Subject: RE: Our FOFs pro-forma
From: "Neil Callahan" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>, "'Eric Schwerin'" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "'Devon Archer'" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:01:07 -0400

Good, makes more sense and adds more clarity.

Arlene and I just finished the review of the FoF deck and she will send off
a version for you guys to review today.   She'd like to get it to Casey on
Wednesday to put some feelers out there.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------

Neil Callahan

Rosemont Seneca

401 Greenwich Street, Suite 400 | New York NY 10013 | 212-933-9965

1010 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 705 | Washington DC 20007 | 202-333-1880

917-945-9516 (mobile) 

866-749-8879  (fax) 

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 10:35 AM
To: [email-masked]; Eric Schwerin
Cc: Devon Archer
Subject: Re: Our FOFs pro-forma

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 SprintR Now Network from my BlackBerryR

  _____  

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] <x-msg://59/[email-masked]> 

P Consider the environment before printing this email.