DOCSLIB.ORG

Rfp-No.-Inv-003-Fy16

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rfp-No.-Inv-003-Fy16 Patricia (Patty) French P: (505) 476-9300 Chair, Municipal Member F: (505) 476-9401 Wayne Propst Toll Free: Executive Director 1(800) 342-3422 Tuesday, June 28, 2016 Questions received in connection with the 2016 Illiquid Investment Consultant RFP QUESTION 1: Can you tell us the current consultant’s annual fee? ANSWER 1: PERA’s current fee structure is a flat annual rate of $1.9 million. According to CEM Benchmarking, Inc., PERA’s fee is 1.3bps above the U.S. median and 0.9bps above the U.S. average, thus one of the motivations for an RFP issuance. QUESTION 2: Can you provide specific dates of meetings the consultant would be expected to attend? ANSWER 2: PERA holds 1-2 meetings per month, typically scheduled on the second Tuesday and last Thursday of each month. The consultant will also be expected to attend onsite due diligence, and any board education sessions. QUESTIONS 3: What is the anticipated working relationship with the general consultant? ANSWER 3: PERA views its portfolio holistically, and expects its consultants to maintain a collaborative working relationship. QUESTION 4: Are the meeting requirements all onsite or can conference calls be acceptable? ANSWER 4: Onsite attendance is required for Board and Investment Committee meetings. QUESTION 5: How often will the consultant visit PERA onsite? ANSWER 5: Please refer to answer 2. QUESTION 6: How many (if any) co-investments do you anticipate PERA will make? 33 Plaza La Prensa, Santa Fe, NM 87507 Visit us at www.nmpera.org ANSWER 6: PERA does not currently participate in co-investment opportunities. QUESTION 7: What types of special projects will be completed by the consultant? ANSWER 7: The consultant will be expected to prepare educational materials, and ad-hoc reporting and presentations as requested by PERA. QUESTION 8: Is opportunistic credit a part of this RFP? ANSWER 8: Yes, illiquid credit-oriented fixed income is included in this RFP. QUESTION 9: What will be the expected involvement with legal negotiations, side letters, amendments, and closings? ANSWER 9: PERA relies on in-house and outside counsel for the matters above. However, we will seek the opinion of the consultant when necessary. Additionally, the consultant is required to review and opine on terms upon Board recommendation. QUESTION 10: Will the consultant be covering annual meetings for funds in the PERA portfolio? ANSWER 10: PERA expects to work collaboratively with the consultant to determine necessary annual meeting attendance. QUESTION 11: If a consultant is only responding to various illiquid investments or a specific category of illiquid investments how will the sub-sector allocations be determined? It appears based upon some of the requested responses that the consultant should make recommendations as to the specific allocations within the sub-sectors. Though sub-sector consultants can provide detail on return attribution and specifics for their individual sectors is it assumed that the general consultant and staff/board will provide targets for each sub-sector? ANSWER 11: Sub-sector allocations (i.e. venture capital within private equity) are determined by the PERA Board, upon recommendation from staff and general consultant. As part of the asset allocation study, PERA does request that the illiquid consultant collaborate with general consultant and staff to determine appropriate sub-sector allocations. 2 | Page QUESTIONS 12: Does NMPERA currently have risk/return targets/objectives for the illiquid investment classes (all sub-sectors)? If so, what are they? ANSWER 12: QUESTION 13: In order to gain a better understand of travel requirements, can you please provide a general expectation for the number of required physical meetings by the consultant? The RFP references monthly investment and board meetings, attendance as requested at Staff meetings to provide advice, and attend meetings related to investment manager searches and site visits. How many of these physical meetings did the current consultant attend in 2014 and 2015? ANSWER 13: PERA expects approximately 12-24 physical meetings with the PERA Board, per year. In fiscal year 2016, the PERA Board held 12 physical meetings. QUESTION 14: How many advisory board seats does NMPERA currently hold in real estate, timber, farmland, and infrastructure? ANSWER 14: PERA currently holds three advisory board seats within Real Estate and Real Assets. QUESTION 15: Included within Contractor warranties and representations is the following statement: “Contractor does not directly or indirectly own any investment managers, investments brokers, or investment banking services or directly or indirectly manage any pooled assets.” In the event that the Offeror does manage and act as a GP for fund of fund vehicles, would that disqualify the Offeror from acting as NMPERA’s illiquid investment consultant and participating in the consultant search process; or would it simply need to be disclosed prior to contract execution? 3 | Page ANSWER 15: Offerors will not be disqualified, however, PERA does require disclosure prior to contract executions. Additionally, per the stated minimum qualifications, revenues that are not derived from advisory/consulting services must not be more than 50% of total revenues. QUESTION 16: Are there any limits on file size for attachments? ANSWER 16: Yes, attachments larger than 10MB or within a zip files can’t be accepted by PERA. Respondents may submit their proposals through multiple emails, or through other electronic media devices. QUESTION 17: In Part II. Scope of work, Section B Common Components of Scope of Work and Deliverables, Section 3 Reporting and Monitoring of the Illiquid Assets Portfolio paragraph “a,” sub paragraph “v” on page 5. The state requests that the consultant provide peer benchmarks. Can the respondents receive an example of previous reports provided to the state? ANSWER 17: PERA currently utilizes TUCS universe and Cambridge peer benchmarking. QUESTION 18: In Part V. Submission Requirements, Section A. Method for Submission of Proposals on page 11. Due to the potential file size of the document and built in fire walls, can respondents send the document via a delivery service (i.e. LeapFile). Alternatively can respondents send multiple emails splitting the file into smaller sizes in order to avoid fire walls? ANSWER 18: Yes, PERA will accept submissions via a delivery service, as long as submission are in PERA’s possession by the submission deadline. QUESTION 19: In Part VII. Key Contractual Provisions on Page 14. Can respondents include potential changes to the listed provisions as an attachment? ANSWER 19: Yes. QUESTION 20: While it is stated that “All principal investment decisions are subject to approval by the Board” in the policy, does staff have any delegated authority (e.g. manager re-ups)? 4 | Page ANSWER 20: No. QUESTION 21: Within the strategic allocations for each asset class, are there sub asset class allocations for private equity, real estate, real assets, absolute return (e.g. how much allocated to venture, buyouts…)? ANSWER 21: Please refer to Attachment A. QUESTION 22: If the RFP is to rehire or replace your current general investment consultant, what prompted the search? Is the incumbent consulting firm allowed or encouraged to rebid? ANSWER 22: This RFP issuance is in line with PERA’s initiatives to better align services with costs. The incumbent consulting firm is allowed to submit a proposal. QUESTION 23: How long has the incumbent consultant been with your plan? ANSWER 23: The incumbent consultant has been with the plan since 2006. QUESTION 24: Do you anticipate making any changes to the asset allocation of the fund? Are you considering any new asset classes? ANSWER 24: PERA recently adopted a new Strategic Asset Allocation, and is in the process of implementation. Additional changes are not expected, at this time. QUESTION 25: What is the most important investment issue your fund is currently facing? ANSWER 25: PERA is currently focused on prudent and efficient implementation of the newly adopted Strategic Asset Allocation. QUESTION 26: Please provide a copy of your 2016 meeting schedule for the board meetings, the investment committee meetings, and the Annual Board Retreat in which the investment consultant would be expected to attend. Are the Board Meetings and Investment Committee meetings always on the same date and location? We note that in 2016 there were several “Special Board Meetings.” Would the consultant be expected to attend 5 | Page these as well? Are there any scheduled workshop dates that would involve the Illiquid Assets consultant in 2016? Were there any in 2015? ANSWER 26: Please refer to answer 2, additionally, PERA Board retreats typically occur annually, following a fiscal year end. Special Board meetings will be scheduled at the discretion of the Board. QUESTION 27: How many partnership annual meetings and advisory board meetings did your Consultant participate on your behalf in each of 2016 and 2015? ANSWER 27: Please refer to answer 10. QUESTION 28: What strategic decisions are currently pending with the current consultant that the new consultant would likely become involved with? ANSWER 28: Implementation of newly adopted Strategic Asset Allocation, and ongoing illiquid manager diligence. QUESTION 29: How many reviews of fund document amendments did your current consultant review on your behalf in 2016 and 2015? ANSWER 29: PERA expects a recommendation from its consultant on each amendment received. QUESTION 30: When was the last asset liability
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Private Equity Program (PE Program)
    Attachment 3, Page 1 of 28 California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) Private Equity Program (PE Program) Quarterly Report Executive Summary (As of December 31, 2012) Presentation Date: February 19, 2013 This report is solely for the use of CalPERS personnel. No part of it may be circulated, quoted or reproduced for distribution outside CalPERS without prior written approval from Pension Consulting Alliance, Inc. Nothing herein is intended to serve as investment advice, a recommendation of any particular investment or type of investment, a suggestion of the merits of purchasing or selling securities, or an invitation or inducement to engage in investment activity. Pension Consulting Alliance, Inc. Attachment 3, Page 2 of 28 Quarterly Report December 31, 2012 Table of Contents Section Tab Executive Summary 1 CalPERS’ Private Equity Program Performance Review 2 Private Equity Team Organizational Update 3 Private Equity Market Environment Overview 4 Appendices PE Program Relationships by Total Exposure Attachment 3, Page 3 of 28 Quarterly Report December 31, 2012 1.0 Introduction Private equity is a long-term asset class with performance results influenced by various factors. This report concentrates on several key exposures that contribute to performance results, including sector, geography, structure and vintage year. In addition, the broad industry trends highlighted herein may affect future performance results. 1.2 Highlights of Program Activity The PE Program outperformed the Policy Benchmark over the latest three-year period and posted an annual return above long-term return expectations as of December 31, 2012. However over the latest one, five, and ten-year periods, the PE Program underperformed the Policy Benchmark.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyrighted Material
    BINDEX 03/09/2012 18:54:54 Page 345 Index A SAS 111, 267 SAS 112, 267–268 Accountants, 92, 223–226 SAS 113, 268 Accredited investors, 16, 339 SAS 114, 269 Acquisition, 339 SAS 115, 270 Acquisition Premium, 339 American Jobs and Closing Tax Advisors, selection of, 91–92 Loopholes Act of 2010, 54 Akerlof, George, 48 American Research and American Accounting Association Development Corporation (AAA), 339 (ARD), 31 American Institute of Certified American waterfall model, 10 Public Accountants (AICPA), Angel investing, 20–21 339 Antitakeover provisions, 93 accounting and review standards, Antitrust legislation, federal 270–271 235–238 SSARS 10, 271 Celler-Kefauver Antimerger Act SSARS 12, 271 (1950), 237 auditing standards Clayton Antitrust Act (1914), SAS 1, 243 236 SAS 1 amendments, 257 Federal Trade Commission Act SAS 82, 249 (1914), 236–237 SAS 82 replacements, Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust 257–264 Improvement Act (1976), SAS 85 amendments, 257 140, 237–238 SAS 95, 249 Robinson-Patman Act (1936), SAS 99, 256–257 237 SAS 104,COPYRIGHTED 264 Sherman MATERIAL Antitrust Act (1890), SAS 105, 265 236 SAS 106, 265 Apollo Global Management, 53, 55 SAS 107, 265–266 Assessments, manufacturing, SAS 108, 266 319–333 SAS 109, 266 corporate vision and mission, SAS 110, 267 323–324 345 BINDEX 03/09/2012 18:54:54 Page 346 346 INDEX Assessments, manufacturing Breakup fee, 129–130, 339 (Continued) Bridge financing, 339 customer satisfaction and Broker-dealer, 339 perceived quality, 322–323 Bulge bracket bank, 74 employee satisfaction, 320–322 Business development companies equipment and facility (BDCs), 54 maintenance, 324–326 Business intelligence, 277–292, 339 inventory management and application to private equity, product flow, 327–328 291–292 operational data and cost of sales, exit strategy, 292 328 investment decision, 291 visual management, 326 portfolio companies, strategic Audit, scaling, 206 management of, 291 Auditing Standards.
    [Show full text]
  • Venture Capital Postively Disrupts
    PRIVATE CLIENT SERIES VENTURE CAPITAL POSITIVELY DISRUPTS INTERGENERATIONAL INVESTING Families of wealth face three key questions about intergenerational wealth planning: how best to invest to sustain future generations; how best to engage the next genera- tion; and how best to ensure family unity endures. Often each question is addressed independently. We find that a conversation across generations about the impact of a meaningful venture capital (VC) allocation can help address all three questions in an integrated manner. Venture capital offers the potential for attractive returns relative to public equity markets, often in a tax-advantaged manner, thus allowing the portfolio to generate more wealth to support current and future generations. Bringing the next generation into the conversation about the changing investing landscape also offers the oppor- tunity for both generations to learn about the unique aspects of VC investing and the critical role it can play in the family’s portfolio. Furthermore, the vast potential that exists for making lasting impact through VC, both in terms of financial returns and contributions to society, may provide unifying experiences across generations. For many families, venture investing may provide a connection to the original roots of entrepreneurship that created the family wealth. As VC spurs continued innovation and industry disruption, families should consider the potential positive disruption the inclusion of VC can bring to their intergenerational investment plans. This paper provides some context for considering such an inclusion by discussing the investment potential and implications for interested investors. Venture, the source of future returns Whether it be cloud computing, machine learning, or artificial intelligence, emerging technologies are transforming many industries.
    [Show full text]
  • Agenda Item 5B
    Item 5b - Attachment 3, Page 1 of 45 SEMI - ANNUAL PERFORMANCE R EPORT California Public Employees’ Retirement System Private Equity Program Semi-Annual Report – June 30, 2017 MEKETA INVESTMENT GROUP B OSTON C HICAGO M IAMI P ORTLAND S AN D IEGO L ONDON M ASSACHUSETTS I LLINOIS F LORIDA O REGON C ALIFORNIA U N I T E D K INGDOM www.meketagroup.com Item 5b - Attachment 3, Page 2 of 45 California Public Employees’ Retirement System Private Equity Program Table of Contents 1. Introduction and Executive Summary 2. Private Equity Industry Review 3. Portfolio Overview 4. Program Performance 5. Program Activity 6. Appendix Vintage Year Statistics Glossary Prepared by Meketa Investment Group Page 2 of 45 Item 5b - Attachment 3, Page 3 of 45 California Public Employees’ Retirement System Private Equity Program Introduction Overview This report provides a review of CalPERS Private Equity Program as of June 30, 2017, and includes a review and outlook for the Private Equity industry. CalPERS began investing in the private equity asset class in 1990. CalPERS currently has an 8% interim target allocation to the private equity asset class. As of June 30, 2017, CalPERS had 298 investments in the Active Portfolio, and 319 investments in the Exited Portfolio1. The total value of the portfolio was $25.9 billion2, with total exposure (net asset value plus unfunded commitments) of $40.2 billion3. Executive Summary Portfolio The portfolio is diversified by strategy, with Buyouts representing the largest exposure at 66% of total Private Equity. Mega and Large buyout funds represent approximately 57% of CalPERS’ Buyouts exposure.
    [Show full text]
  • Private Equity
    Private Equity: Accomplishments and Challenges by Greg Brown, University of North Carolina; Bob Harris, University of Virginia; Steve Kaplan, University of Chicago; Tim Jenkinson, University of Oxford; and David Robinson, Duke University ince the 1980s, there has been an ongoing discussion about the role of private S equity (PE) in the economy. As investors have flocked to the asset class, voices critical of the negative social impact of PE have grown louder. In this article, we examine what is known from the academic literature about the effects of private equity on corporate productivity, the returns for investors, and possible broader economic and social consequences. We catalogue what we believe to be strong evidence of the overall benefits of PE-backed companies and investors in private equity, as well as spillovers in the form of broader gains in economic productivity. We also describe apparent instances of PE shortcomings in some specific industries where negative social impacts can be measured in some way. In our view, private equity is “capitalism in high gear” and, Back to the 1980s as such, subject to most of the same debates concerning Our account of private equity begins at the end of the 1980s, economic and social conditions in a free enterprise system. when hostile takeovers and other often highly leveraged While some argue that the 2020 version of capitalism transactions, including a relative newcomer called the lever- (as practiced in the U.S. and much of the world) is inef- aged buyout (or LBO), came under fierce attack in both the fective in coping with current social needs, much of the press and conventional business circles.
    [Show full text]
  • Private Equity Holdings Disclosure 06-30-2019
    The Regents of the University of California Private Equity Investments as of June 30, 2019 (1) Capital Paid-in Capital Current Market Capital Distributed Total Value Total Value Description Vintage Year (2) Net IRR (3) Committed (A) Value (B) (C) (B+C) Multiple (B+C)/A) Brentwood Associates Private Equity II 1979 3,000,000 3,000,000 - 4,253,768 4,253,768 1.42 5.5% Interwest Partners I 1979 3,000,000 3,000,000 - 6,681,033 6,681,033 2.23 18.6% Alta Co Partners 1980 3,000,000 3,000,000 - 6,655,008 6,655,008 2.22 13.6% Golder, Thoma, Cressey & Rauner Fund 1980 5,000,000 5,000,000 - 59,348,988 59,348,988 11.87 30.5% KPCB Private Equity (Legacy Funds) (4) Multiple 142,535,631 143,035,469 3,955,643 1,138,738,611 1,142,694,253 7.99 39.4% WCAS Capital Partners II 1980 4,000,000 4,000,000 - 8,669,738 8,669,738 2.17 14.0% Brentwood Associates Private Equity III 1981 3,000,000 3,000,000 - 2,943,142 2,943,142 0.98 -0.2% Mayfield IV 1981 5,000,000 5,000,000 - 13,157,658 13,157,658 2.63 26.0% Sequoia Private Equity (Legacy Funds) (4) Multiple 293,200,000 352,355,566 167,545,013 1,031,217,733 1,198,762,746 3.40 30.8% Alta II 1982 3,000,000 3,000,000 - 5,299,578 5,299,578 1.77 7.0% Interwest Partners II 1982 4,008,769 4,008,769 - 6,972,484 6,972,484 1.74 8.4% T V I Fund II 1982 4,000,000 4,000,000 - 6,744,334 6,744,334 1.69 9.3% Brentwood Associates Private Equity IV 1983 5,000,000 5,000,000 - 10,863,119 10,863,119 2.17 10.9% WCAS Capital Partners III 1983 5,000,000 5,000,000 - 9,066,954 9,066,954 1.81 8.5% Golder, Thoma, Cressey & Rauner Fund II 1984
    [Show full text]
  • Aggregate Portfolio Private Equity Exposure Summary
    AGENDA BOARD OF FIRE AND POLICE PENSION COMMISSIONERS August 3, 2017 8:30 a.m. Sam Diannitto Boardroom Los Angeles Fire and Police Pensions Building 701 East 3rd Street, Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Commissioner Diannitto will participate telephonically from 4612 El Reposo Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90065 An opportunity for the public to address the Board or Committee about any item on today’s agenda for which there has been no previous opportunity for public comment will be provided before or during consideration of the item. Members of the public who wish to speak on any item on today’s agenda are requested to complete a speaker card for each item they wish to address, and present the completed card(s) to the commission executive assistant. Speaker cards are available at the commission executive assistant’s desk. In compliance with Government Code Section 54957.5, non-exempt writings that are distributed to a majority or all of the Board or applicable Committee of the Board in advance of their meetings may be viewed at the office of the Los Angeles Fire and Police Pension System (LAFPP), located at 701 East 3rd Street, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90013, or by clicking on LAFPP’s website at www.lafpp.com, or at the scheduled meeting. Non-exempt writings that are distributed to the Board or Committee at a scheduled meeting may be viewed at that meeting. In addition, if you would like a copy of any record related to an item on the agenda, please contact the commission executive assistant, at (213) 279-3038 or by e-mail at [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Ready Coller Institute of Venture, • Sources of IP – We Will Awash with Cash
    ISSUE 1a — 2014 WELCOME ISSUE $45 THE VENTURE ECOSYSTEM FRAMEWORK: MESSY, FAST, AND GLOBAL 企业生态系统框架： 凌 乱 、快 速 、全 球 化 Trends Shaping the Venture Ecosystem in 2014 / 06 IS THE VC MODEL ‘BROKEN’? 风险投资模式“破损”了吗？ VC Success Definition and Understanding Who Wins and Who Loses / 20 MEASURING SCIENCE PARKS' PERFORMANCE 度量科技园区的业绩 TusPark, Imperial West, and 15 other Parks / 28 time to Impact THE PUBLIC VENTURE POLICY MENU A toolbox of PrOVEN 企业公共政策清单 Policies Public Authorities government policies /36 Can Take / 36 EDITORIAL BOARD Jeremy Coller Eli Talmor Contents Moshe Zviran Yesha Sivan (Editor-in-Chief) Robyn Klingler-Vidra (Associate Editor) COLLER INSTITUTE OF VENTURE 36 Yù (Zöe) Zhái Itai Asaf Odeya Pergament 04 Ann Iveson COPYRIGHT © Coller Institute of Venture at Tel Aviv University 2014 www.collerinstituteofventure.org 05 06 20 28 WHAT IS THE COLLER INSTITUTE MEASURING SCIENCE PARKS' OF VENTURE?—04 PERFORMANCE—28 TusPark, Imperial West, RESEARCH IS AT THE CORE and 15 other Parks OF THE CIV’S VISION—05 How they are designed and managed to T HE VENTURE ECOSYSTEM achieve optimal performance FRAMEWORK: MESSY, FAST, AND GLOBAL—06 Six Trends Shaping the THE PUBLIC VENTURE Venture Ecosystem in 2014 POLICY MENU—36 44 Policies Public Authorities This article presents a generative Can Take framework for the venture ecosystem and highlights the current trends Public policymakers’ tools for fostering affecting the ecosystem local venture ecosystems I S THE VC MODEL ‘BROKEN’?—20 NEWS IN BRIEF—44 VC Success Definition and The News section offers a selection
    [Show full text]
  • Private Equityspotlight
    Spotlight Private Equity www.preqin.com May 2010 / Volume 6 - Issue 5 Welcome to the latest edition of Private Equity Spotlight, the monthly newsletter from Preqin providing insights into private equity performance, investors and fundraising. Private Equity Spotlight combines information from our online products Performance Analyst, Investor Intelligence, Fund Manager Profi les, Funds in Market, Secondary Market Monitor and Deals Analyst. Secondaries in 2010 Feature Spotlight Fundraising Spotlight page 3 page 13 Secondaries in 2010 This month’s Fundraising Spotlight looks at buyout, venture and cleantech fundraising. There was expectation across the industry that there would be heightened activity on the secondary market in 2009. This month’s Feature Article examines why this never materialized Secondaries Spotlight page 16 and looks at what 2010 has in store for the secondary market. We look at statistics from Preqin’s industry-leading product, Secondary Market Monitor, and uncover the latest secondaries news. Performance Spotlight page 6 Secondaries Funds of Funds Investor Spotlight page 17 This month’s Performance Spotlight looks at private equity secondaries funds. This month’s Investor Spotlight examines investors’ attitudes towards the secondary market. Fund Manager Spotlight page 8 Conferences Spotlight page 19 This month’s Fund Manager Spotlight reveals which US states This month’s Conferences Spotlight includes details of upcoming have the most private equity fi rms and capital. events in the private equity world. Deals Spotlight Investor News page 10 page 21 This month’s Deals Spotlight looks at the latest buyout deals and Preqin’s latest product - Deals Analyst. All the latest news on private equity investors including • Abu Dhabi Investment Authority What would you like to see in Private Equity Spotlight? Email us at: [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • The 2010 Preqin Private Equity Fund of Funds Review
    The 2010 Preqin Private Equity Fund of Funds Review The 2010 Preqin Private Equity Fund of Funds Review www.preqin.com/PEFOF Dear Spotlight Reader, This month’s edition of Spotlight includes extensive analysis on the private equity fund of funds market. We have seen funds of funds accounting for a higher percentage of investors in closed funds in comparison with previous years, and are also seeing an increasing number of investors turning to funds of funds in 2009 compared with 2008. All analysis is taken from our newly released publication, The 2010 Preqin Private Equity Fund of Funds Review. Also in this month’s edition, we examine the use of investment consultants by institutional investors, reveal the latest changes in the returns and NAV of private equity funds, and uncover all the latest investor news. We hope you enjoy this month’s edition, and as ever we welcome any feedback, questions and suggestions for any research that you would like to see in Spotlight in the future. Kindest Regards, Tim Friedman Head of Communications Preqin Private Equity Spotlight www.preqin.com December 2009 / Volume 5 - Issue 12 Welcome to the latest edition of Private Equity Spotlight, the monthly newsletter from Preqin providing insights into private equity performance, investors and fundraising. Private Equity Spotlight combines information from our online products Performance Analyst, Investor Intelligence, Fund Manager Profi les & Funds in Market. PE Fund of Funds Special Feature Article Secondaries Spotlight page 3 page 16 The Growing Importance of Funds of Funds We look at statistics from Preqin’s industry-leading product, Secondaries Market Monitor, and uncover the latest secondaries With other institutional backers of private equity funds having news.
    [Show full text]
  • Tenex Capital Partners II, LP
    Agenda Item 7a CHRIS CHRISTIE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Governor DIVISION OF INVESTMENT KIM GUADAGNO P.O. BOX 290 FORD M. SCUDDER Lt. Governor TRENTON, NJ 08625-0290 Acting State Treasurer January 22, 2016 MEMORANDUM TO: The State Investment Council FROM: Christopher McDonough Director SUBJECT: Proposed Investment in Tenex Capital Partners II, L.P. The New Jersey Division of Investment (“Division”) is proposing an investment of up to $100 million in Tenex Capital Partners II, L.P. This memorandum is presented to the State Investment Council (the “Council”) pursuant to N.J.A.C. 17:16-69.9. Tenex Capital Management (“Tenex” or the “Firm”) is establishing Tenex Capital Partners II, L.P. to continue their successful strategy of leveraging the Firm’s unique combination of experience in operational restructurings, capital markets, and investment management to make control investments of industry laggards and return them to market competitive. The Division is recommending this investment based on the following factors: Differentiated Investment Style: Tenex targets companies with operational distress, typically looking to buy “B” and “C” companies from motivated sellers at attractive valuations, often through busted auctions where there are few competing buyers due to the operational distress. Meanwhile, Tenex has shown strong purchase price discipline, with an average entry Enterprise Value/ Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization (“EBITDA”) multiple of 6.5x. Impressive Long Term Track Record: Prior to five of the Managing Directors forming Tenex in 2010, over a 10-year period, the Tenex team had participated in the investment of over $900 million in nine companies, which generated cash proceeds of $2.6 billion to yield a gross Internal Rate of Return (“IRR”) of 35.8% and a 2.8x Multiple on Invested Capital (“MOIC”).
    [Show full text]
  • US Private Equity Index® and Selected Benchmark Statistics March 31, 2018 Data As of US Private Equity Index and Selected Benchmark Statistics March 31, 2018
    US Private Equity Index® and Selected Benchmark Statistics March 31, 2018 Data as of US Private Equity Index and Selected Benchmark Statistics March 31, 2018 Note on Company Analysis Update Beginning in 2016, we have included company IRRs both by CA industry classifications and Global Industry Classification Standard (“GICS®”). The Global Industry Classification Standard (“GICS®”) was developed by and is the exclusive property and a service mark of MSCI, Inc. (“MSCI”) and S&P Global Market Intelligence LLC (“S&P”) and is licensed for use by Cambridge Associates. Pages with company IRRs by Global Industry Classification Standard (“GICS®”) will be noted as such. Please note that no changes to the gross IRR calculations have been made. | 2 Data as of US Private Equity Index and Selected Benchmark Statistics March 31, 2018 Disclaimer Our goal is to provide you with the most accurate and relevant performance information possible; as a result, Cambridge Associates’ research organization continually monitors the constantly evolving private investments space and its fund managers. When we discern material changes in the structure of an asset class and/or a fund’s investment strategy, it is in the interest of all users of our benchmark statistics that we implement the appropriate classification realignments. In addition, Cambridge Associates is always working to grow our private investments performance database and ensure that our benchmarks are as representative as possible of investors’ institutional-quality opportunity set. As a result we continually add funds to the database (both newly-raised funds and backfill funds) and occasionally we must remove funds that cease reporting.
    [Show full text]