EMAIL DETAILS

Agreed. Exactly.

Eric D. Schwerin
eschwerin@rosemontseneca.com

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 27, 2010, at 9:34 AM, hbiden@rosemontseneca.com 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: ncallahan@rosemontseneca.com
> Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 03:25:42 +0000
> To: Eric Schwerin<eschwerin@rosemontseneca.com>
> Cc: Hunter Biden<hbiden@rosemontseneca.com>; Devon Archer<darcher@rosemontseneca.com
> >
> 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 <eschwerin@rosemontseneca.com>
> Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 18:32:27 -0400
> To: Neil Callahan<ncallahan@rosemontseneca.com>
> Cc: Hunter Biden<hbiden@rosemontseneca.com>; Devon Archer<darcher@rosemontseneca.com
> >
> 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
> eschwerin@rosemontseneca.com
> P Consider the environment before printing this email.