If that's what happened, that would be more on McAuliffe than on Carlyle and/or Youngkin. Squaring the circle: One possibility is that McAuliffe sold his LP stakes on the secondary market at a loss before they matured, which would have required Carlyle's permission. Carlyle also wouldn't comment (nor will it even confirm that McAuliffe was a limited partner, despite his public disclosures).The caveat is that the co-investment return is an aggregate number, not specific to any individual co-investment fund.Ī McAuliffe campaign spokesperson stood by the debate claim, but declined to elaborate.Co-investment funds don't always have the exact same portfolio mix as main funds, but Carlyle has consistently reported a much higher net IRR for its co-investment business than for most of its main funds.The funds report positive, double-digit net IRRs both for their ends-of-life, and also for the periods ending when McAuliffe filed relevant public disclosures.These are net IRRs, which means that they were calculated after first subtracting management fees, expenses and carried interest. Carlyle reported positive, double-digit returns for all three of the main funds associated with the co-investment vehicles. ![]() Two were tied to Carlyle's flagship buyout funds, and one to an energy fund.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |