Subject: Re: Our FOFs pro-forma
From: "Eric Schwerin" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>, "Devon Archer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 10:04:03 -0500

Agreed.  Exactly.

Eric D. Schwerin
[email-masked]

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 27, 2010, at 9:34 AM, [email-masked] wrote:

> Only reason to do it is to move our alt inv advisory business into a  
> investment mgmt business- avoid conflict when approaching investors  
> and give Arlene a home she is comfortable and competent running.
>
> As a FoFs we can approach institutional and high net worth on our  
> own terms and not on behalf of a "client." It would simply be  
> another high value arrow in our quiver.
>
> Aside from that it relieves the pressure of me busting my ass for  
> 20K p/m clients with close relationships for no more than what we  
> are getting on a retainer basis.
>
> The way I look at it is this: Arlene runs the FoFs business- she has  
> commitments for first 50M- we develop track record and raise more if  
> we see real potential. The fund charges no I.m. Fee and no incentive  
> fee for first 50M. We DO charge expenses which include Arlene's  
> salary. After first 50 and a few years of real progress we raise  
> more and charge typical 1 and 10.
>
> One of the realities we have come up against is raising from Taft  
> Hartley is more complicated than I thought. If we were raising for  
> co-invest 2 or Matador I'd be able to put it all on the line as my  
> own. Doing it as a pseudo 3rd party is hard to explain.
> Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®
>
> From: [email-masked]
> Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 03:25:42 +0000
> To: Eric Schwerin<[email-masked]>
> Cc: Hunter Biden<[email-masked]>; Devon Archer<[email-masked] 
> >
> Subject: Re: Our FOFs pro-forma
>
> Agreed. Once I have the concept draft outlining the opportunity  
> (tomorrow AM), I will attach this page of "considerations" for us to  
> discuss. I still don't fully understand why we'd do this, but need  
> to see it fully laid out.
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> From: Eric Schwerin <[email-masked]>
> Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 18:32:27 -0400
> To: Neil Callahan<[email-masked]>
> Cc: Hunter Biden<[email-masked]>; Devon Archer<[email-masked] 
> >
> Subject: Re: Our FOFs pro-forma
>
> Neil-
>
> Per our conversation today, it would be helpful to evaluate this  
> FOFs on a variety of levels.
>
> 1) Do we agree that we should take no management fee/performance fee?
> 2) Do we think the money could be raised if we did take either fees?
> 3) If we think the money can be raised, how much time would be  
> required from the principals to do so?  Arlene believes she can  
> raise all of the money if we had no fees.  But is it worth others'  
> time to try and raise money if we were to charge a fee?
> 4) What is the purpose of this if we are getting no income from it?
> 5) Do we develop a model where the first $50m is fee-free, but  
> anything after that involves a fee?  How much would we make from  
> this and at what point would we have the ability to jettison our  
> Fund clients?
> 6) What would having the FOF be "woman-owned" by Arlene mean?
> 7) Would we charge fees for legal and regulatory work at least?  It  
> shouldn't cost us anything, right?
>
> Just some questions how I am framing this.
>
> Eric
>
>
>
>
> Eric D. Schwerin
> Rosemont Seneca Partners, LLC
> 1010 Wisconsin Ave., NW
> Suite 705
> Washington, DC 20007
> (202) 333-1880
> [email-masked]
> P Consider the environment before printing this email.