<div class="et_pb_section et_pb_section_0 et_section_regular" >
				
				
				
				
				
				
				<div class="et_pb_row et_pb_row_0">
				<div class="et_pb_column et_pb_column_4_4 et_pb_column_0  et_pb_css_mix_blend_mode_passthrough et-last-child">
				
				
				
				
				<div class="et_pb_module et_pb_text et_pb_text_0  et_pb_text_align_left et_pb_bg_layout_light">
				
				
				
				
				<div class="et_pb_text_inner">This article describes a study that analyzed the private equity performance and costs of large pension funds. Using data from the CEM Benchmarking Inc. (CEM) database, we establish that implementation style affects net performance: internal management outperforms external management, and external management outperforms funds of funds (FOF). Since the difference in net performance is due largely to cost, we examine the cost differential of various implementation styles as well as some of the challenges in understanding the true costs of investing in the private equity asset class.<br />
The raw material for this study came from the databases of CEM Benchmarking Inc.1 These databases contain performance and cost information on more than 1,000 pension and sovereign wealth funds from around the globe. Assets under management as of December 31, 2012, ranged from US$0.4 billion to US$644.8 billion, with an average size of US$18.3 billion and aggregate assets of US$6.8 trillion. The actual allocation per fund to private equity in 2012 ranged from 0.0% to 25.5%, with an average of 4.1% and a median of 2.9%.</div>
			</div><div class="et_pb_button_module_wrapper et_pb_button_0_wrapper et_pb_button_alignment_center et_pb_module ">
				<a class="et_pb_button et_pb_button_0 et_pb_bg_layout_dark" href="https://20903941.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/20903941/PDFs/Research%20Downloads/Article_Illiquid_Assets.pdf" target="_blank" data-icon="&#x24;">Download Full Article</a>
			</div>
			</div>
				
				
				
				
			</div>
				
				
			</div>
