DOCSLIB.ORG

Technology and Innovation in Legal Services

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Technology and Innovation in Legal Services JULY 2021 Technology and Innovation in Legal Services Final Report for the Solicitors Regulation Authority Mari Sako and Richard Parnham, with contributions from John Armour, Ian Rodgers, and Matthias Qian, University of Oxford Suggested citation: Sako, M. & Parnham, R. (2021) Technology and Innovation in Legal Services: Final Report for the Solicitors Regulation Authority. University of Oxford. An electronic copy can be downloaded from here. CHAPTER 5 Lawtech Ecosystems: Funding, Scaleup, and Policies INTERACTIVE CONTENT LINKS 5.1 Lawtech startup trends in UK and US 5.2 Funding for lawtech startups in UK and US 5.3 Gender diversity and inclusion in lawtech founding and funding 5.4 Acquisitions and exits of lawtech startups 5.5 Government and regulators’ approaches to promoting startups Chapter Summary his chapter turns to the question of how lawtech adoption and innovation are funded in the UK. We take an ecosystem T approach. The lawtech startup ecosystem consists of key stakeholders, and our aim is to study how they are linked via funding flows, movement of people, and policy and regulatory coordination. In particular, we examine this phenomenon from three perspectives within the ecosystem: lawtech startups and their founders; investors, including venture capital and law firm accelerators; and policy-makers and regulators. Throughout, we make comparisons with the US. Also, we highlight issues surrounding diversity and inclusion, and contrast the PeopleLaw and BigLaw market segments wherever appropriate. Technology and Innovation in Legal Services 5.1 Lawtech startup trends in UK and US hat is the size and shape of the lawtech startup community in the UK? We use two data sources, Crunchbase and Legal W Technology Hub, to identify 104 lawtech startups in the UK and 256 startups in the US which were founded in or after 2008 (see Chapter Appendix for details on methodology). Figure 5.1 shows the time trend in the number of lawtech startups founded each year during 2008-2021. In both the UK and the US, the numbers increased during the first decade, with the annual UK startup numbers peaking at 15 in 2018 and US numbers peaking at 32 in 2017. Thereafter, both countries experienced a decline in growth rate predating the COVID-19 pandemic. By 2020, the UK and US numbers are equally quite low. It is possible that part of the slowdown in lawtech founding activity is due to a data issue. Figure 5.1: Time trend in founding lawtech startups 35 UK US 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 Technology and Innovation in Legal Services Next, we classify the venture population into hybrids, we end up with 59 BigLaw ventures and PeopleLaw or BigLaw, depending on each 49 PeopleLaw ventures in the UK, and 282 BigLaw venture’s client base. In a minority of cases, and 161 PeopleLaw ventures in the US.1 There are such classification was not possible owing to a therefore more BigLaw than PeopleLaw ventures lack of information, or because the client base in both countries (see Figure 5.2). Figure 5.3 straddled the two segments or included others shows time trends in the two market segments such as the public sector. Removing these in the UK. Figure 5.2: Lawtech startups classified into PeopleLaw vs BigLaw UK (N = 108) US (N=443) BigLaw 54.6% BigLaw 63.7% PeopleLaw 45.4% PeopleLaw 36.3% Figure 5.3: PeopleLaw and BigLaw startups established over time in the UK 14 14 12 12 10 10 8 BigLaw ventures 8 PeopleLaw ventures 6 6 Number of ventures 4 4 2 2 0 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Year founded Year founded 1 In this analysis, we include 171 US ventures which were founded before 2008. Figure 5.3: PeopleLaw and BigLaw startups established over time in the UK Where are these lawtech startups located? In the US, large BigLaw startups cluster in large Figure 5.4 shows the venture locations in the UK cities with financial and legal services such and Figure 5.5, in the US. The maps show not only as New York, San Francisco, Chicago and Los the geographic concentration of venture firms but Angeles (see the large green bubbles in Figure also the ratio of BigLaw to PeopleLaw ventures 5.5). Other BigLaw startups are located in the in each cluster with a colour code. In the UK, cities of Washington, San Mateo, and Berkeley lawtech startup activity is highly concentrated (see the smaller yellow bubbles). Unlike in the in London, as indicated by the large bubble size. UK, however, there are a large number of other Also, London is tilted towards BigLaw ventures, as locations for lawtech startups indicating in part shown by the green colour. The yellow bubbles the importance of the state-level structure of also exist with one BigLaw venture each in legal regulation in the US. Haslemere, Teddington, Brighton,Figure Birmingham 5.4: Geographic and locations of lawtech startups in the UK Figure 5.5: Geographic locations of lawtech startups in the US Farnborough. In other regions, lawtech startups tend to be in the PeopleLaw market segment. 1.0 More BigLaw 1.0 More BigLaw Figure 5.4: Geographic locations of lawtech startups in the UK 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.2 1 company 0.2 30 companies 60 companies Figure 5.4: Geographic locations of lawtech startups in the UK Figure 5.5: Geographic locations of lawtech startups in0 the MoreUS PeopleLaw 0 More PeopleLaw Figure 5.5: Geographic locations of lawtech More BigLaw More BigLaw 1.0 startups in the US Figure 5.6: Funding for lawtech startups, by type of1.0 funding Figure 5.7: Funding for lawtech startups, by PeopleLaw vs BigLaw market segment 0.8 1,200 0.8 UK Funding in USD US Funding in USD 400 1,000 350 0.6 0.6 Funding in USD 300 800 250 0.4 600 0.4 200 In million USD In million USD 150 400 0.2 1 company 0.2 100 30 companies 200 60 companies 50 0 More PeopleLaw 0 More PeopleLaw 0 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Technology and Innovation in Legal Services Figure 5.6: Funding for lawtech startups, by type of funding Figure 5.7: Funding for lawtech startups, by PeopleLaw vs BigLaw market segment 1,200 UK Funding in USD US Funding in USD 400 1,000 350 Funding in USD 300 800 250 600 200 In million USD In million USD 150 400 100 200 50 0 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 5.2 Funding for lawtech startups in UK and US n order to start and grow young ventures, founders look for funding from various sources, which is disbursed in ‘stages’ of increasing I value, known as funding rounds. This section explores funding patterns by source, market segment, and venture type. Figure 5.4: Geographic locations of lawtech startups in the UK Figure 5.5: Geographic locations of lawtech startups in the US Venture capital is the predominant source of seed, seed, Series A, to later Series before ‘exit’ funding for lawtech companies (see Figure 5.6). by being acquired or other means). Table 5.1 shows 1.0 More BigLaw 1.0 More BigLaw The US raised over a billion USD per annum in that, while the variety is high and information 2019 and 2020, compared to less than 200 incomplete (with unknown and undisclosed million USD in the UK except in 2021. Cumulatively,0.8 information), seed funding at early stage (typically 0.8 US lawtech startups raised a total of 5.98 billion valued between 10,000 and 2 million USD) is the USD, and UK lawtech startups a total of 853 million most common in both countries. USD. This funding gap is in part due to the Silicon0.6 0.6 Valley phenomenon in the US, with a large pool of Turning to investment funding by market segment, venture capital funding available for technology Figure 5.7 reveals a striking contrast between startups. It is reflected in a sizeable difference0.4 in PeopleLaw and BigLaw. In fact, most of the funding 0.4 average funding per venture, at 9 million USD in in the UK went to BigLaw startups, with PeopleLaw the UK compared to 28 million USD in the US. ventures being a small niche investment category. 0.2 Only 3.2% of the total funding flows1 company into the 0.2 Notwithstanding this gap, lawtech startups in PeopleLaw sector in the UK. Moreover,30 companies with a total 60 companies the two countries have received funding from a of 75 BigLaw funding rounds and 23 PeopleLaw More PeopleLaw More PeopleLaw variety of sources (angel, venture capital, grant,0 funding rounds, the average funding size in 0 etc.) at different stages of growth (from pre- PeopleLaw is smaller than in BigLaw. FigureFigure 5.6:5.6: Funding Funding for lawtech for startups, lawtech by type startups, of funding by type of funding Figure 5.7: Funding for lawtech startups, by PeopleLaw vs BigLaw market segment 1,200 UK Funding in USD US Funding in USD 400 1,000 350 Funding in USD 300 800 250 Other 600 200 In million USD Venture capital In million USD 150 400 100 200 50 0 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2 Our figures based on Crunchbase and Legal Tech Hub are therefore larger than the £290 million ‘total raised by UK lawtech to date’ (see Tech Nation (2020)) Lawtech: a shared opportunity, Global LawTech Summit, 7 December.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Proptech 3.0: the Future of Real Estate
    University of Oxford Research PropTech 3.0: the future of real estate PROPTECH 3.0: THE FUTURE OF REAL ESTATE WWW.SBS.OXFORD.EDU PROPTECH 3.0: THE FUTURE OF REAL ESTATE PropTech 3.0: the future of real estate Right now, thousands of extremely clever people backed by billions of dollars of often expert investment are working very hard to change the way real estate is traded, used and operated. It would be surprising, to say the least, if this burst of activity – let’s call it PropTech 2.0 - does not lead to some significant change. No doubt many PropTech firms will fail and a lot of money will be lost, but there will be some very successful survivors who will in time have a radical impact on what has been a slow-moving, conservative industry. How, and where, will this happen? Underlying this huge capitalist and social endeavour is a clash of generations. Many of the startups are driven by, and aimed at, millennials, but they often look to babyboomers for money - and sometimes for advice. PropTech 2.0 is also engineering a much-needed boost to property market diversity. Unlike many traditional real estate businesses, PropTech is attracting a diversified pool of talent that has a strong female component, representation from different regions of the world and entrepreneurs from a highly diverse career and education background. Given the difference in background between the establishment and the drivers of the PropTech wave, it is not surprising that there is some disagreement about the level of disruption that PropTech 2.0 will create.
    [Show full text]
  • Information Technology Deals for January 2021
    Information Technology Deals for January 2021 Company Name Description Deal Synopsis Akuity Technologies Provider of IT Managed Services to small-to-medium sized The company was acquired by ICS, via its financial sponsor businesses, municipalities, healthcare, educational ClearLight Partners, through an LBO on January 8, 2021 for an institutions and non-profit organizations. The company undisclosed sum. offers a full scope of IT products and services including storage and virtualization, managed and help desk services, Voice over IP, strategic planning, hardware and software procurement and complete implementation services, thereby helping clients to focus on their core business and outsource IT services and run operations more efficiently. Amino Payments Developer of digital media supply chain platform designed The company was acquired by Integral Ad Science, via its to provide transparency to online advertising space. The financial sponsor Vista Equity Partners, through an LBO on company provides technologies from blockchain, January 14, 2021 for an undisclosed sum. payments and advertising to bring transparency to online advertising and eliminates fraud, waste and abuse, making the entire industry more transparent and cost- effective. AMTdirect Provider of contract management services for real estate The company was acquired by MRI Software, via its financial professionals and lease administrators. The company's sponsors GI Partners, Harvest Partners and TA Associates SaaS platform offers businesses with anytime access to Management through an LBO on January 27, 2021 for an their full property inventory, lease information, contracts, undisclosed sum. and associated expenses and revenues, enabling them to efficiently organize all lease and related information in a fully automated system that integrates with ERP and accounting systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon Investment Council
    Oregon Investment Council ~ Agenda ~ February 24, 2010 - 9:00 AM PERS Headquarters 11410 S.W. 68th Parkway Tigard, OR 97223 Oregon Investment Council Harry Demorest Chair Office of The State Treasurer Ben Westlund State Treasurer Ronald Schmitz Chief Investment Officer OREGON INVESTMENT COUNCIL 2010 Meeting Schedule Meetings Begin at 9:00 am at PERS Headquarters Building 11410 SW 68th Parkway Tigard, OR 97223 January 27, 2010 February 24, 2010 April 28, 2010 May 26, 2010 July 28, 2010 September 29, 2010 October 27, 2010 December 1, 2010 OREGON INVESTMENT COUNCIL Agenda February 24, 2010 9:00 AM PERS Headquarters 11410 S.W. 68th Parkway Tigard, Oregon Time A. Action Items Presenter Tab 9:00-9:05 1. Review & Approval of Minutes Ron Schmitz 1 January 27, 2010 Chief Investment Officer 9:05-10:05 2a. Public Equity Review Kevin Nordhill 2 Senior Investment Officer Mike Viteri Investment Officer Ben Mahon Investment Officer John Meier Strategic Investment Solutions 2b. Westwood Global Investments Meg Reynolds OPERF Public Equity Principal 10:05-10:45 3. Sageview Capital Jay Fewel 3 OPERF Private Equity Senior Investment Officer David Fann Pacific Corporate Group William Harrison Chairman, CBC Paul Murphy CEO, CBC Scott Stuart Director, CBC 10:45-11:00 ---------------------BREAK---------------------- 11:00-11:30 4. OPERF Private Equity Annual Plan Jay Fewel 4 David Fann Harry Demorest Keith Larson Ben Westlund Katy Durant Richard Solomon Paul Cleary Chair Vice-Chair State Treasurer Member Member PERS Director (Ex-officio) 11:30-11:35 5. AQR/CNH Partners Convertible Bond Fund Jay Fewel 5 OPERF Opportunity Portfolio John Hershey Investment Officer 11:35-11:45 ---------------------LUNCH BREAK---------------------- B.
    [Show full text]
  • Supplemental Information0605
    Digital Realty Trust, Inc. Second Quarter 2005 Supplemental Operating and Financial Data June 30, 2005 This Supplemental Operating and Financial Data package is not an offer to sell or solicitation to buy securities of Digital Realty Trust, Inc. Any offers to sell or solicitation to buy securities of Digital Realty Trust, Inc. shall be made only by means of a prospectus approved for that purpose. Digital Realty Trust, Inc. Second Quarter 2005 Table of Contents PAGE Corporate Data Corporate Information…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 3 Investor Information……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 4 Stock Performance……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5 Ownership Structure……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 6 Pro Forma Ownership Structure………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 7 Consolidated Financial Results Acquisitions……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 8 Key Financial Data……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 9 Consolidated Balance Sheets…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 10 Consolidated Statements of Operations……………………………………………………………………………………….. 11 Funds From Operations………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 12 Adjusted Funds from Operations………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 13 Reconciliation of Earnings Before Interest, Taxes and Depreciation and Amortization…………………………………… 14 Capital Structure………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 15 Debt Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 16 Debt Maturities…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 17 Portfolio
    [Show full text]
  • Capstone Headwaters Nonprofit Software Team & Deal Experience Nonprofit Software Report | Q4 2019
    NONPROFIT SOFTWARE Q4 2019 CONTRIBUTOR HIGHLIGHTS Teak Murphy 33 deals announced in 2019 remains at the high end of transaction volume in recent years as Director strong deal activity continues 310-746-5006 [email protected] There has been over $3 billion in reported transaction value since the start of 2015, though valuation data is available for only 17 of the 164 deals Nonprofit M&A deals have traded at a median of 5.4x LTM Revenue although it is difficult to draw conclusions with data for just seven deals Blackbaud, the only public company with a broad focus on nonprofit, has recently underperformed the broader SaaS & Cloud and Vertical Market segments but trades at a healthy 5x LTM revenue despite modest growth Recent market trends include the invasion of private equity, growing popularity of donor- advised funds (DAFs), and accelerating transition to digital giving www.capstoneheadwaters.com KEY TAKEAWAYS M&A ACTIVITY BUYER ANALYSIS MARKET OVERVIEW & TRENDS CAPSTONE HEADWATERS NONPROFIT SOFTWARE TEAM & DEAL EXPERIENCE NONPROFIT SOFTWARE REPORT | Q4 2019 KEY TAKEAWAYS MARKET SIZE NONPROFIT TRENDS M&A ACTIVITY AND VALUATIONS Nonprofit software represents a $10 billion Private equity (PE) firms are driving transaction 2019 transaction volume of 33 deals remains at total available market (TAM) volume in the space the high end of recent years Blackbaud, the only public provider broadly Digital donations are on the rise as new tools Beginning in 2015, the Nonprofit Software targeting nonprofit software, claims
    [Show full text]
  • Private Equity Analyst
    PRIVATE EQUITY ANALYST NOVEMBER 2020 Women to Private Equity’s Top Female Talent of Today and Tomorrow p. 7 10 VCs Grooming Game-Changing Startups p. 13 Watch LP Cycles Ad HFA+PEA-Ltr DR080420.pdf 1 8/4/20 5:43 PM Private equity investing has its cycles. Work with a secondary manager who’s C experienced them all. M Y CM MY As leaders of the secondary market, the Lexington Partners team CY draws on more than 400 years of private equity experience. CMY Through all types of business cycles, we have completed over K 500 secondary transactions, acquiring more than 3,000 interests managed by over 750 sponsors with a total value in excess of $53 billion. Our team has excelled at providing customized alternative investment solutions to banks, financial institutions, pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, endowments, family offices, and other fiduciaries seeking to reposition their private investment portfolios. If you have an interest in the secondary market, our experience is second to none. To make an inquiry, please send an email to [email protected] or call us at one of our offices. Innovative Directions in Alternative Investing New York • Boston • Menlo Park • London • Hong Kong • Santiago • Luxembourg www.lexingtonpartners.com Includes information regarding six funds managed by Lexington’s predecessor formed during the period 1990 to 1995. This information is provided for informational purposes only and is not an offer to sell or solicitation of offers to purchase any security. Private Equity Analyst November 2020 contents Volume XXX, Issue 11 Fund News u The Roundup Comment Clayton Dubilier Collects About $14B for Latest Buyout Fund 26 H.I.G.
    [Show full text]
  • 11,000,000 Shares Bofa Merrill Lynch Morgan Stanley J.P. Morgan
    OFFERINGCIRCULAR 11,000,000 Shares Common Stock This is an initial public offering of shares of common stock of First Republic Bank, a California state- chartered, non-member bank. We are offering 4,115,000 shares of common stock, and the selling shareholders identified in this offering circular are offering an additional 6,885,000 shares of common stock. We will not receive any of the proceeds from the sale of shares by the selling shareholders. Currently, there is no public market for our common stock. The public offering price is $25.50 per share. Our common stock has been approved for listing on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “FRC.” Investing in our common stock involves risks that are described in the “Risk Factors” section beginning on page 12 of this offering circular. THE OFFER AND SALE OF OUR COMMON STOCK HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED BY A NEGOTIATING PERMIT AND A DEFINITIVE PERMIT ISSUED BY THE CALIFORNIA COMMISSIONER OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS. THESE PERMITS ARE PERMISSIVE ONLY AND DO NOT CONSTITUTE A RECOMMENDATION OR ENDORSEMENT OF OUR COMMON STOCK. NONE OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS OR ANY OTHER FEDERAL OR STATE REGULATORY BODY HAS APPROVED OR DISAPPROVED OF THESE SECURITIES OR PASSED UPON THE ADEQUACY OR ACCURACY OF THIS OFFERING CIRCULAR. ANY REPRESENTATION TO THE CONTRARY IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE. SHARES OF OUR COMMON STOCK ARE NOT SAVINGS ACCOUNTS, DEPOSITS OR OTHER OBLIGATIONS OF ANY BANK, ARE NOT INSURED BY THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION OR ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY, AND ARE SUBJECT TO INVESTMENT RISKS, INCLUDING THE POSSIBLE LOSS OF THE ENTIRE AMOUNT YOU INVEST.
    [Show full text]
  • Agreement Whereby
    Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Python Holdings, L.P., WC Docket No. 20-______ Transferor, File No. ITC-T/C-2020-______ Clarity Telecom, LLC Licensee, and GI DI Rushmore TopCo LLC, Transferee, Application for Consent to Transfer Control of Domestic and International Section 214 Authorities Under the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended CONSOLIDATED APPLICATION FOR CONSENT TO TRANSFER OF CONTROL OF INTERNATIONAL AND DOMESTIC SECTION 214 AUTHORITY Pursuant to Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (“the Act”),1 and Sections 63.04, 63.18, and 63.24 of the Commission’s Rules,2 Python Holdings, L.P. (“Python Holdings” or “Transferor”), Clarity Telecom, LLC (“Clarity” or “Licensee”), and GI DI Rushmore TopCo LLC (“Transferee”) (collectively the “Applicants”), by their undersigned representatives, request Commission consent to transfer indirect control of the Licensee, which holds domestic and international Section 214 authorizations. As discussed in more detail below, the Applicants have entered into an agreement whereby Transferee will indirectly acquire all of the ownership interests in Clarity (the “Transaction”). The 1 47 U.S.C. § 214. 2 47 C.F.R. §§ 63.04, 63.18 and 63.24. Section 214 authorizations currently held by Clarity will continue to be held by Clarity following consummation of the proposed Transaction. The Transaction will not result in any loss or impair- ment of service for any of Clarity’s customers and will have no adverse effects upon competition in any areas where Clarity provides telecommunications service. As a result of the proposed Transaction, Clarity will enjoy access to the financial resources and management expertise of Transferee, which will serve to strengthen Clarity’s ability to compete and provide customer ser- vice.
    [Show full text]
  • Q3 2019-Newsletter
    Finance & Technology Market Update Q3:2019 Issue Financial Technology Crowdfunding | Medical Billing | InsurTech SPECIALIZED INVESTMENT BANKERS AT THE INTERSECTION OF FINANCE & TECHNOLOGY Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary 3 2. Overview of Evolve 5 3. Industry Landscape 9 Crowdfunding Space too Crowded – Rollup Time? 10 Medical Billing is Fragmented but Dental Billing Shines 14 The InsurTech Firms & Deals are Maturing 18 4. Deal Activity in the Sectors Evaluated 21 5. Public Comparables 25 1. Executive Summary Executive Summary Summary of Evolve’s Q3:2019 Newsletter SUMMARY KEY OBSERVATIONS Our newsletter provides insight into the financial technology capital markets. ▪ Crowdfunding is become a more crowded space as new players continue to enter the sector. We offer a snapshot of market activity However, what was trendy three years ago is now commonplace as investors have dozens, if not and a detailed analysis of trends. many dozens of options. ▪ Expected increase in corporate profit and aggregate household debt will drive increased loan This issue focuses on the “crowded” activity over the five-year period, which translates into more investment opportunities for crowdfunding market, rising “accredited” and “retail” investors into these platforms. opportunities in medical billings ▪ Fierce competition with a consolidation trend through M&A is the biggest threat to smaller (specifically, the dental space), and Crowdfunding crowdfunding platforms. We believe a potential rollup is likely of best-in-class target platforms. the maturing InsurTech space (continuation). ▪ Medical billing is a highly fragmented sector with many small businesses offering various services Our sector coverage includes across the chain value. Within the space, one area we have identified being a potential front-runner companies at the intersection of is dental billing.
    [Show full text]
  • New York 2015
    Connecting the Global Online Lending Community New York 2015 April 13-15, New York Marriott Marquis lendit.co About LendIt LendIt USA is the world’s largest annual gathering of the online lending community. It is where established and emerging platforms and investors come to learn, network and do business. Last year’s US event attracted almost 1,000 attendees. This year, we expect to grow by at least 50%. 2013 375 2014 1,000 2015 1,500+ ATTENDEES PER YEAR = 100 PEOPLE Audience Breakdown Platforms 29% Institutional Platforms 29% Investors Institutional investors 27% 27% Individual investors 15% Individual Investment bankers 8% Investors Service providers 8% 15% Venture Investment Service 7% Venture Capitalists 7% Bankers Providers 8% 8% LendIt USA | New York, April 2015 p. 2 Visit lendit.co International Attendance LendIt San Francisco 2014 Country Attendees Percent USA 799 86.30% China 31 3.30% UK 22 2.40% Australia 14 1.50% Canada 7 0.80% Germany 7 0.80% New Zealand 5 0.50% South Africa 5 0.50% Taiwan 4 0.40% Argentina 3 0.30% Brazil 3 0.30% France 3 0.30% Mexico 3 0.30% Russia 3 0.30% Sweden 3 0.30% Colombia 2 0.20% Czech Republic 2 0.20% Israel 2 0.20% Puerto Rico 2 0.20% Spain 2 0.20% Brussels 1 0.10% “…LendIt 2014 was a brilliant event. Camaroon 1 0.10% The quality of the people attending, and the content of the presentations, Luxembourg 1 0.10% were awesome.” Singapore 1 0.10% Christian Faes, Co-founder, LendInvest LendIt USA | New York, April 2015 p.
    [Show full text]
  • Consistent Performing Fund Managers
    CONSISTENT PERFORMING PRIVATE EQUITY FUND MANAGERS CONSISTENT PERFORMING FUND MANAGERS A fund manager’s ability to perform consistently across multiple vehicles within a fund series is a key consideration for investors. The tables below break down the consistent top performing fund managers by fund type (buyout, venture capital and fund of funds). METHODOLOGY Preqin only assigns quartile rankings to funds that have been investing for three years or more. The lists are restricted to active fund managers that have raised a fund in the past six years or that are currently raising a fund, and have raised at least three funds of a similar strategy. An average quartile ranking is calculated and assigned to each fund manager. Funds are then given a score based on the quartile ranking: top-quartile funds receive a score of 1.00, second-quartile funds are given a score of 2.00 etc., and then an average is taken. The tables do not seek to endorse the fund managers that are listed but rather highlight those that have historically had the most consistent top fund performance. Fig. 1: Most Consistent Performing Buyout Fund Managers Overall No. of Funds No. of Funds in No. of Funds in Average Quartile Firm Headquarters with Quartile Ranking Top Quartile Second Quartile Rank Auctus Management Munich, Germany 3 3 0 1.00 Clearview Capital Stamford, US 3 3 0 1.00 Mason Wells Milwaukee, US 3 3 0 1.00 Montefi ore Investment Paris, France 3 3 0 1.00 Pechel Industries Paris, France 3 3 0 1.00 FIMI Tel Aviv, Israel 5 4 1 1.20 Altor Stockholm, Sweden 4 3 1 1.25
    [Show full text]
  • MINUTES Meeting of the Investment Committee May 22-23, 2013 A
    MINUTES Meeting of the Investment Committee May 22-23, 2013 A meeting of the Investment Committee of the Illinois Teachers’ Retirement System was held on May 22-23, 2013 at the Springfield office of the Illinois Teachers’ Retirement System 2815 West Washington Street. Cynthia O’Neill, Chair, called the meeting to order at 3:58 p.m. A quorum was present. Roll Call attendance was taken with the following trustees present: Cynthia O’Neill (Chair), Mike Busby (Vice Chair), Marcia Campbell, Jan Cleveland, Cinda Klickna, Sharon Leggett, Bob Lyons, Janice Reedus, Sonia Walwyn (departed at 4:00 p.m. on 5/23), and Molly Phalen. Absent: Enrique Vasquez and Chris Koch (President) Others present: Dick Ingram, Executive Director; Stan Rupnik, Chief Investment Officer; Greg Turk, Director of Investments; Deron Bertolo, Director of Investment Operations; Scottie Bevill, Sr. Investment Officer; Ken Musick, Investment Officer; Kenyatta Matheny, Investment Officer; Tim Hays, Sr. Investment Officer; Dakin Sanert, Sr. Investment Analyst; Bob Jiroutek, Sr. Investment Analyst; Jerry Quandt, Investment Officer; Bill Thomas, Investment Officer; Chuck Handy, Investment Officer; Tom Gray, General Counsel; Cynthia Fain, Sr. Assistant General Counsel; Stacy Smith, Director of Internal Audit; Tassi Maton, Sr. Internal Auditor, Dave Urbanek, Director of Communications; Tammy Green, Asst. to Executive Director; Sue Billington, Executive Assistant; Pat O’Hara, Cavanagh & O’Hara (Fiduciary Counsel); Jamie Shen, Callan Associates (Real Estate Consultant); Mike Krems, TorreyCove (Private Equity Consultant); Becky Gratsinger and Marcia Beard, RV Kuhns (Investment Consultant). Visitors present: Christine Williamson, Pensions & Investments; Dennis Murfin, IRTA Rep.; Shirley Dodds, IRTA Rep. (5/22); Don Davis, IRTA Rep.; Gayla Dial, IEA-R; Angela Myers, Loop Capital Markets; 5/23-UNITE HERE/River Casino: Jim Baker, Jon Scolnik, Meredith Maloney, Jim Masterani, Valerie Owes, Natasha Vandiver, Toni Kane, and Lisa James.
    [Show full text]