GP-led secondary pricing fairness; IA no-no

NAV has its limits when it comes to GP-led secondary pricing; SEC files suit against a pair of investment advisors for alleged breach of fiduciary duty.

Restructuring: Here’s a column by Duff & Phelps’ David Lee making “the case for fairness opinions in GP-led secondaries“.The topic was much talked about at the CFOs & COOs Forum in January, as the market grows in size – to the point where it might be, without some new innovation, at saturation point. Lee focuses on the inherent problems with relying on NAV for secondary pricing, and points to ILPA’s recommendation of fairness opinions, even in transactions where a GP hired a financial advisor to solicit for bids.

I’m still fairly new here, but I would have thought that approach was fairly standard – and I’d be interested to hear how you approach pricing your restructurings, so please get in touch if you’d like to chat, even on background.

Fees and fiduciary duty: Here’s one from sister title Regulatory Compliance Watch on an SEC case against two California investment advisors who the agency says didn’t disclose to their clients that they were making hundreds of thousands in non-advisory comp for rolling their money into two private real estate funds. A definite a no-no, should the SEC’s claims prove to be correct.

Email prepared by Graham Bippart