GLOUS12B Patrick Gerschel Sectian 2: Investment Performance Glendower Capital Secondary Opportunities Fund M 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 limited partners SO% • Cava (mann Isar ad wilt • 1a..0a, )94 sac SOF "I 20% 1)14 COIF i SCE II i lb% as 20% . 2% i • a $ t t ; i t ,,,, I " • .4 40 ; ss • es 00 Oir II, • ! it 1l Iv ▪ a I SC DPI • lab 04 a) 70 s 0 1V11: a".. .50; :TI: I DP e II 904 6 iya I ).• OF' • 0 I . yr 1:41 *C9 10 11 12 13 11 am% OF4 maw R6111 r¶O and CF4 SC, •nta RYP1 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 vFw OPP n • COIF a. 01. LW• 03. Xdf. AN Alt Al, nr) A,1 .M11. FOS Wee <4 1 art wa, art x‘ 0 Some: Cambridge Associates Secondaries Benchmaik statistics as of September 31 2017 SOF Funds are shown benchmarked against their vintage 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 figures in reaped ci SW and SOF D have not been audited and should be read and ItV16Wed n comma :al with Appendix 5 impOrtan4PallonnanCe Imismatton Past pedamance of SOF Finds * not a predecton ci hiture performance. Information presented n Exhibt 21s based cn the