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

Fig. 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. 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. 4: GPs Views on the Downside of Offering Co-Investment Rights to LPs

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%

Fig. 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. 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

Fig. 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. 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%

Fig. 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. 5: Proportion of LPs Total Private Equity Portfolio Made Up of Co

35%

30%

30%

portion of LP Repsondents

25% 22% 20%

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. 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

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%

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

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. of LPs

Source: Preqin

n of LPs that Accepted Co-Investment Opportunities Offered by GPs in 2013

21%

10%

3%

26-50%

51-75%

76-99%

Proportion of LPs

the Future But Have

ans to Co-Invest in the

Source: Preqin

100% 90% 80%

Fig. 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%

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

Fig. 1: Annual Private Equity Secondaries Fundraising, 2004 - 2013 Year of Final Close 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 No. of Funds Closed 23 14 14 10 15 21 20 21 16 21

Fig. 2: Average Size of Private Equity Secondaries Funds Closed, 2004 - 2013 Year of Final Close 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Average Size ($mn) 388 445 977 1,282 519 1,235 551 589 1,470 760

Fig. 3: Largest Known Private Equity Fund Portfolio Sales Seller California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) Lnsfrskringar 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, Jasper Ridge Abu Dhabi Investment Council, QIC State Administration of Foreign Exchange Coller Capital Ardian Ardian Coller Capital Undisclosed Undisclosed PineBridge Investments

Fig. 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

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, Coller Capital Landmark Partners Unigestion, 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

Aggregate Capital Raised ($bn) 9 6 14 13 7 22 9 10 21 15

Fig. 1: Annual Private Equity Second

25 23

20

15

14

14

10

9 6

0 2004 2005 2006

2004 - 2013

Fig. 2: Average Size of Private Equity Secondaries Funds Closed, 200

1,600 1,400
1,282

1,200 Average Fund Size ($bn) 1,000 800 600

977

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) 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.4

ated Dry Powder Estimated Dry Powder ($mn) 4.6 4.3 3.9

3.4 3.0 2.1 1.8 1.7 1.3 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

Fig. 1: Annual Private Equity Secondaries Fundraising, 2004

22 21 20 21 21 21

16 15 14 14 13 10 7 10

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Year of Final Close

vate Equity Secondaries Funds Closed, 2004 - 2013

1,470

1,235

760 589

519

551

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. Greenhill & Co. Campbell Lutyens Cogent Partners Source: Preqin

Deal Description

Morgan Stanley bought into Ferrer, Freeman & Cos 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. 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. The spin-out was assisted by s

Sobera Capital, backed by Unigestion, completed the acquistion of a portfolio of companies from BayTech Venture Capital's f

aising, 2004 - 2013

21

15

No. of Funds Closed

Aggregate Capital Raised ($bn)

2013

Source: Preqin

760

2013

ource: Preqin

Deal Description

d in a deal 100% approved by the funds existing LPs. An extension to the fund's life was agreed. Electra European Fund II. The fund's life was extended by four years with allowance for two or three more deals.

s interest in Absa Capital Private Equity Fund I to complete the spin out of Absa Private Equity creating Rockwood Private Equity.

rm new co. Tailwater Capital. 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.

deals.

kwood Private Equity.

chase of HM Capital's legacy energy portfolio.

Source: Preqin

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. 1: Female Senior Employees as Proportion of Total Number of Senior Employees by Firm Location, 2013 - 2014 2013 12.8% 9.9% 10.3% 9.8%

Asia Europe North America Rest of World

Fig. 2: Female Senior Employees as Proportion of Total Number of Senior Employees by Firm Strategy, 2012 - 2014 2012 6.9% 13.5% 12.0% 9.7%

Buyout Infrastructure Real Estate Venture Capital

Fig. 3: Female Senior Employees as Proportion of Total Number of Senior Employees, 2012 - 2014 2012 9.2% 10.4% 9.3% 9.9%

1 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 20 More than 20

umber of Senior Employees by Firm Location, 2013 - 2014 2014 11.8% 9.7% 11.0% 10.0%
Average Proportion of Female Senior Employees

Fig. 1: Female Senior Employees as Proportion

14% 12.8%
12%

11.8%

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%

Asia

umber of Senior Employees by Firm Strategy, 2012 - 2014 2013 8.7% 10.5% 11.3% 11.2% 2014 9.0% 11.7% 12.8% 11.2%

umber of Senior Employees, 2012 - 2014 2013 8.7% 10.6% 10.7% 11.9% 2014 8.4% 10.8% 11.5% 11.9%

Fig. 1: Female Senior Employees as Proportion of Total Number of Senior Employees by Firm Location

11.8% 11.0% 9.9% 10.3% 9.7% 9.8% 10.0%

2013 2014

Europe Firm Location

North America

Rest of World

Source: Preqin

Fig. 2: Female Senior Employees as Proportion of Total Number of Senior Employees by Firm Strat 2014
16%

14% Average Proportion of Female Senior Employees

13.5%

12.8% 12% 10.5% 10% 8.7% 8%

6.9%

11.7%

12.0% 11.3%

9.0%

6%

Average Proportion of F

4%

2%

0% Buyout Infrastructure Firm Strategy Real Estate

Fig. 3: Female Senior Employees as Proportion of Total Number of Senior 2013 - 2014
14%

Average Proportion of Female Senior Employees

12% 10.4% 10.6% 10% 9.2% 9.3% 8.7%

10.7%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0% 1 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 20 Number of Senior Employees at Firm

ber of Senior Employees by Firm Strategy, 2013 -

12.8% 11.2% 11.2%

9.7%

2012 2013
2014

Venture Capital

Source: Preqin

n of Total Number of Senior Employees,

11.9%

9.9%

2012 2013 2014

11 to 20

More than 20

Source: Preqin

Fig. 1: Average Current Private Equity Allocation by Investor Type (As a % of AUM) 2013 24.5% 12.9% 11.7% 6.3% 6.0% 5.6% 2.6%

Family Office Endowment Plan Foundation Public PensionFund Superannuation Scheme Private Sector Pension Fund Insurance Company

Fig. 2: Average Private Equity Target Allocation by Investor Type (As a % of AUM) 2013 28.9% 12.4% 12.0% 7.1% 7.7% 6.3% 3.1%

Family Office Endowment Plan Foundation Public Pension Fund SuperannuationScheme Private Sector Pension Fund Insurance Company

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. 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

e (As a % of AUM) 2014 28.0% 12.9% 11.6% 6.2% 6.5% 5.7% 2.7%

Fig. 1: Average Current Private Equity Alloca

Average Current Private Equity Allocation (As a % of AUM) 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Family Office 12.9% 28.0% 24.5%

(As a % of AUM) 2014 31.7% 13.0% 11.9% 7.3% 6.4% 6.3% 3.3%

Fig. 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 12.4% 31.7% 28.9%

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 2.6bn 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, the $32.7bn endowment plan increased its target allocation to private eq

1: Average Current Private Equity Allocation by Investor Type (As a % of AUM)

2013 12.9% 12.9% 11.7% 2014 11.6% 6.3% 6.2% 6.0% 6.5% 5.6%5.7% 2.6% 2.7%

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% 13.0% 12.0% 11.9% 7.1% 7.3% 7.7% 6.4% 6.3% 6.3% 3.1% Foundation perannuation owment Plan Pension Fund Pension Fund 3.3%

nce Company

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, which stood at 5% of total assets at the time. It planned to continu is looking to commit around $13mn to private equity over the coming year, 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, to 29% of total assets. Thirteen percent o

Insurance Company

Source: Preqin

Description ime. 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 7.5% of total assets. It will consider a wide range of fund types including buyout, venture ca assets. Thirteen percent of the target will be allocated to natural resources vehicles.

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

Fig 1: Proportion of Number of Private Equity-Backed Buyout Deals by Region, 2006 - 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, 2006 - 2013 ($bn) US 442.5 390.0 76.3 47.9 118.5 119.0 151.5 166.9

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Fig 3: Proportion of Number of US Private Equity-Backed Buyout Deals by US State, 2006 - 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. 4: Proportion of Number of US Private Equity-Backed Buyout Deals by Industry by US State, 2006 - 2013 California 21% 17% 17% 16% 10%

Industrials Consumer & Retail Information Technology Business Services Healthcare

Telecoms & Media Food & Agriculture Clean Technology Energy & Utilities Other

8% 7% 2% 1% 2%

Fig 5: US Private Equity-Backed Exits by Type, 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

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

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 33.6 55.1 19.2 7.3 18.1 25.7 16.3 17.3

Fig 2: Aggregate Value of Private Equity

500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150

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

Fig 1: Proportion of Number of Private Equity-Backed Buyout Deals by Region, 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, 2006 ($bn)

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%

4% 4% 1% 1% 6%

4% 3% 1% 5% 5%

Aggregate Exit Value ($bn) 13.8 16.9 10.3 21.9 19.4 41.9 25.4 25.1 4.6 42.7 6.6 8.3 1.6 4.5 3.9 19.0 11.5 33.9 28.6 36.6 32.8 39.4 21.4 23.0 21.7 36.2

250

200

No. of Exits

150

100

50

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1
2006

53.8 40.6 19.1 53.0 36.2 56.7

2006 IPO

ked Buyout Deals by Region, 2006 -

10% 10%

11% 9%

Rest of World

29%

31%

Asia

Europe

US

51%

49%

2012

2013

Source: Preqin

Buyout Deals by Region, 2006 - 2013

US Europe Asia Rest of World

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

Fig 3: Proportion of Number of US Private Equity-Backed Buyout Deals by US State, 2006 - 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%

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, Q1 2006 - Q4 2013

60

50

Aggregate Exit Value ($bn)

40

30

20

10

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
2011 2012 2013

2011 Trade Sale

2012

2013

Aggregate Exit Value ($bn)

Source: Preqin

Deals by US State,

38%

3% 4% 4% 4% 3% 4% 6% 8% 12%

14% 2013 Massachusetts Georgia Other

Source: Preqin

Fig. 4: Proportion of Number of US Private Equity-Backed Buyout Deals by Industry by US State, 2006 - 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%

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

Fig. 1: Number and Aggregate Value of Software & Related Deals, Q1 2007 - 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. 2: Number and Aggregate Value of Software & Related Deals as a Proportion of all Venture Capital Deals, 20 Proportion of No. of Deals 18% 17% 16% 15% 16% 18% 22% 17%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 YTD (03 Mar)

Fig. 3: Proportion of Number and Aggregate Value of Software & Related Deals by Region, 2007 - 2014 YTD* (As Proportion ofNo. of Deals 73% 18% 2% 2% 2% 3%

North America Europe Greater China Israel India Other

Fig. 4: Top 5 Software & Related Venture Capital Deals, 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, Inc.

Unspecified Round

*Figures exclude add-ons, grants, mergers, secondary stock purchases and venture debt

s, Q1 2007 - Q1 2014 YTD* (As at 03 March 2014) No. 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) 1.44 1.54 1.32 1.01 1.89 1.36 1.55 0.85 0.69 0.84 0.66 1.39 0.83 1.39 1.30 1.26 1.43 1.63 1.77 1.43 1.30 1.60 1.92 1.79 2.02 2.00 2.25 4.24 3.18

s as a Proportion of all Venture Capital Deals, 2007 2014 YTD* (As at 01 March 2014) Proportion of Aggregate Deal Value 12% 12% 11% 10% 10% 14% 21% 13%

Fig. 2: Number and Aggregate Value of Soft Venture Capital Deals, 2007
25%

Venture Capital Deals

20%

18%

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%

15%

16% 14%

12% 11% 10% 10%

2008

2009 Proportion of No. of Deals

2010

2011

2012

Proportion of Aggregate Deal Value

Fig. 3: Proportion of Number and Aggregate Value of Software & Related Deals by Region, 2007 - 2014 YTD* (As at 03 March 2014)
3% 2% 2% 2% 18%

73%

Proportion of No. of Deals

Proportion of Aggregate Deal Value

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

Location Finland US US US

US

Source: Preqin

egate Value of Software & Related Deals, Q1 2007 - Q1 2014 YTD* (As at 03 March 2014)
4.5 4.0 3.5 Aggregate Deal Value ($bn) 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 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%

14%

13%

2012

2013

2014 YTD (03 Mar)

of Aggregate Deal Value

Source: Preqin

f Software & Related Deals by Region, March 2014)

2% 1% 2% 3% 12%

Other India Israel 80% Greater China Europe North America

Proportion of Aggregate Deal Value

Source: Preqin

* (As at

No. of Deals

Aggregate Deal Value ($bn)

Source: Preqin

Fig. 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. Funds 65 114 172 123 102 220 231 235 192 106 91 78 107 153 Called (%) 9.8 26.5 41.5 71.3 83.0 85.0 89.0 93.9 97.0 97.7 99.6 100.0 99.0 99.0

Fig. 2: Median Net IRRs - All Private Equity, Buyout and Venture Capital as of 30 September 2013 Net IRR Quartiles (%) Preqin All Private Equity Benchmark 11.8 12.9 13.8 12.5 8.6 7.0 7.2 8.3 10.3 13.8 11.5

Vintage 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Preqin Buyout Benchmark 23.0 30.9 20.7 19.7 19.9 10.5 8.7 12.0 11.2 11.8 10.2

Fig. 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 1.54 1.34 1.33 1.33 1.34 1.28 1.32 1.24 1.11 1.04 0.97 Europe 1.64 1.52 1.27 1.26 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.15 1.02 1.00 0.98

*Preqins Performance Analyst contains performance data for over 6,700 private equity funds. The data used above is b

of 30 September 2013* DPI Quartiles (%) Dist (%) DPI 0.0 0.0 1.2 10.4 20.9 29.2 34.3 46.3 65.0 89.0 120.9 136.3 147.9 140.2 Value (%) RVPI 95.8 98.1 102.1 105.0 100.0 91.4 88.3 79.4 58.4 46.5 23.7 18.0 14.5 12.9 Q1 0.0 6.0 10.9 31.8 41.0 56.0 59.0 72.6 102.3 132.0 167.9 174.4 198.9 182.1 Median 0.0 0.0 1.2 10.4 20.9 29.2 34.3 46.3 65.0 89.0 120.9 136.3 147.9 140.2

enture Capital as of 30 September 2013

Median Net Multiple

Preqin Venture Capital Benchmark 2.7 6.3 4.2 7.9 2.7 6.4 8.0 9.0 13.9 8.1 5.6

Fig. 2: Median Net IRRs - All Private Equity, Bu

35

30

25

20

15

10

0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

ntage as of 30 September 2013 Asia 1.67 1.60 1.36 1.30 1.32 1.22 1.05 1.32 1.05 1.05 0.77

Fig. 3: Regional Comparison of Median Net Mu

1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2

Median Net Multiple

1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

for over 6,700 private equity funds. The data used above is based on preliminary data as of Q3 2013, and is therefore based on a smaller pool of funds.

RVPI Quartiles (%) Q3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 12.9 17.0 25.4 35.1 46.5 84.7 99.4 99.1 92.5 Q1 102.2 110.0 113.7 117.0 118.1 109.0 104.1 102.4 86.8 72.6 57.0 43.1 38.0 25.4 Median 95.8 98.1 102.1 105.0 100.0 91.4 88.3 79.4 58.4 46.5 23.7 18.0 14.5 12.9 Q3 82.0 83.9 88.0 87.8 83.7 73.5 65.2 56.6 35.5 14.7 5.3 0.3 1.0 0.0

All Private Equity, Buyout and Venture Capital as of 30 September 2013

Preqin All Private Equity Benchmark

Preqin Buyout Benchmark

Preqin Venture Capital Benchmark

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.

Net Multiple Quartiles (X) Q1 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.8 1.8 1.9 2.2 2.0

Net IRR Quartiles (%) Median 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 Q3 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.2 Q1 n/m n/m n/a 18.2 19.1 15.8 12.7 11.0 11.4 16.6 22.2 24.3 24.2 20.5

eptember

Preqin All Private Equity Benchmark

Preqin Buyout Benchmark

Preqin Venture Capital Benchmark

Source: Preqin

North America

Europe

Asia

Source: Preqin

Net IRR Max/Min (%) Median n/m n/m n/a 11.5 13.8 10.3 8.3 7.2 7.0 8.6 12.5 13.8 12.9 11.8 Q3 n/m n/m n/a 6.7 7.0 6.0 4.0 2.8 4.0 2.1 6.9 8.9 7.3 3.8 Max n/m n/m n/a 66.9 448.0 52.0 48.9 33.3 67.0 79.8 59.4 67.1 94.0 73.0 Min n/m n/m n/a -26.0 -10.2 -26.1 -74.6 -25.3 -100.0 -26.0 -28.5 -12.4 -16.3 -96.0

Source: Preqin

Fig. 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. 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. 4: Five Largest Private Equity Co-Investment Multi-Manager Vehicles Closed, 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

AXA Co-investment Fund III

Ardian

t Consider Co-Investment Opportunities

Fig. 1: Proportion of Private Equity Fund of Funds Managers tha Investment Opportunities

1%

70%

nvestment Opportunities By Manager Location

Fig. 2: Private Equity Fund of Funds Managers that Consider Co Investment Opportunities By Manager Location

5% 10%

10%

35%

icles Currently in Market (As at 03 March 2014) Target Size ($mn) 1,000 490 300 250 200 200 Fund Status Raising Third Close First Close Raising Raising Raising Source: Preqin Vehicles Closed, All Time Final Value ($mn) 1,638 1,580 1,192 1,100 Vintage 2012 2012 2007 2012

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