far

[hopeIdontfail]

ya

[brain_wash_your_face]

@hopeIdontfail

Is it the historical cost representing the price which the fund manager purchased the asset?

Thanks

Typically, yes. Some assets are carried at cost and some are adjusted to fair value. How that fair value is derived is very important and there is typically a discussion of it.

[hopeIdontfail]

@brain\_wash\_your\_face

@hopeIdontfail

Is it the historical cost representing the price which the fund manager purchased the asset?

Thanks

Typically, yes. Some assets are carried at cost and some are adjusted to fair value. How that fair value is derived is very important and there is typically a discussion of it.

Thanks, wouldn’t “Cost” be a static figure then? Looking at different reports (Q1, Q2 etc.) it looks as though that figure is changing.

[Yayyywork]

cost can change if the fund that owns the company needs to put additional capital into it, but otherwise yes it would be static footnote on the balance sheet and would looke like this:

Investments at FMV (Cost $100): $120

[hopeIdontfail]

@Yayyywork

cost can change if the fund that owns the company needs to put additional capital into it, but otherwise yes it would be static footnote on the balance sheet and would looke like this:

Investments at FMV (Cost $100): $120

Thanks, that’s very helpful. So in essence it is a running total of the amount the GP has funded its portfolio company?

[Yayyywork]

essentially yes - that is my understanding. Now if that investment is made up of debt it could also include amortization of that debt as well, so its not exactly 1 for 1.

[hopeIdontfail]

@Yayyywork

essentially yes - that is my understanding. Now if that investment is made up of debt it could also include amortization of that debt as well, so its not exactly 1 for 1.

Interesting. May I ask where you learned about all of this? Just through industry experience? We typically just do equity investments.