Okay. We have a bias, but from what we can tell, no one has as much to gain from private equity reporting and valuation guidelines and
standards as we do. We support all efforts whole-heartedly. We have our own ideas about how they could be accomplished. We just wish that these efforts would come together.

Electronic or Pseudo-Electronic?

A GP may think he's doing you a favor by giving you a PDF, but what good is it to you if you're getting 200 reports in PDF format every quarter?
Go ahead, knock yourself out, analyze that! XML data standards might be nice, but how long do investors have to wait until all GPs are on the
same standard? Who arbitrates this mess? What about the outliers? What about informational timing differences from GP to GP? How is a fund
of funds tracked and valued?

Tower of Babel

We fight this battle every day. With privateInformant, our web-based portfolio holding data service, we review thousands of partnership reports
a year. We see the good, the bad, and the ugly. Our analysts read, analyze, and research the information contained in these reports and would love to have better consistency. And though we deliver data to subscribers in a high-tech way, why would we, a company with its roots in technology, opt for this decidedly low-tech data input solution? It's simple: we believe, at the current time, that our approach is the most cost-efficient means that provides the highest quality data.

Study these reports, their balance sheets and schedules of investments. Research these companies, carefully, as we do, and you decide how technology can be used to bring order to this Tower of Babel. We will continue to look for efficiencies where we can. We'll be happy to comment
on standards. But we won't let that get in the way of helping you track your current portfolio and hopefully, helping you make well--informed investment decisions.