Ian Sterne Section 2: Investment Performance Glendower Capital Secondary Opportunities Fund ft/, LP In Exhibit 2 each of SOF. SOF D. SOF II and SOF III is benchinarked against its vintage peer group reported in the Cambridge Associates Secondaries Benchmark statistics (September 30, 2017). The SOF Funds present comparatively strong Net IRR. DPI and TVPI across each vintage year. Exhibit 2: SOF Funds performance versus Cambridge Associates Secondary Fund Benchmark " 34 37 Secondary funds: Net IRR to limited partners Secondary funds: Net multiple to hinged partners • dppti (maw 1pw 61 ash • 1P:0r • ; Sac SOF el 2106 • t ; xw 2* l 1d I lea 0s. toe Iv" DPi • ad, 41 1 a 00 06 14 • • ! 14 14 $5 /6 SOF 0 1VDt DP1.3 I. 44, 1 1VVI ; 1 I, pP e II 904 6 Math I 3. OH • 0 1. I . or at •09 '10 11 It 13 11 4510g. On rad. mot .90F tab CPI SC, tea 11e1 In Exhibit 3. each of SOF. SOF D. SOF II and SOF III is benchmarked against its vintage group of top quartile buyout funds reported in the Cambridge Associates Global Buyout Benchmark as of September 30. 2017. Again, the SOF Funds present comparatively strong Net IRR, DPI and TVPI across each vintage year. Exhibit 3: Buyout•hke returns with a secondary risk profiles 16 14. 14 OPP PP I IS. 4.4 SOF• • COIF 03. .CO1 494 Alt An no n,r Pete to • Fs Pon at•• tt- • La e a D• Ss 1 • oc= x y, e Ni N1 tN . 1art ant art a's 0:10 Some: Cambrklge Associates Secondaries Benchmaik statistics as of September 30 2017 SOF Funds are shown benchmarked against their Velar yew peer group SOF and SOF 0 performance is not included in the data se teed to calculate the benchmark data Note that the performance tomes in reaped ci SW and SOF D have not been audited and should be read and rewewed n comma:al huh Appendix 5 !ovarian' PeflonnanCe I raismatton Past pedamance of SOF Finds 6 not a predecton ci Mute performance. Information presented n Exhibt 2 is based at the insist