of World Source: Preqin .

Fig. 2013 .7% Buyout Infrastructure Real Estate Venture Capital .8% 9.5% 12.8% Asia Europe North America Rest of World Fig. 1: Female Senior Employees as Proportion of Total Number of Senior Employees by Firm Location.9% 10.2014 2013 12.0% 9. 2: Female Senior Employees as Proportion of Total Number of Senior Employees by Firm Strategy.3% 9.2014 2012 6.9% 13. 2012 .

3% 9.Fig. 2012 . 3: Female Senior Employees as Proportion of Total Number of Senior Employees.9% 1 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 20 More than 20 .4% 9.2% 10.2014 2012 9.

2014 2014 11.umber of Senior Employees by Firm Location.8% 12% 11.3% 11.8% 11.0% 11.5% 11.8% 9.2% .7% 12. 2013 .7% 11. 2012 .0% 10.2% 2014 9.7% 10. 1: Female Senior Employees as Proportion 14% 12.0% Average Proportion of Female Senior Employees Fig.2014 2013 8.8% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% Asia umber of Senior Employees by Firm Strategy.

umber of Senior Employees.6% 10.8% 11.9% .5% 11.2014 2013 8.7% 11. 2012 .7% 10.4% 10.9% 2014 8.

7% 12.3% 9.8% 12% 10. 2: Female Senior Employees as Proportion of Total Number of Senior Employees by Firm Strat 2014 16% 14% Average Proportion of Female Senior Employees 13.Fig.0% 11.0% 2013 2014 Europe Firm Location North America Rest of World Source: Preqin Fig.9% 11. 1: Female Senior Employees as Proportion of Total Number of Senior Employees by Firm Location 11.5% 12.0% 6% .8% 11.8% 10.9% 10.7% 8% 6.5% 10% 8.3% 9.7% 9.0% 9.

4% 10. 3: Female Senior Employees as Proportion of Total Number of Senior 2013 .Average Proportion of F 4% 2% 0% Buyout Infrastructure Firm Strategy Real Estate Fig.3% 8.7% 10.2014 14% Average Proportion of Female Senior Employees 12% 10.7% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 1 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 20 Number of Senior Employees at Firm .2% 9.6% 10% 9.

2% 11.8% 11.2% 9.7% 2012 2013 2014 .ber of Senior Employees by Firm Strategy. 2013 - 12.

Venture Capital Source: Preqin n of Total Number of Senior Employees.9% 9. 11.9% 2012 2013 2014 11 to 20 More than 20 Source: Preqin .

1: Average Current Private Equity Allocation by Investor Type (As a % of AUM) 2013 24.6% Family Office Endowment Plan Foundation Public PensionFund Superannuation Scheme Private Sector Pension Fund Insurance Company Fig.3% 6.5% 12.0% 7.3% 3.9% 11. 2: Average Private Equity Target Allocation by Investor Type (As a % of AUM) 2013 28.4% 12.9% 12.6% 2.1% Family Office Endowment Plan Foundation Public Pension Fund SuperannuationScheme Private Sector Pension Fund Insurance Company .1% 7.7% 6.0% 5.7% 6.Fig.

4: Sample LPs That Have Increased Their Private Equity Allocations In The Last 12 months Investor Name North East Scotland Pension Fund Debswana Pension Fund Harvard Management Company Type Public Pension Fund Private Sector Pension Fund Endowment Plan .Fig. 3: Investors' Intentions for Their Private Equity Allocations in the Longer Term Proportion of Respondents 39% 53% 8% Increase Allocation Maintain Allocation Decrease Allocation Fig.

0% 11.4% 31. 2: Average Private Equity Target Allocation Avergae Private Equity Target Allocation (As a % of AUM) 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Family Office 12.9% .0% 24.0% 12.4% 6.9% 11.2% 6.e (As a % of AUM) 2014 28.7% 13.3% Fig.7% 2.9% 7.5% (As a % of AUM) 2014 31.7% Fig.5% 5.7% 28.3% 3.9% 28.6% 6.3% 6. 1: Average Current Private Equity Alloca Average Current Private Equity Allocation (As a % of AUM) 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Family Office 12.

Avergae Pri 0% Family Office n the Longer Term Fig. 3: Investors' Intentions for Their Private Equity Allocations in the Longer Term 8% 39% 53% cations In The Last 12 months Country Scotland Botswana US In November 2013. the £2. the $32.7bn endowment plan increased its target allocation to private eq .6bn pension fund decided to increase its current and target The $500mn pension fund is looking to commit around $13mn to private equity over t In April 2013.

4% 13.1: Average Current Private Equity Allocation by Investor Type (As a % of AUM) 2013 12.3% 3.6% 6.7% Foundation Superannuation Scheme Public PensionFund Private Sector Pension Fund Insurance Company Endowment Plan Investor Type Source: Preqin : Average Private Equity Target Allocation by Investor Type (As a % of AUM) 2013 2014 12.4% 6.0% 12.3% 7.3% 6.3% 6.7% 6.6%5.6% 2.1% Foundation perannuation owment Plan Pension Fund Pension Fund 3.0% 11.9% 12.3% nce Company .0% 6.9% 7.2% 6.5% 5.9% 11.1% 7.7% 2014 11.7% 2.

It planned to continu is looking to commit around $13mn to private equity over the coming year. to 29% of total assets. which stood at 5% of total assets at the time. as part of a three year plan to increase its current allocation endowment plan increased its target allocation to private equity from the 23% goal set in 2005.Endowment Plan Foundation Superannuation Scheme Private Sector Pension Fund Public Pension Fund Investor Type Their Private Equity Allocations in the nger Term 39% Increase Allocation Maintain Allocation Decrease Allocation Source: Preqin 6bn pension fund decided to increase its current and target allocation. Thirteen percent o Insurance Company Source: Preqin .

.

It planned to continue targeting fund of funds vehicles focusing on opportunities in North America and Europe. ase its current allocation to the asset class to 7. Thirteen percent of the target will be allocated to natural resources vehicles.5% of total assets. venture ca assets. It will consider a wide range of fund types including buyout. .Description ime.

.

venture capital.and Europe. ypes including buyout. mezzanine and fund of funds vehicles. Source: Preqin .

.

.

0 76. 2006 .Fig 1: Proportion of Number of Private Equity-Backed Buyout Deals by Region.0 151. 2006 .3 47.5 119.9 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 .2013 US 49% 47% 45% 51% 48% 48% 51% 49% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Fig 2: Aggregate Value of Private Equity-Backed Buyout Deals by Region.9 118.5 390.2013 ($bn) US 442.5 166.

2006 . 4: Proportion of Number of US Private Equity-Backed Buyout Deals by Industry by US State.Fig 3: Proportion of Number of US Private Equity-Backed Buyout Deals by US State.2013 2006 14% 9% 8% 6% 5% 5% 4% 4% 4% 3% 38% California Texas New York Florida Illinois Ohio Pennsylvania New Jersey Massachusetts Georgia Other Fig. 2006 .2013 California 21% 17% 17% 16% 10% Industrials Consumer & Retail Information Technology Business Services Healthcare .

Q1 2006 .Q4 2013 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 .Telecoms & Media Food & Agriculture Clean Technology Energy & Utilities Other 8% 7% 2% 1% 2% Fig 5: US Private Equity-Backed Exits by Type.

2012

2013

Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

yout Deals by Region, 2006 - 2013 Europe 37% 35% 38% 30% 35% 34% 29% 31% Asia 6% 9% 7% 8% 9% 9% 10% 9%

Deals by Region, 2006 - 2013 ($bn) Europe 180.4 193.5 79.0 29.3 74.9 95.6 70.7 77.2 Asia 17.6 27.8 18.7 22.0 18.7 25.1 26.7 20.9

Buyout Deals by US State, 2006 - 2013 2007 12% 10% 6% 6% 5% 5% 4% 4% 3% 4% 41% 2008 13% 10% 8% 6% 5% 4% 5% 4% 3% 3% 39%

d Buyout Deals by Industry by US State, 2006 - 2013 Texas 25% 11% 9% 11% 10% New York 14% 21% 10% 26% 8%

4% 3% 1% 24% 2% 12% 4% 1% 2% 1% IPO 20 22 11 25 13 23 11 15 3 7 4 3 6 8 23 14 11 11 30 22 24 6 17 21 19 Restructuring 2 1 3 1 2 11 6 10 15 25 16 10 20 6 4 8 11 5 7 8 10 11 9 .

25 14 24 35 18 28 4 2 4 10 4 3 .

2 7.1 19.Rest of World 8% 9% 10% 11% 8% 9% 10% 11% Fig 1: Proportion of Number of Private Equity 100% 8% 90% 80% 70% 6% 37% Proportion of Total 60% 50% 40% 30% 49% 20% 10% 0% 2006 Aggregate Deal Value ($bn) Rest of World 33.3 17.3 18.3 Fig 2: Aggregate Value of Private Equity 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 .6 55.7 16.1 25.

150 100 50 0 2006 2009 12% 10% 8% 7% 4% 2% 5% 3% 4% 4% 41% 2010 12% 11% 8% 6% 5% 4% 4% 3% 4% 3% 41% Florida 22% 16% 11% 19% 18% Illinois 33% 12% 12% 17% 12% .

5% 2% 1% 2% 3% 5% 4% 1% 2% 3% Sale to GP 19 37 33 31 39 46 37 38 17 24 28 15 5 12 13 13 17 29 37 47 32 38 41 42 40 36 Trade Sale 48 59 46 54 57 69 73 67 52 57 50 26 32 31 27 44 49 70 55 83 65 81 81 73 85 98 .

46 69 26 32 54 49 95 116 85 79 83 109 .

2006 ($bn) . 2006 2013 9% 9% 10% 7% 11% 8% 9% 9% 9% 8% 35% 38% 30% 35% 34% 47% 45% 51% 48% 48% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Fig 2: Aggregate Value of Private Equity-Backed Buyout Deals by Region.Fig 1: Proportion of Number of Private Equity-Backed Buyout Deals by Region.

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2011 13% 11% 8% 5% 6% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 38% 2012 14% 12% 5% 5% 6% 3% 5% 3% 4% 4% 39% Ohio 40% 13% 7% 11% 13% Pennsylvania 30% 9% 10% 14% 18% .

7 6.3 1.1 4.9 10.4 25.9 19.6 8.4 21.0 11.6 4.8 16.6 32.9 28.4 41.9 19.2 250 200 No.7 36.5 33.6 36.3 21.9 25.5 3.8 39. of Exits 150 100 50 0 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 2006 .0 21.4% 4% 1% 1% 6% 4% 3% 1% 5% 5% Aggregate Exit Value ($bn) 13.6 42.4 23.

6 19.1 53.2 56.53.7 2006 IPO .0 36.8 40.

2006 . 2006 - 10% 10% 11% 9% Rest of World 29% 31% Asia Europe US 51% 49% 2012 2013 Source: Preqin Buyout Deals by Region.2013 US Europe Asia Rest of World .ked Buyout Deals by Region.

2012 2013 Source: Preqin Proportion of Total 2013 14% 12% 8% 6% 4% 3% 4% 4% 4% 3% 38% Fig 3: Proportion of Number of US Private Equ 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 38% 50% 40% 3% 4% 4% 4% 5% 5% 6% 30% 8% 20% 9% 14% 10% 0% 2006 California Texas New Jersey 26% 16% 11% 13% 19% Massachusetts 20% 13% 16% 16% 20% .

5% 5% 1% 1% 2% 6% 4% 0% 4% 0% Fig 5: US Private Equity-Backed Exits by Type. Q1 2006 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 .

2007 2008 Restructuring 2009 Sale to GP 2010 2011 Trade Sale .

.

2013 41% 39% 41% 41% 38% 39% 4% 3% 4% 4% 5% 5% 3% 3% 4% 5% 4% 5% 6% 8% 10% 4% 4% 3% 5% 2% 4% 7% 8% 10% 12% 2009 Illinois Ohio 3% 4% 3% 4% 4% 5% 6% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4% 6% 5% 8% 11% 4% 4% 3% 5% 3% 6% 5% 5% 6% 6% 10% 12% 2007 Texas New York 8% 11% 12% 2010 Pennsylvania 12% 13% 2008 Florida 13% 14% 2012 Massachusetts 2011 New Jersey Georgia 30% 15% 10% 21% 12% Other 33% 13% 10% 14% 12% 100% 90% 2% 1% 2% 7% 8% . 2006 .Fig 3: Proportion of Number of US Private Equity-Backed Buyout Deals by US State.

Q4 2013 60 50 Aggregate Exit Value ($bn) 40 30 20 10 0 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2011 2012 2013 . Q1 2006 .90% 7% Proportion of Total 6% 2% 1% 2% 3% 5% 4% 1% 5% 3% 8% 80% 10% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% California 21% 16% 17% 17% s by Type.

2011 Trade Sale 2012 2013 Aggregate Exit Value ($bn) Source: Preqin .

.

4: Proportion of Number of US Private Equity-Backed Buyout Deals by Industry by US State.Deals by US State. 38% 3% 4% 4% 4% 3% 4% 6% 8% 12% 14% 2013 Massachusetts Georgia Other Source: Preqin Fig.2013 2% 1% 2% 7% 2% 1% 2% 1% 4% 12% 8% 24% 3% 2% 1% 2% 5% 3% 2% 1% 4% 5% 6% 1% 1% 4% 4% 5% 5% 1% 3% 4% 2% 1% 1% 5% 5% 0% 4% 0% 4% 6% 3% 2% 1% 2% 6% 3% 5% 1% 4% 5% . 2006 .

7% 8% 10% 16% 24% 1% 3% 4% 10% 11% 12% 5% 18% 4% 5% 12% 17% 1% 4% 4% 13% 5% 1% 3% 4% 5% 6% 20% 6% 12% 1% 4% 5% 12% 8% 18% 11% 7% 12% 13% 19% 21% 26% 19% 14% 10% 9% 13% 11% 14% 10% 13% 16% 10% 17% 9% 17% 11% 10% 11% 12% 16% 16% 16% 13% 15% 21% 21% 25% 14% 33% 40% 30% 22% 26% 30% 20% Massachusetts 33% Ohio New Jersey California Georgia Florida Pennsylvania New York Illinois Other Texas .

.

.

ed Buyout Deals by Other Energy & Utilities .

Energy & Utilities Clean Technology Food & Agriculture Telecoms & Media Healthcare Business Services Information Technology Consumer & Retail Industrials Source: Preqin .

1: Number and Aggregate Value of Software & Related Deals.Fig. 20 Proportion of No.Q1 2014 YTD* (As at 03 March 2014 Quarter Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Fig. of Deals 18% 17% 16% 15% 16% 18% 22% 17% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 YTD (03 Mar) . Q1 2007 . 2: Number and Aggregate Value of Software & Related Deals as a Proportion of all Venture Capital Deals.

2007 . 3: Proportion of Number and Aggregate Value of Software & Related Deals by Region.2014 YTD* (As Proportion ofNo.Fig. of Deals 73% 18% 2% 2% 2% 3% North America Europe Greater China Israel India Other .

Inc. secondary stock purchases and venture debt .Fig. mergers. 2013 -2014 YTD* (As at 01 March 2014) Portfolio Company Name Supercell AirWatch Palantir Technologies SevOne Stage Unspecified Round Series A/Round 1 Unspecified Round Growth Capital/Expansion MongoDB. 4: Top 5 Software & Related Venture Capital Deals. Unspecified Round *Figures exclude add-ons. grants.

54 1. 2007 – 2014 YTD* (As at 01 March 2014) Proportion of Aggregate Deal Value 12% 12% 11% 10% 10% 14% 21% 13% Fig.79 2.43 1.36 1.69 0.02 2.44 1.66 1.24 3.89 1.77 1.92 1.60 1.39 0.25 4.55 0. 2007 25% Venture Capital Deals 20% 18% . of Deals 231 241 191 195 252 234 214 196 169 192 184 235 220 234 205 223 213 282 264 242 259 356 334 375 388 416 379 335 286 Aggregate Deal Value ($bn) 1.01 1.85 0.84 0.26 1.63 1.00 2.18 s as a Proportion of all Venture Capital Deals.s.83 1.Q1 2014 YTD* (As at 03 March 2014) No. 2: Number and Aggregate Value of Soft Venture Capital Deals.43 1.32 1.30 1.39 1. Q1 2007 .30 1.

Proportion of All Venture Capital Deals

15%

12%
10%

5%

0% 2007

& Related Deals by Region, 2007 - 2014 YTD* (As at 03 March 2014) Proportion of Aggregate Deal Value 80% 12% 3% 2% 1% 2%

Fig. 3: Proportion of Number and Aggre
100% 90% 80% 70% Proportion of Total 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

14 YTD* (As at 01 March 2014) Deal Date Oct-13 Feb-13 Sep-13 Jan-13 Deal Size (mn) 1,530.00 USD 200.00 USD 196.50 USD 150.00 USD

Oct-13

150.00 USD

ases and venture debt

Fig. 1: Number and Aggregate Value of Software & Related D
450 400 350 300

No. of Deals

250 200 150 100 50 0 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2007 2008 2009

2: Number and Aggregate Value of Software & Related Deals as a Proportion of all Venture Capital Deals, 2007 – 2014 YTD* (As at 01 March 2014)

17% 16% 15% 16%

18%

2014 YTD* (As at 03 March 2014) 3% 2% 2% 2% 18% 73% Proportion of No. 3: Proportion of Number and Aggregate Value of Software & Related Deals by Region.15% 16% 14% 12% 11% 10% 10% 2008 2009 Proportion of No. of Deals 2010 2011 2012 Proportion of Aggregate Deal Value Fig. 2007 . of Deals Proportion of Aggregate Deal Value .

New Enterprise Associates. Intel Capital.. Softbank Insight Venture Partners The Founders Fund Management Bain Capital Altimeter Capital. Red Hat.Investors Gungho Online Entertainment. Salesforce. Inc.com. T Rowe Price Location Finland US US US US Source: Preqin . Sequoia Capital.

0 3.0 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 ed Deals as a Proportion of all at 01 March 2014) 22% 21% 18% 17% .0 1.5 2.5 0.egate Value of Software & Related Deals. Q1 2007 .Q1 2014 YTD* (As at 03 March 2014) 4.5 4.5 Aggregate Deal Value ($bn) 3.0 0.5 1.0 2.

March 2014) 2% 1% 2% 3% 12% Other India Israel 80% Greater China Europe North America Proportion of Aggregate Deal Value Source: Preqin .14% 13% 2012 2013 2014 YTD (03 Mar) of Aggregate Deal Value Source: Preqin f Software & Related Deals by Region.

.

of Deals Aggregate Deal Value ($bn) Source: Preqin .* (As at No.

2: Median Net IRRs .6 7.0 99.5 8. Funds 65 114 172 123 102 220 231 235 192 106 91 78 107 153 Called (%) 9. Buyout and Venture Capital as of 30 September 2013 Net IRR Quartiles (%) Preqin All Private Equity Benchmark 11.9 13.8 26.0 7.9 20.0 93.Fig.7 99.7 19.5 8.0 Fig.7 19.8 10.5 41.8 11.6 100.0 97.9 10.3 83.3 10.9 97.8 12.2 8.2 11.5 Vintage 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Preqin Buyout Benchmark 23.7 12.0 89.0 99.0 11.3 13. 1: Preqin All Private Equity Preliminary Benchmark as of 30 September 2013* Median Fund Vintage 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 No.0 85.0 30.8 12.2 .All Private Equity.5 71.

33 1.32 1.27 1.04 0.98 *Preqin’s Performance Analyst contains performance data for over 6.34 1.00 0.15 1.52 1.33 1.26 1.Fig.24 1.700 private equity funds.17 1. 3: Regional Comparison of Median Net Multiple by Vintage as of 30 September 2013 Vintage 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 North America 1.02 1.64 1.11 1. The data used above is b .34 1.28 1.54 1.17 1.17 1.97 Europe 1.

All Private Equity.3 4.2 34.7 6.0 10.3 65.0 56.9 136.9 29.1 102.9 140.7 18.0 0.1 105.9 31.6 Fig.0 1.4 20.0 91.4 8.0 9.8 98.2 Value (%) RVPI 95. Bu 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 .9 2.5 23.0 100.0 13.0 120.0 1.0 14.6 102.2 34.3 46.0 120.3 46.4 58.2 7.9 29.9 140.2 enture Capital as of 30 September 2013 Median Net Multiple Preqin Venture Capital Benchmark 2.0 59.0 72.4 46.7 6.5 12.0 89.9 182.4 88.3 147.4 198.4 20.0 167.9 174.3 79.9 Q1 0.3 65.3 132.1 Median 0.8 41.1 5.3 147.0 89.0 0.2 10.9 8. 2: Median Net IRRs .of 30 September 2013* DPI Quartiles (%) Dist (%) DPI 0.9 136.0 6.2 10.

0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 for over 6.4 0.4 1. and is therefore based on a smaller pool of funds.36 1.05 1.2 0.77 Fig.8 1.0 0. 3: Regional Comparison of Median Net Mu 1.32 1.2 Median Net Multiple 1.22 1.700 private equity funds.05 0.6 1.30 1.60 1.0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 ntage as of 30 September 2013 Asia 1.8 0.6 0. The data used above is based on preliminary data as of Q3 2013.05 1.67 1.32 1. .

6 35.0 113.9 Q3 82.3 79.0 0.7 117.5 84.5 23.5 65.7 99.1 92.5 14.1 109.0 25.6 57.8 98.0 118.1 38.0 0.8 83.1 46.2 110.0 6.0 91.7 73.0 0.8 72.0 43.9 17.1 102.4 99.4 88.4 58.3 1.0 0.4 35.3 0.0 83.0 12.0 25.7 18.1 105.2 56.5 Q1 102.0 100.0 104.0 14.7 5.1 102.0 All Private Equity.0 87.RVPI Quartiles (%) Q3 0.5 12.4 Median 95. Buyout and Venture Capital as of 30 September 2013 Preqin All Private Equity Benchmark Preqin Buyout Benchmark Preqin Venture Capital Benchmark .4 86.9 88.4 46.

.2004 2005 Vintage Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Source: Preqin mparison of Median Net Multiple by Vintage as of 30 September 2013 North America Europe Asia 2007 2008 Vintage Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Source: Preqin s therefore based on a smaller pool of funds.

7 11.2 24.0 1.1 1.1 15.3 1.8 12.1 1.6 1.1 1.5 1.6 Q3 0.3 1.8 1.0 1.5 eptember Preqin All Private Equity Benchmark Preqin Buyout Benchmark Preqin Venture Capital Benchmark .2 1.6 1.5 1.1 1.6 1.5 1.2 19.9 1.1 1.1 1.4 1.0 1.5 1.Net Multiple Quartiles (X) Q1 1.3 1.0 1.3 24.3 1.2 Q1 n/m n/m n/a 18.0 Net IRR Quartiles (%) Median 1.2 1.4 1.2 20.2 2.1 1.6 22.3 1.3 1.1 1.8 0.8 1.4 16.4 1.4 1.1 1.4 1.9 2.0 11.

Source: Preqin North America Europe Asia Source: Preqin .

0 -28.7 7.2 7.0 8.0 2.1 6.3 -100.8 Max n/m n/m n/a 66.3 7.0 73.2 -26.Net IRR Max/Min (%) Median n/m n/m n/a 11.5 13.8 Q3 n/m n/m n/a 6.9 7.0 79.5 13.3 67.6 -25.9 11.6 12.9 448.3 -96.0 -10.0 -26.1 -74.0 4.0 Source: Preqin .0 6.8 59.3 8.3 3.8 10.8 12.0 52.8 4.4 -16.9 33.0 Min n/m n/m n/a -26.0 2.5 -12.9 8.1 94.0 48.4 67.

.

.

1: Proportion of Private Equity Fund of Funds Managers that Consider Co-Investment Opportunities Proportion of Fund of Funds Managers Consider Offering Co-Investment Opportunities Do Not Offer Co-Investment Opoortunities Offer Co-investment Opportunities 1% 29% 70% Fig.Fig. 2: Private Equity Fund of Funds Managers that Consider Co-Investment Opportunities By Manager Location Proportion of Fund of Funds Managers 50% 35% 10% 5% North America Europe Asia Rest of World .

Fig. 3: Largest Private Equity Co-Investment Multi-Manager Vehicles Currently in Market (As at 03 March 2014) Fund Name Hamilton Lane Co-Investment Fund III AXA Co-Investment Fund IV BlackRock Private Opportunities Fund III Capital Dynamics Mid-Market Direct III Performance Direct Investments III RCP Direct II Firm Hamilton Lane Ardian BlackRock Private Equity Partners Capital Dynamics Performance Equity Management RCP Advisors Fig. All Time Fund Name AlpInvest Co-Invest V Co-Investment Partners III Hamilton Lane Co-Investment Fund II NB Co-Investment Partners II Firm AlpInvest Partners Lexington Partners Hamilton Lane Neuberger Berman . 4: Five Largest Private Equity Co-Investment Multi-Manager Vehicles Closed.

AXA Co-investment Fund III Ardian .

1: Proportion of Private Equity Fund of Funds Managers tha Investment Opportunities 1% 70% nvestment Opportunities By Manager Location Fig.t Consider Co-Investment Opportunities Fig. 2: Private Equity Fund of Funds Managers that Consider Co Investment Opportunities By Manager Location 5% 10% .

All Time Final Value ($mn) 1.000 490 300 250 200 200 Fund Status Raising Third Close First Close Raising Raising Raising Source: Preqin Vehicles Closed.192 1.100 Vintage 2012 2012 2007 2012 .638 1.580 1.10% 35% icles Currently in Market (As at 03 March 2014) Target Size ($mn) 1.

1.070 2007 Source: Preqin .

e Equity Fund of Funds Managers that Consider Convestment Opportunities Consider Offering Co-Investment Opportunities 29% Do Not Offer Co-Investment Opoortunities Offer Co-investment Opportunities Source: Preqin of Funds Managers that Consider Cotunities By Manager Location .

North America Europe 50% Asia Rest of World Source: Preqin .

.

tment Opportunities nt Opoortunities Source: Preqin .