Download Survey - eVestment

Industry Survey
2017 Private Markets Investor &
Consultant Due Diligence
March 2017
Summary
eVestment’s survey draws on a cross-section of the
institutional investor and consultant market to
explore their private markets allocations plans and
manager due diligence practices in 2017.
Overall, our findings shed light on the increasingly
sophisticated nature of those allocating to, and
advising on, private markets investments as well as
the strategies most attractive in current market
conditions.
Highlights
•
Participants reported total institutional
assets under management of USD 2.2
trillion and private markets assets under
management of over USD 316 billion.
•
Team, Strategy and Track Record were
the top three most important factors to
respondents when evaluating a manager.
ESG was of less importance.
•
A higher percentage of respondents found
it “easy to compare manager performance
on a fair and consistent basis” than
compared to 2016 results, but the
majority of respondents still find this
difficult. More data, standardization and
transparency from fund managers was
cited as a solution.
•
Respondents are increasingly
sophisticated in their approach to due
diligence and, more specifically, Public
Market Equivalent (PME) analysis.
Contents
Foreword
3
Respondent Profile
4
2017 Private Markets Investor and Consultant Due Diligence Survey Findings
5
- Valuations, dry powder top list of private markets’ concerns
5
- Where are investors and consultants looking for returns?
6
- FoFs lead the shift to private debt
7
- Allocations to private markets strong across LPs
8
- Public pensions outpace others in diversification
8
- Team far outweighs cost and social responsibility in manager selection
9
- How important are relationships now?
9
- Do investors “trust the numbers”?
10
- “Trust but verify” – why 75% of private market investors recalculate performance
10
- What do investors and consultants really think?
11
- Size, region and institution type all impact due diligence
12
- Majority still find performance comparison a difficult and complex issue
13
- What could make comparison easier still?
13
- What is most important in track record analysis?
14
- Public market equivalent analysis – highly used and still growing
15
Breakdown of Results
16
- The Effect of AUM/AUA
16
- The Effect of Region
17
- The Effect of Institution Type
18
Foreword
Graeme Faulds, Director – Private Equity Solutions
“I have always viewed private
markets as a people business
and the results of the 2017
Private Markets Investor and
Consultant Due Diligence
Survey show the majority of
investors share this belief.
Nearly all respondents to the
survey stated that the most
important aspect of due
diligence is the people. Of
course people are only part of
the equation. The other P’s of
private markets, Performance
and Process, also feature
highly. Track record and
strategy were deemed the
second and third most
important factors respectively.
This year’s survey saw a
considerable increase in
respondents and, for the first
time, the inclusion of
consultants. As a result, the
survey respondents covered
private market assets under
management or advisory of
$316 billion.
Across the different
respondent types and
geographies it was clear that
investors continue to increase
their sophistication in how
they conduct due diligence.
3
The use of Public Market
Equivalents (PME) was up
from 69% last year, to 81% in
this year’s survey.
Furthermore, the majority of
respondents are using
multiple PME methodologies
and a variety of indices to
better identify alpha.
There was some improvement
in the number of investors
who trust the track record
numbers supplied by fund
managers, but 43% still said
they always re-calculate the
performance numbers for
themselves and a further 33%
said they often re-calculate
them. A common theme in
the findings was the need for
fund managers to supply more
detailed information to
facilitate this re-calculation,
but also to allow investors to
dig deeper and make cross
manager comparisons easier.
The issue of fees, although
still important, featured lower
on the list of key factors in
due diligence. Yet the most
important aspect of track
record analysis was examining
the net to investors cash
flows. This suggested a
greater focus on the impact of
fee structures rather than the
fee structure itself.
Finally, there were a number
of recurring themes when
respondents were asked about
their concerns for the future,
with elevated valuations being
the most common.
The findings from this year’s
survey once again confirm the
importance of high quality
information flow during the
due diligence process.”
Respondent Profile
eVestment surveyed investors and consultants across the Americas, EMEA and APAC regions in late 2016 to
investigate their private markets manager research and due diligence practices.
Respondents to the online survey included some of the world’s largest investment consultants, pensions,
endowments and private equity fund of funds. Respondents’ institutional assets under
management/administration totalled over USD 2.2 trillion and their aggregated private markets assets under
management/administration totalled over USD 316 billion.
Respondents’ Total AUM/AUA (USD)
Respondents’ Private Markets AUM/AUA (USD)
$2.2 trillion
$316 billion
Respondents by Region
Figure 1: Respondents by institution type
North America
79%
15%
7%
EMEA
ROW
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Respondents by Institution Type
Figure 2: Respondents by institution type
LPs
60%
23%
17%
Fund of Funds
Investment Consultant
0%
4
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2017 Private Markets Investor and Consultant Due
Diligence Survey Findings
Valuations, dry powder top list of private markets’
concerns
Respondents were polled on their top
concerns in 2017 for private markets
and answers were grouped into various
themes.
Consistent with answers in other
questions, fees proved to be a lesser
concern for respondents, with only 5%
stating this.
Valuations, dry powder and future
performance ranked as the top three on
average, with valuations the most
notable with close to half of respondents
stating this as a concern.
These factors are inextricably linked:
record past performance and
distributions due to sales at elevated
valuations have been a reason for an
influx of capital into private markets,
which has created dry powder. This is
pushing up valuations further as there is
more competition for deals and is
putting future performance under
threat. Managers are becoming wary of
paying high sums for deals which is
again contributing to the levels of dry
powder in the industry.
With these as the foremost concerns of
investors and consultants, managers
should be prepared to answer questions
on these topics and display how they
will navigate their way to success in a
challenging environment.
5
Figure 3: Investor and consultants' top concerns in 2017
Theme
% of Respondents
Marked as Concern
Valuations
48%
Dry Powder
26%
Future Performance
14%
Competition
12%
Regulation
10%
Political Instability
10%
Access to Managers
5%
Fees
5%
Interest Rates
5%
Deal Flows
2%
Liquidity
2%
Public Perception
2%
Where are investors and consultants looking for
returns?
When asked about their expected change of current allocations within private markets strategies, private debt
stood out to be the asset class to expect the most positive flows, followed by private equity and infrastructure.
Private debt is still a small part of respondents’ private markets portfolios (7% on average from our findings),
compared to more established holdings of private equity, venture capital and private equity real estate. The
shift to private debt is likely driven by the emergence of opportunities, and demand for higher yielding and
less correlated replacements to traditional fixed income instruments.
At the expense of increased exposure to private debt, both private equity real estate and venture capital are
expected to have smaller roles in respondents’ portfolios in 2017.
The reduction in VC exposure could suggest concerns over valuations have made their way from merely
concerns, to actual investment decisions.
It should be noted that respondents presented their expected allocations data as a percentage of their private
markets AUM/AUA, not institutional AUM/AUA, and so this does not represent a year-on-year change in the
actual dollar amounts allocated.
Figure 4: Respondents’ expected changes in private markets allocations in 2017, as percentage of private markets portfolio
20.0%
17.4%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
3.8%
3.7%
0.0%
-5.0%
-6.2%
-6.7%
-10.0%
Private Debt
6
Private Equity
Infrastructure
Private Equity Real
Estate
Venture Capital
FoFs lead the shift to private debt
When split by respondents’ institution type, broken down into limited partners (“LP”, which includes public and
corporate pension funds, family offices, insurance companies, endowments and foundations), fund of funds
(FoFs) and investment consultants (consultants), it was identified that FoFs and LPs (to a lesser degree) are
driving the increased allocations to private debt. With FoFs looking to diversify their offerings, a number have
been raising debt-focused products which is the likely driver behind the expected increase in allocations.
Consultants will appear to be a driving force behind an increase in allocations to infrastructure. It is interesting,
however, to note the anticipated difference between consultants’ expectations for infrastructure and those of
LPs.
The relative decline in private equity real estate that consultants expect to see in 2017 could be both a
reflection of the increased allocation to this strategy in previous years and perhaps a move towards more
conservative infrastructure-like assets.
Figure 5: Respondents’ expected changes in private markets allocations in 2017, by institution type.
50.0%
40.0%
37.5%
30.0%
20.0%
LP
16.7%
14.3%
10.0%
7.7%
FoFs
9.2%
2.6%
2.2%
Consultant
5.0%
0.0%
-3.5%
-3.3%
-3.7%
-10.0%
-6.0%
-7.6%
-7.7%
-14.9%
-20.0%
7
Private Debt
Private Equity
Infrastructure
Private Equity Real Estate
Venture Capital
Allocations to private markets strong across LPs
Institutional investors’ (LP’s)
allocations to private markets
as a percentage of their total
institutional AUM was also
gathered from respondents.
Figure 6: LP’s average allocation to private markets as % of total institution assets.
Endowment/Foundation
14%
The results indicate doubledigit allocations to private
markets are the norm, with
Insurance
public pension funds reporting
the largest average allocation
to the segment. Insurance
companies stated they are on
Public Pension Fund
the lower-end of the
spectrum, with an average 8%
allocated. While this group
formed a smaller portion of
survey respondents, the
Corporate Pension Fund
differing, shorter-term liquidity
needs of insurers is one
potential reason for the slower
0%
adoption of private markets
products within portfolios.
8%
16%
13%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
Public pensions outpace others in diversification
Responses from institutional investors indicate public pensions are heaviest into private equity and private
equity real estate as a percentage of their total institutional AUM. Public pensions also have the highest
allocations to private debt and infrastructure. Continuing funding concerns could be driving this group to look
for new return enhancement strategies more eagerly than other groups, especially against a backdrop of
declining yields in traditional asset classes.
Figure 7: Institutional investors’ average private markets allocations, as percentage of total institutional assets
7.0%
6.4%
6.0%
5.4%
5.0%
4.2%
3.9%
4.0%
Private Equity
Venture Capital
Private Debt
3.0%
2.0%
Private Equity Real Estate
1.9%
1.4%
1.0%
0.0%
0.6%
0.8%
1.6%
1.2%
0.9%
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
Corporate Pension
8
Infrastructure
2.0%1.9%
1.9%
Public Pension
Endowment/Foundation
1.4%
1.0%
0.2%
Insurance
Team far outweighs
cost and social
responsibility in
manager selection
Private equity is often regarded as a
people business, and respondents seem
to overwhelmingly agree with this: team
was identified by 96% of respondents as
being an extremely important
consideration when evaluating a
manager, the highest compared to other
factors.
A key finding was that despite gaining
regular coverage in the industry media,
environmental, social and governance
(ESG) was seen as an extremely
important factor to only 6% of
respondents. Another industry hot topic,
fees, was only thought of as extremely
important by 38% of respondents.
Figure 8: Extremely important factors to investors and consultants in
manager due diligence.
100%
90%
80%
Our findings highlight that investors and
consultants still dedicate a significant
amount of time on due diligence for a
re-up with an existing manager
relationship, compared to an
opportunity with a new relationship.
While relationships are important in
successful fundraising, they will not
mean managers are exempt from a
formal or stringent due diligence
process.
Managers need to be prepared for this
and factor investor and consultants’ due
diligence hours into their fundraising
timeline.
9
79%
77%
70%
62%
60%
50%
38%
40%
30%
30%
20%
6%
10%
Track record performance was
highlighted as being extremely
important to respondents, with 77%
classifying it as such and ranking it third
overall, closely behind strategy.
How important are
relationships now?
96%
0%
Figure 9: Average number of days spent on manager due diligence by
respondents, by relationship type.
50
45
45
40
35
30
25
25
20
15
10
5
0
A new relationship
A re-up with an existing
relationship
Do investors “trust the
numbers”?
Figure 10: How often respondents trust the high-level performance
numbers provided by fund managers.
Good news for private markets fund
managers is that the majority of
respondents do always or often trust the
high-level performance numbers
provided by fund managers, as Figure
10 outlines: 78% say they often or
always trust them. This is a small
increase on 2016’s results and shows
perhaps managers are doing a better
job at being transparent to gain trust.
80%
“The devil is in the detail. When only
high-level performance is shown, there
is generally something that the GP would
prefer the LP not to see. ”
30%
$12bn North American Insurance
Co.
Survey respondents said there was still
room for improvement, however. 21%
rarely or never trust high-level numbers.
When we investigated why, it was clear
that not all respondents believed highlevel performance is a true representation
of overall manager value.
“Trust but verify” – why
75% of private market
investors recalculate
performance
Even though the majority of respondents
trust manager performance, just over
three-quarters said they “always” or
“often” recalculate performance during
due diligence.
Interestingly, for the 78% of investors
and consultants that stated they “always”
or “often” trust performance shown in
Figure 10, 35% of this group said they
will still “always” recalculate performance.
Furthermore, for those that “rarely” or
“never” recalculate performance, it wasn’t
necessarily due to a lack of appreciation
of the importance of this work. Resourceconstraints was a re-occurring theme
when respondents were asked to
elaborate on their reasons.
10
74%
70%
60%
50%
40%
19%
20%
10%
4%
2%
0%
Always
Often
Rarely
Never
Figure 11: Do you recalculate fund managers’ track records when
carrying out due diligence?
50%
45%
43%
40%
35%
33%
30%
25%
20%
15%
15%
9%
10%
5%
0%
Always
Often
Rarely
Never
What do investors and consultants really
think?
Why do even those who always trust manager performance always recalculate it, or at least
frequently?
“We recalculate as often as we can, and have found
numbers almost always materially identical. However,
managers will certainly cherry pick elements of their
track record. So the issue isn't inaccuracy or
misrepresentation as it is selective representation.
Getting the entire attributable track record is key.”
>$2bn North American State Pension
“It is always critical to recreate the track record
of a manager to fully ensure you understand
their performance. It can often also lead to
insights in the due diligence process (e.g. is
strong performance concentrated to a few good
investments).”
>$2bn Family Office
“Trust but verify.”
$1.5bn Endowment
“By recalculating you can determine the impact
that bridge loans or credit facilities can have on the
numbers.”
“I don’t trust the hyperbole – top quartile. I
always test that against benchmarks.”
“Little differences in timing and qualification of
cash flows add up to meaningfully influence the
performance figures.”
$12bn Insurance Co.
“To independently verify the manager's
performance figures, perform cross-sectional
analyses, etc.”
$3.5bn Consultant
$1.5bn North American State Pension
11
$3bn Investment Consultant
Size, region and institution type all impact due diligence
By Institution Size
Institutions with more assets under
management are more diligent in always
recalculating manager-provided
performance. This suggests there are
more formal policies and processes in
place, along with the necessary
resources to devote to the task. This is
not to suggest those with fewer assets
under management are not carrying out
this work frequently, however. More
than 70% of all groups will always or
often recalculate performance.
Figure 12: Frequency of recalculation of manager-provided performance,
by private markets AUM (USD)
90%
80%
8%
70%
60%
50%
44%
40%
Often
40%
75%
Always
30%
20%
10%
28%
33%
0%
<1bn
By Institution Geography
While respondents in both EMEA and
North America both reported high
percentages (>70%) of “always” or
“often” recalculating performance,
institutions in North America were
significantly more likely to “always”
recalculate compared to their EMEA
peers.
1bn - 5bn
>5bn
Figure 13: Frequency of recalculation of manager-provided performance,
by institution geography
90%
80%
70%
33%
60%
50%
43%
Often
40%
Always
30%
47%
20%
29%
10%
0%
EMEA
North America
By Institution Type
When split by institution type, FOFs
were by far most likely to always
recalculate manager performance. Of
the three respondent types, FoFs’
business model is most dependent on
the performance of the underlying funds
in question, so the financial incentive to
be precise may be higher. Though they
act as advisors to institutional investors,
investment consultants had the lowest
number of respondents stating they
always or often recalculate managerprovided performance. This still equated
to over 60%, however. It is worth
noting that consultants and LPs did
report similar rates of “always”
recalculating.
12
Figure 14: Frequency of recalculation of manager-provided performance,
by institution type
90%
80%
9%
70%
60%
44%
25%
50%
40%
Always
73%
30%
20%
38%
33%
10%
0%
LPs
FoFs
Often
Consultants
Majority still find performance comparison a difficult and complex
issue
Along with an increased level of trust
among respondents, shown in Figure
10, there was an improvement in how
easy they feel it is to compare manager
performance on a fair and consistent
basis. 40% of this year’s respondents
agreed it is easy to compare manager
performance compared to just 22% last
year.
This result may be attributed to
continuing efforts from industry bodies
in creating and driving adoption of
standardized reporting guidelines.
Managers may also be increasing efforts
to service investors’ requests for
completion of their specific templates.
Private markets is maturing as away
from the “alternatives” label and into a
more mainstream asset management
mind-set and with this brings a focus on
client service.
Figure 15: “It is easy to compare one fund manager's performance
numbers with another on a fair and consistent basis.”
2017
40%
2016
60%
22%
0%
78%
20%
40%
60%
Agree
Disagree
80%
100%
What could make comparison easier still?
16%the majority (60%) of respondents do not
Even with an increase compared to our 2016 survey findings,
believe it is easy to carry out “apples-to-apples” comparisons across fund managers. Solution themes ranged
from access to more data, better transparency, standardization in reporting methodologies, and better
benchmarks, including public market comparisons. The key take away is that fund managers should expect
demand for more transparency and detail.
55%
29%
“There is no easy way to analyze a fund. The
more information the fund provides, the better.”
“Use several metrics: PME, TVPI, rankings.”
“Greater transparency into the constituents
within peer indices/databases.”
“ILPA Reporting template, industry consistent
rules, public market comparable standards.”
$12bn North American Insurance Co.
<$1bn South American FoFs
$3.5bn North American OCIO
“More standardized reporting, consistent
benchmarks, and consistent performance
methodologies.”
$5bn North American State Pension
13
<$1bn North American State Pension
What is most important in track record analysis?
Figure 16: Factors extremely important to investors and consultants in track record analysis.
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
85%
30%
55%
49%
20%
38%
38%
26%
10%
0%
Net to LP
Performance
Value Creation
Analysis
Deal Attribution by
Individual
Public Market
Equivalent
Performance
Daily Cash Flows
Modelling Expected
Returns of
Unrealized
Investments
16%
Interestingly, in Figure 8 earlier in our findings, which relates to the most important factors in manager
evaluation, fees (while important) was identified by respondents as one of the less important
factors. However, when asked what is extremely important in track record analysis, 85% of respondents said
“Net to LP Performance.” This suggests that while investors understand the nature of fees at the outset, the
55% the impact of these fees on
focus on net to LP performance shows they are keen to exactly understand
29%
performance.
Another hot topic driving this focus may be the increasingly common use of long term credit facilities. When
used, investor performance on an IRR-basis can be enhanced and so investors may be looking at gross vs. net
performance to assess where value has been created. On this topic, the general theme of what was driving
value and performance (Value creation, Deal attribution, Public Market Equivalent performance) were the next
three highest ranking factors across respondents.
14
Public market equivalent analysis – highly used and still growing
Is PME Broadly Used?
Yes, 81% use PME analysis. (Figure 17)
Will its Use Continue to Widen?
Yes, 53% expect to increase their use. (Figure 18)
Are more than one methods used?
Yes, 57% use more than one. (Figure 19)
Are more than one indices used?
Yes, 73% use more than one. (Figure 20)
Which methods are preferred?
Kaplan-Schoar, then PME+ are the two primary
methods. (Figure 21)
Figure 19: Number of PME methodologies used by respondents
50%
45%
44%
40%
35%
28%
30%
25%
20%
16%
13%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1
2
3
4
Figure 17: Respondents’ use of PME analysis.
Figure 20: Number of indices used by investors in PME analysis
100%
80%
90%
70%
80%
70%
60%
60%
50%
50%
40%
30%
69%
81%
More than 1
40%
73%
30%
20%
20%
10%
27%
10%
0%
2016
2017
Figure 18: Respondents planning to increase their use of
PME analysis.
0%
Figure 21: PME Methodologies used by respondents
50%
70%
60%
63%
60%
50%
50%
40%
40%
48%
53%
20%
10%
0%
10%
0%
2016
15
50%
38%
34%
30%
30%
20%
1
2017
19%
Breakdown of Results: Factors Affecting Due
Diligence
The effect of AUM/AUA on:
Trust
Across all sizes of investors and
consultants, a consistent percentage
rarely or never trust the high-level
performance numbers provided by
managers.
Figure 22: How often respondents trust high-level performance numbers
provided by managers, by Private Markets AUM/AUA.
0%
>5bn
13%
7%
1bn - 5bn
Rarely
0%
<1bn
22%
0%
Recalculating Performance
Investors and consultants with
AUM/AUA of more than $5bn are more
likely to always recalculate manager
performance compared to the other
AUM/AUA groups.
Never
25%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Figure 23: Frequency of recalculating manager performance, by Private
Markets AUM/AUA.
>5bn
75%
1bn - 5bn
8%
33%
Always
40%
Often
<1bn
28%
0%
PME Use
Use of more than one index in PME
analysis was common for the majority of
investors and consultants across all
AUM/AUA sizes.
44%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Figure 24: Number of respondents using more than one index in PME
analysis, by Private Markets AUM/AUA.
>5bn
80%
1bn - 5bn
64%
<1bn
70%
0%
16
100%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Breakdown of Results: Factors Affecting Due
Diligence
The effect of region on:
Trust
EMEA respondents were less trusting of
manager-provided performance than
their North American counterparts, with
43% of EMEA investors and consultants
stating they rarely trust this data.
Figure 25: How often respondents trust high-level performance numbers
provided by managers, by institution region.
3%
North America
16%
Never
Rarely
0%
EMEA
43%
0%
Recalculating Performance
Even though North American
respondents stated higher levels of trust
to manager-provided data, this group
was the most likely to always recalculate
performance. This highlights the findings
of all respondents that even though they
may trust performance, they will
recalculate it for their own validation
purposes.
20%
30%
40%
50%
Figure 26: Frequency of recalculation of manager-provided performance
data.
North America
47%
33%
Always
Often
EMEA
29%
0%
17
10%
20%
43%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Breakdown of Results: Factors Affecting Due
Diligence
The effect of institution type on:
Trust
Surprisingly, investment consultants
were the group that stated they are
more likely to trust manager
performance. 100% said they often
trust performance.
Conversely, more than a quarter of LPs
and FoFs rarely or never trust
performance.
Figure 27: How often respondents trust high-level performance
numbers, by institution type.
0%
LP
25%
9%
FoF
Even though investment consultants in
our survey often trust high-level
performance numbers, 63% will always
or often recalculate manager-provided
performance.
PME Use
LPs were the group with the highest
percentage using more two or more
indices in their PME analysis. With their
institutions’ total portfolios being made
up of a range of asset classes, internal
requests for different benchmarking
could be a reason driving the use of
more indices.
Rarely
0%
Consultant
0%
0%
Recalculating Performance
FoFs were identified as the group most
likely to always recalculate manager
performance. As advisors to institutional
investors, stronger processes that
include always recalculating
performance may be a focus due to
their fiduciary duty.
Never
18%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Figure 28: Frequency of recalculation of manager-provided performance
data, by institution type.
Consultant
38%
FoF
25%
73%
Always
9%
Often
LP
33%
0%
20%
44%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Figure 29: Number of indices used by respondents, by institution type
Consultant
57%
FoF
57%
2+
LP
83%
0%
18
30%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Breakdown of Results: Factors Affecting Due
Diligence
The effect of institution type on:
Manager Evaluation Factors
A notable finding was that consultants were the group that put the most focus on “Back Office Operations”,
with 63% stating it to be extremely important in manager evaluation.
This is a relatively new area of focus in manager due diligence and consultants are more likely to have the
resources to probe these areas in more depth, and even employ dedicated operational due diligence teams.
Consultants were also the group to place the highest level of importance on a manager’s track record, placing
it second in their considerations.
Figure 30: Extremely important factors in manager evaluation, by institution type.
100%
100% 100%
93%
88%
90%
86%
79%
80%
73%
70%
64%
73%
63%
63%
63%
57%
60%
Consultant
50%
40%
LP
27%
30%
21%
18%
20%
10%
4%
0%
Team
19
FoF
39%
36% 38%
Track Record
Strategy
Market
Opportunity
Back Office
Operations
Fees
0%
ESG
Company Description
Locations & Contacts
eVestment provides a flexible suite of easy-to-use, cloudbased solutions to help global investors and their
consultants select investment managers, enable asset
managers to successfully market their funds worldwide and
assist clients to identify and capitalize on global investment
trends.
Atlanta (Headquarters)
[email protected]
+1 (877) 769 2388
Sydney
[email protected]
+61 (0) 2 8211 2717
New York
[email protected]
+1 (212) 661 6050
Hong Kong
[email protected]
+852 2293 2390
Edinburgh
[email protected]
+44 (0)203 514 7691
Dubai
[email protected]
+971 561380679
To find out more about eVestment’s solutions for private
markets fund managers and limited partners visit:
www.evestment.com.com/
For more eVestment research visit:
www.evestment.com/resources/research-reports
London
[email protected]
+44 (0) 20 7651 0800
Research Group
Graeme Faulds
Director – Private Equity
[email protected]
Peter Laurelli
Global Head of Research
[email protected]
Cameron Nicol
Marketing Lead - Private Equity
[email protected]
Media Contacts
20
Mark Scott
Corporate Communications
[email protected]
+1 (678) 238 0761
Jamie Letica
Cognito (US)
[email protected]
+1 (646) 395 6305
Natalie Chan
Ryan Communication (Asia)
[email protected]
+852 3655 0539
Francesa Bliss
Cognito (UK)
[email protected]
+44 207 426 9419