Financial Performance & Scoring -- © 2006 Gaskins IPO Desktop/IPOdesktop

Financial Performance & Scoring -- © 2007 Gaskins IPO Desktop/IPOdesktop
Pre-IPO analysis, grading & scoring -- updated June 26
. Business Model Rating Criteria
A = high growth market, potential leader; B = more competitive market; C= 'public venture capital'
. Calculations
. IPO Price to annualized Sales Ratio -- (Price / Sales)
Numerator		Denominator
IPO market capitalization…		Annualized Sales (based on recent results)
(post-IPO # of shares times mid-point of IPO price range)
. IPO Price to annualized Earnings (loss) -- (Price / Earnings)
Numerator		Denominator
IPO market cap		Annualized Earnings (loss) from the last quarter
Includes Blackstone, see last pre-IPO report
===================
June 25wk week IPO schedule
VALUATION RATIOS	IPO Mrkt	Price /	Price /	Price /	Price /	% offered
	Cap (mm)	Sales	Earnings	BookValue	TangibleBV	in IPO
AuthenTec (AUTH)	$260	7.0	-34	4.3	4.1	29%
fingerprint authentication sensors: C+, 6						Post-IPO shrs: 26m

comScore (SCOR)	$411	5.4	69	5.7	5.6	18%
Market research: C+, 8						Post-IPO shrs: 27.4m

Data Domain (DDUP)	$648	12.0	-108	7.3	7.3	14%
disk-based storage applicances: C+, 8						Post-IPO shrs: 52m

Polypore Intern'l (PPO)	$846	1.6	101	2.5	-2.0	37%
membranes for batteries & medical apps: C, 7						Post-IPO shrs: 40m

PROS Holdings (PRO)	$284	5.3	31	12.5	12.5	26%
pricing/revenue optimization software: C+, 7						Post-IPO shrs: 26m

Quark Pharma (QURK)	$238	4.1	8	3.3	3.3	27%
RNA interference-based treatments: C, 6						Post-IPO shrs: 18m

ShoreTel (SHOR)	$392	4.3	70	4.3	4.3	19%
IP telecommunications systems: C+, 7			June 30 fiscal			Post-IPO shrs: 41m

Spectra Energy LP (SEP)	$892	8.4	10	0.9	1.6	22%
natural gas transporation/storage L.P.: C+, 7						Post-IPO shrs: 44.6m

Spreadtrum Com (SPRD)	$497	4.7	62	3.4	3.5	21%
Chinese designer of wireless handset Ics: C+, 7						Post-IPO shrs: 41mm ADSs equiv

June 25wk financials, analysis, grading, scoring
AuthenTec	AUTH, C+, 6
fingerprint authentication sensors						Post-IPO shrs: 26m
Melbourne, FL	2004	2005	2006	March, 06*	March, 07*	IPO Mkt
Rev ($mm)	$14	$19	$33	$7	$9	Cap (mm)
Gross Profit %	46%	41%	42%	43%	46%	$260
Profit (loss) $mm	-$5	-$6	-$8	-$1.1	-$1.9	@$10
Profit (loss) %	-34.8%	-31.8%	-23.8%	-14.9%	-20.4%
				*quarter ended March 31
VALUATION RATIOS	IPO Mrkt	Price /	Price /	Price /	Price /	% offered
	Cap (mm)	Sales	Earnings	BookValue	TangibleBV	in IPO
AuthenTec (AUTH)	$260	7.0	-34	4.3	4.1	29%
SCORECARD		Mgt	Market	Market Do-	Proprie-	Total
1-5, 5 is high			Growth	mination	tary	rating
20 is perfect		2	2	1	1	6
Business
. Mixed-signal semiconductor company providing fingerprint authentication sensors and solutions to the
high-volume PC, wireless device and access control markets.
. Believes its products, based on a patented TruePrint-based technology, are the most accurate, reliable,
cost-effective, easy to use and versatile products commercially available today.
Shipments
. Since inception, has shipped over 16 million sensors which have been integrated into over 150 different
models of laptops, desktops and PC peripherals as well as over 6 million mobile phones.
. In response to increasing demand, shipped over 6.9 million sensor units in 2006, a 122.6% increase over
the 3.1 million sensor units shipped in 2005.
. During the three months ended March 30, 2007, shipped 1.9 million sensor units and generated revenue of
$9.3 million, an increase of 32.0% and 25.7%, respectively, over the three months ended March 31, 2006.
Outsources manufacturing
. Does do not own or operate own semiconductor fabrication, wafer bumping, assembly or test facilities
Depends on independent vendors to manufacture, assemble and test fingerprint sensor products
Customer concentration, for the quarter ended Mary 31, 2007
Fujitsu Ltd. 24.6	%
Compal Electronics, Inc.20.4%
Inventec Corporation 15.4%
Richpower Electronic Devices Co. 13.9%
Competition
Competes primarily with other suppliers of biometric fingerprint sensors used in PC, wireless device and
access control applications.
. Principal competitors include private companies focused on the fingerprint sensor market such as Atrua,
Inc., Fidelicia Microsystems, Inc., Symwave, Inc., UPEK, Inc., Validity Sensors, Inc., and certain divisions
operating within public companies such as Atmel, Lite-on Technology Group, Mitsumi Electronic Co., Ltd.
and others.
. The manufacturing, packaging and method of acquiring and analyzing biometric information employed by
competitors is generally different than AUTH's, and different amongst each competitor
Use of $51m in IPO proceeds from sale of 5.6mm shares
(shareholders intend to see 1.9mm shares)
General corporate purposes, including working capital, a portion of which to use to increase the number of
personnel in sales and marketing and research and development groups
===================
comScore	SCOR, C+, 8
Market research						Post-IPO shrs: 27.4m
Reston, VA	2004	2005	2006	March, 06*	March, 07*	IPO Mkt
Rev ($mm)	$35	$50	$66	$15	$19	Cap (mm)
Gross Profit %	63%	64%	69%	66%	72%	$411
Profit (loss) $mm	-$3	-$9	$6	$0.1	$1.5	@$20
Profit (loss) %	-9.1%	-18.8%	8.6%	0.6%	7.9%
Adjusted EBITEDA			$10		$3
Adjusted EBITEDA % of rev			15%		14%
Operating cash flow ($mm)			$11	$15	$3
Operating cash flow % of reve			17%		17%
Subscription revenues ($mm)				$11	$14
Subscription revenues % of rev				73%	76%
				*quarter ended March 31
VALUATION RATIOS	IPO Mrkt	Price /	Price /	Price /	Price /	% offered
compare & contrast	Cap (mm)	Sales	Earnings	BookValue	TangibleBV	in IPO
comScore (SCOR)	$411	5.4	69	5.7	5.6	18%
						buy-out price
NetRatings--purchased 6/22	$748	8.5	968	2.7	4.0	$21
by Neilsen
Some analysts are suggest a comparable (NetRatings) buy-out price for SCOR for be $20
comScore (SCOR) $20	$548	7.2	91	7.7	7.4	$20
SCORECARD		Mgt	Market	Market Do-	Proprie-	Total
1-5, 5 is high			Growth	mination	tary	rating
20 is perfect		2	2	2	2	8
Business
. Provide a leading digital marketing intelligence platform that helps customers make better-informed
business decisions and implement more effective digital business strategies.
. Products and solutions offer customers deep insights into consumer behavior, including objective, detailed
information regarding usage of their online properties and those of their competitors, coupled with
information on consumer demographic characteristics, attitudes, lifestyles and offline behavior.
Platform
. The digital marketing intelligence platform is comprised of proprietary databases and a computational
infrastructure that measures, analyzes and reports on digital activity.
. The foundation of the platform is data collected from a comScore panel of more than two million Internet
users worldwide who have granted explicit permission to confidentially measure their Internet usage
patterns, online and certain offline buying behavior and other activities
Customer based & subscription dollars
. The total customer base grew during the first three months of 2007 by a net increase of 37 customers to a
total of 743 customers as of March 31, 2007 compared to 706 customers as of December 31, 2006.
. There was continued revenue growth in both subscription revenues, which increased by approximately
$3.6 million from $10.9 million in the first three months of 2006 to $14.5 million in the first three months
of 2007
Subscription Revenues
. Generate a significant proportion of subscription-based revenues from the Media Metrix product family
. Products within the Media Metrix family include Media Metrix 2.0, Plan Metrix, World Metrix and
Video Metrix.
. Intends to commercially launch Ad Metrix in the second quarter of 2007. These product offerings provide
subscribers with intelligence on digital media usage, audience characteristics, audience demographics and
online and offline purchasing behavior.
. Also generates subscription-based revenues from certain reports and analyses provided through comScore
Marketing Solutions, if that work is procured by customers for at least a nine month period and the
customer enters into an agreement to continue or extend the work
Campaign Metrix
In the second quarter of 2007, intends to commercially launch Campaign Metrix, a product that will
provide detailed information about online advertising campaigns.
. Project revenues from Campaign Metrix will be generated when a customer accesses or downloads a
report through the Web site.
. Pricing for the Campaign Metrix product will initially be based on the scope of the information
provided in the report generated by the customer.
Competition
o large and small companies that provide data and analysis of consumers' online behavior, including
Compete Inc., Hitwise Pty. Ltd and NetRatings, Inc.;
o online advertising companies that provide measurement of online ad effectiveness, including aQuantive,
Inc., DoubleClick Inc., ValueClick Inc., and WPP Group plc;
o companies that provide audience ratings for TV, radio and other media that have extended or may extend
their current services, particularly in certain international markets, to the measurement of digital media,
including Arbitron Inc., Nielsen Media Research, Inc. and Taylor Nelson Sofres plc;
o analytical services companies that provide customers with detailed information of behavior on their own
Web sites, including Omniture, Inc., WebSideStory, Inc. and WebTrends Corporation;
o full-service market research firms and survey providers that may measure online behavior and attitudes,
including Harris Interactive Inc., Ipsos Group, Taylor Nelson Sofres plc and The Nielsen Company; and
o specialty information providers for certain industries that we serve, including IMS Health Incorporated
(healthcare) and Telephia, Inc. (telecommunications).
Use of $67mm in IPO proceeds
Has no specific plans for the use of a significant portion of the net proceeds of this offering.
===================
Data Domain (DDUP)	DDUP, C+, 8
disk-based storage applicances						Post-IPO shrs: 52m
Santa Clara, CA	2004	2005	2006	March, 06*	March, 07*	IPO Mkt
Rev ($mm)	$1	$8	$46	$8	$20	Cap (mm)
Gross Profit %	-75%	37%	69%	63%	67%	$648
Profit (loss) $mm	-$10	-$14	-$4	-$0.8	-$1.5	@$12.5
Profit (loss) %	-1225.0%	-170.4%	-8.6%	-10.1%	-7.4%
				*quarter ended March 31
VALUATION RATIOS	IPO Mrkt	Price /	Price /	Price /	Price /	% offered
	Cap (mm)	Sales	Earnings	BookValue	TangibleBV	in IPO
Data Domain (DDUP)	$648	12.0	-108	7.3	7.3	14%
SCORECARD		Mgt	Market	Market Do-	Proprie-	Total
1-5, 5 is high			Growth	mination	tary	rating
20 is perfect		2	2	2	2	8
Business
. A leading provider of capacity-optimized storage appliances for disk-based backup and network-based
disaster recovery.
. Appliances reduce the storage of redundant copies of data and associated storage costs within enterprises
and are an alternative to tape-based protection storage systems.
Industry
. In 2007, revenues from the tape-based storage market are expected to be approximately $4.7 billion based
on estimates from Freeman Reports, an industry research firm.
. Storage solutions address protection storage requirements with low operating costs, ease of use, high
performance, reliability and compatibility with leading enterprise backup software.
Sales
Sells appliances through a network of channel partners and a direct sales force.
. As of March 31, 2007, had over 100 channel partners and DDUP appliances had been purchased by over
750 enterprises worldwide.
. In each of the year ended December 31, 2006 and the three months ended March 31, 2007, 85% of
revenue was generated by sales through indirect channels
Compression technology
DDUP's disk-based appliances combine DDUP's Global Compression technology with industry standard
components to enable dramatic reductions in the amount of stored backup data.
. Global Compression technology incorporates a process called data deduplication, which avoids storing
redundant copies of data while writing data to disk.
. When used to deduplicate a single data set over 20 weeks of regular backup storage events, DDUP's
appliances are designed to achieve a range of data compression of approximately 10x to 30x.
. The actual range of data compression obtained by customers depends on the frequency of full backup
events, the length of time backup data is retained and the redundancy of the backup data.
. Through deduplication, DDUP's appliances enable enterprises to cost-effectively utilize WAN vaulting, a
process by which enterprises replicate backup data offsite using a wide area network, or WAN.
. DDUP's appliances also provide advanced levels of data protection that are designed to ensure that
backup data is accurate and recoverable.
International
. Expects growth in international markets to be a significant factor contributing to revenue growth in future
periods.
. International revenue accounted for approximately 32% and 28% of total revenue in the year ended
December 31, 2006 and the three months ended March 31, 2007, respectively.
. However, over time, DDUPexpects international revenue to increase in absolute dollars and as a
percentage of total revenue.
Three Months Ended March 31, 2007 Compared to the Three Months Ended March 31, 2006:
> Product revenue increased $12.5 million, from $5.4 million in the three months ended March 31, 2006 to
$17.9 million in the three months ended March 31, 2007,
. Due to an increase in the number of units sold to new and existing customers, an increase in the number of
sales personnel, an increase in the number of our channel partners, and the introduction of new products.
. These products, which have higher capacity and higher performance, were sold at higher average sales
prices. DDUP expects to continue to release new products with higher capacity and higher performance.
> Support and services revenue increased $2.0 million, from $172,000 in the three months ended March 31,
2006 to $2.1 million in the three months ended March 31, 2007.
. This increase was the result of increased product sales and, to a lesser extent, the renewal of support and
services contracts by existing customers.
. Substantially all customers purchase support and services contracts when they purchase appliances..
Competition
The protection storage market is highly competitive and is driven by rapidly changing technology.
. In addition to competing with traditional providers of tape-based storage systems, such as Sun
Microsystems, Inc. and Quantum Corporation, DDUP
. Competes with other established storage companies such as EMC Corporation and Network Appliance,
Inc., and to a lesser extent Hitachi Data Systems Corporation, Hewlett-Packard Company and International
Business Machines Corporation, that offer a variety of different protection storage products.
. Some of our competitors sell, or have announced plans to sell, capacity-optimized storage products that
compete directly with DDUP appliances.
. Also competes with a number of emerging hardware and software companies that may become more
significant competitors in the future. In addition, in certain segments of the market, we may compete with
WAN acceleration and backup software providers that incorporate deduplication capabilities in their
products.
Use of $78mm in IPO proceeds
. expansion of domestic and international sales and marketing activities, including hiring additional
personnel and growing the network of channel partners;
. investment in research and development to enhance the capacity and performance of appliances;
. deployment of products and technology into other sectors of the storage market; and
. other corporate opportunities that may arise in the future.
===================
Polypore Intern'l	PPO, C, 7
membranes for batteries & medical apps						Post-IPO shrs: 40m
Charlotte, NC	2004	2005	2006	March, 06*	March, 07*	IPO Mkt
Rev ($mm)	$490	$435	$480	$115	$130	Cap (mm)
Gross Profit %	31%	34%	34%	35%	37%	$846
Operating Income %	13%	15%	9%	17%	19%	@$21
Interest %	10%	19%	19%	19%	18%
Profit (loss) $mm	$7	-$3	-$30	-$1.5	$2.1
Profit (loss) %	1.5%	-0.7%	-6.2%	-1.3%	1.6%
				*quarter ended March 31
VALUATION RATIOS	IPO Mrkt	Price /	Price /	Price /	Price /	% offered
	Cap (mm)	Sales	Earnings	BookValue	TangibleBV	in IPO
Polypore Intern'l (PPO)	$846	1.6	101	2.5	-2.0	37%
SCORECARD		Mgt	Market	Market Do-	Proprie-	Total
1-5, 5 is high			Growth	mination	tary	rating
20 is perfect		2	2	2	1	7
Business
. A leading global high technology filtration company that develops, manufactures and markets specialized
microporous membranes used in separation and filtration processes.
. Manufactures products at facilities in North America, Europe and Asia.
Two business segments
(i) the energy storage segment, which accounted for approximately 72% of fiscal 2006 net sales; and
(ii) the separations media segment, which accounted for approximately 28% of our fiscal 2006 net sales.
Three months ended March 31, 2007 compared with the three months ended April 1, 2006
> Net sales for the three months ended March 31, 2007 were $129.8 million, an increase of $14.5 million,
or 12.6%, from the three months ended April 1, 2006.
. Energy storage sales for the three months ended March 31, 2007 were $93.9 million, an increase of $10.7
million, or 12.9%.
. The increase in energy storage sales was primarily due to higher lead-acid and lithium battery separator
sales volume, higher average sales prices for lead-acid battery separators and the positive impact of
dollar/euro exchange rate fluctuations of $2.5 million.
. Lead-acid separator volume growth of 6.6% was driven by the increasing size of the automotive market,
particularly in Asia, and the trend of conversion from alternative separator materials to superior
performing polyethylene-based separators.
. In addition, average sales prices increased due to global price increases implemented in the three months
ended December 30, 2006 to offset higher raw material and energy costs. The increase in sales volumes of
15.3% for lithium battery separators was driven by strong demand for consumer electronic products and
expanding applications for lithium batteries.
> Separations media sales for the three months ended March 31, 2007 were $35.9 million, an increase of
$3.8 million, or 11.8% from the same period in the prior year.
. The increase in separations media sales was due to higher sales of industrial and specialty filtration
products and the positive impact of dollar/euro exchange rate fluctuations of $2.2 million.
. The 29.8% growth in sales of industrial and specialty filtration products was due to continued growth in
demand for high performance filtration applications.
. In total, hemodialysis sales for the three months ended March 31, 2007 were comparable to the three
months ended April 1, 2006. Synthetic membrane sales volumes increased due to continued market growth
for synthetic membranes. The increase in synthetic membrane sales was offset by the decline in cellulosic
membrane sales.
. During 2006, produced sufficient quantities of cellulosic membranes to meet our customers' needs and
ceased production of cellulosic membranes. Expects to sell the majority of our remaining quantities of
cellulosic membranes during 2007.
Competition
> Within the energy storage segment, primary competitors in the market for membrane separators used in
lead-acid batteries for transportation and industrial applications are Entek International LLC ("Entek") in
North America and Europe and Nippon Sheet Glass Co., Ltd. in Japan. In addition, we have a number of
smaller competitors in South Korea, Indonesia, China, and North America.
. Also competes with Asahi Kasei Chemicals Corporation, Tonen Chemical Corporation (a subsidiary of
ExxonMobil) and Ube Industries Limited as well as a number of smaller competitors elsewhere in Asia in
the market for membrane separators used in lithium batteries.
> Within the separations media segment, competes primarily with Fresenius Medical Care, Gambro AG,
Asahi Kasei Medical Co., Ltd. and Toyobo Co. Ltd. for membranes used in dialysis.
. In addition, we compete primarily with Terumo Medical Corp. in the blood oxygenation market and Asahi
Kasei Medical Co., Ltd. and Fresenius Medical Care in the plasmapheresis market.
. Also within the separations media segment, our industrial and specialty filtration business competes
across multiple markets and applications; principal competitors include Pall Corporation, Millipore
Corporation, Koch Membrane Systems (a division of Koch Industries), Norit B.V., and Dainippon Ink and
Chemicals, Inc. Product innovation and performance, quality, service, utility and cost are the primary
competitive factors, with technical support being highly valued by the largest customers.
Use of $294mm in IPO proceeds
Repay debt
===================
PROS Holdings	PRO, C+, 7
pricing/revenue optimization software						Post-IPO shrs: 26m
Houston, TX	2004	2005	2006	March, 06*	March, 07*	IPO Mkt
Rev ($mm)	$32	$35	$46	$10	$13	Cap (mm)
Gross Profit %	59%	62%	66%	66%	69%	$284
Profit (loss) $mm	$4	$3	$7	$1.0	$2.3	@$11
Profit (loss) %	11.4%	9.7%	15.2%	10.4%	18.4%
				*quarter ended March 31
VALUATION RATIOS	IPO Mrkt	Price /	Price /	Price /	Price /	% offered
	Cap (mm)	Sales	Earnings	BookValue	TangibleBV	in IPO
PROS Holdings (PRO)	$284	5.3	31	12.5	12.5	26%
SCORECARD		Mgt	Market	Market Do-	Proprie-	Total
1-5, 5 is high			Growth	mination	tary	rating
20 is perfect		2	2	1.5	1	6.5
Business
. A leading provider of pricing and revenue optimization software, an emerging category of enterprise
applications designed to allow companies to improve financial performance by enabling better pricing.
. By using PRO's software products, customers gain insight into their pricing strategies, identify
detrimental pricing practices, optimize their pricing decision-making and improve their business processes
and financial performance.
Products
Software products incorporate advanced pricing science, which includes operations research, forecasting
and statistics.
. Innovative science-based software products analyze, execute and optimize pricing strategies using data
from traditional enterprise applications, often augmenting it with real-time and historical data.
. Also provides a range of services that include analyzing a company's current pricing processes and
implementing software products to improve pricing performance.
Customers
As of March 31, 2007, had 90 customers across five industries in 42 countries with over 200
implementations of our software products.
. 60%, 63% and 67% of our total revenue came from customers outside the United States in 2005, 2006 and
the three months ended March 31, 2007, respectively.
. This international growth began with efforts initially to market products to the global airline industry.
Industry background
. Pricing is an important component of an enterprise's business processes and financial performance
. According to a 2006 Gartner Research report, on average, a 1% improvement in price translated to an
11% increase in profitability. In contrast, according to the same report, a 1% improvement in fixed costs or
variable costs only increases profitability by 3% and 7%, respectively.
Market opportunity
. In 2005, PRO began to experience increased demand for our pricing and revenue optimization software
products.
. In December 2005, Yankee Group published the results of a survey conducted in July 2005 of 389
respondents in the distribution industry and the high-technology, industrial and chemical manufacturing
industries, 98% of which had annual revenue over $500 million.
. Of the respondents, 77% stated that they did not have a price management or profit optimization software
solution but planned to purchase one and had developed a business case to do so.
Trends
o Growth in the market
An August 2006 AMR Research report estimated that the price management applications market will be
$348 million in 2007 and will grow to approximately $1.1 billion in 2010, a compound annual growth rate
of 46%.
. PRO believes that the overall pricing and revenue optimization software market includes additional
elements not considered in the AMR Research report
o Growth in revenues from non-airline industries.
. Historically, a substantial portion of revenue has come from the airline industry. However, as we began to
diversify our product offering, we saw our revenue growth driven by increases in sales to non-airline
industry customers.
. Expects the percentage of revenue from the airline industry to continue to decrease over time although
revenue from the airline industry may remain flat or grow in absolute dollars.
. Intends to diversify. As a result of this diversification of products and customers, PRO believes that a
proportionately larger share of revenue will come from these industries compared to revenues from the
airline industry.
Quarter ended March 31, 2006 compared to quarter ended March 31, 2007
> License and implementation (2/3 of revenues).
. License and implementation revenue increased $3.3 million from $5.7 million in the three months ended
March 31, 2006 to $9.0 million in the three months ended March 31, 2007, representing a 58% increase.
. During the three months ended March 31, 2007, license and implementation revenue from industries other
than the airline industry increased to 66% of total license and implementation revenue.
> Maintenance and support (1/3 of revenues)
Maintenance and support revenue increased $518,000 from $3.9 million in the three months ended March
31, 2006 to $4.4 million in the three months ended March 31, 2007, representing a 13% increase
Competition
. Several privately held pricing and revenue optimization software vendors such as Rapt, Revenue
Technologies, Symphony-Metreo, Vendavo and Zilliant
. Also with several large enterprise application providers, such as JDA Software, Oracle and SAP that have
developed offerings that include pricing and revenue optimization functionality. JDA Software and Oracle
entered the market primarily through their acquisitions of Manugistics and Siebel Systems, respectively,
and SAP resells Vendavo's products
> In addition, there are a number of vendors that provide pricing and revenue optimization software for
specific industries
> In the hotel industry, we compete with IDeaS and Easy RMS, and in the airline industry, competes with
Sabre Airline Solutions and Lufthansa Systems.
. One industry in which PRO does not compete is retail, where vendors include DemandTec, JDA
Software, Oracle and SAP. Oracle and SAP entered this retail market through their acquisitions of
ProfitLogic and Khimetrics, respectively.
Use of $50mm in IPO proceeds from sale of 5.1mm shares
(shareholders intend to sell 1.7mm shares)
. $20mm to repay debt
. $30mm for working capital
===================
Quark Pharmaceuticals	QURK, C, 6
RNA interference-based treatments						Post-IPO shrs: 18m
Fremont, CA	2004	2005	2006	March, 06*	March, 07*	IPO Mkt
Rev ($mm)	$5	$3	$4	$0	$15	Cap (mm)
R&D ($mm)	$16.1	$9.0	$18.9	$5.9	$5.3	$238
Profit (loss) $mm	-$16	-$8	-$17	-$6.1	$7.5	@$13
Profit (loss) %	-330.6%	-220.6%	-404.8%	-2033.3%	51.7%
				*quarter ended March 31
VALUATION RATIOS	IPO Mrkt	Price /	Price /	Price /	Price /	% offered
	Cap (mm)	Sales	Earnings	BookValue	TangibleBV	in IPO
Quark Pharma (QURK)	$238	4.1	8	3.3	3.3	27%
SCORECARD		Mgt	Market	Market Do-	Proprie-	Total
1-5, 5 is high			Growth	mination	tary	rating
20 is perfect		2	2	0	2	6
Note: revenue from lumpy collaborration agreements
Business
. Clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on discovering and developing novel therapeutics
based on proprietary gene discovery science and technology, with an initial focus on RNA interference
based therapeutics for the treatment of diseases associated with oxidative stress
. From inception in 1993 through March 31, 2007, we has funded operations primarily through gross
proceeds of $83.0 million from the sale of equity securities and $100.0 million pursuant to our license and
collaboration agreements with pharmaceutical companies.
Collaboration agreements
. Through 2005, a substantial portion of our revenues were from QURK's BiFAR gene discovery
collaboration agreements with several pharmaceutical companies.
. In connection with the expiration of research funding under some of those agreements, ceased certain of
product development efforts.
. In September 2006, licensed drug candidates that inhibit RTP801 to Pfizer, and may seek to license other
product candidates to third parties in the future.
. For the next several years, expects that revenues will consist primarily of payments from Pfizer and any
future licensees and collaborators
Competition
Pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies, public and private universities,
government agencies and research organizations
Use of $67mm in IPO proceeds
o $36 million to complete Phase II clinical trials, and begin preparations for Phase III clinical trials of
current product candidates AKIi-5 and AHLi-11, subject to the receipt of necessary regulatory approvals
and achievement of other milestones.
o $13 million for research and development of future products; and
o remainder to fund sales, marketing, general and administrative expenses, and to fund working capital and
other general corporate purposes.
===================
ShoreTel	SHOR, C+, 7
IP telecommunications systems			June 30 fiscal			Post-IPO shrs: 41m
Sunnyvale, CA	2004	2005	2006	March, 06*	March, 07*	IPO Mkt
Rev ($mm)	$19	$36	$62	$43	$69	Cap (mm)
Gross Profit %	50%	52%	56%	54%	62%	$392
Profit (loss) $mm	-$6	-$1	$4	$2.3	$4.2	@$9.5
Profit (loss) %	-33.5%	-3.9%	6.5%	5.4%	6.1%
				*nine months ended March 31
VALUATION RATIOS	IPO Mrkt	Price /	Price /	Price /	Price /	% offered
	Cap (mm)	Sales	Earnings	BookValue	TangibleBV	in IPO
ShoreTel (SHOR)	$392	4.3	70	4.3	4.3	19%
SCORECARD		Mgt	Market	Market Do-	Proprie-	Total
1-5, 5 is high			Growth	mination	tary	rating
20 is perfect		2	2	2	1	7
Business
. A leading provider of IP telecommunications solutions for enterprises.
. Solution is comprised of ShoreGear switches, ShorePhone IP phones and ShoreWare software
applications.
. Founded in September 1996 and shipped first system in 1998. Continued to develop and enhance our
product line since that time.
. Currently offers nine models of switches and five models of IP phones.
Distribution
. Sell products primarily through channel partners that market and sell systems to enterprises across all
industries, including to small, medium and large companies and public institutions.
. SHOR believes the channel strategy allows it to reach a larger number of prospective enterprise customers
more effectively than if SHOR were to sell directly.
. The number of authorized channel partners has more than doubled since June 30, 2004 to more than 400
as of March 31, 2007, including 30 in Europe.
9-month period ended March 31, 2007 compared to nine-month period ended March 31, 2006
Revenue.
. Total revenue increased $26.4 million, or 62%, from $42.5 million in the nine-month period ended March
31, 2006, to $68.9 million in the nine-month period ended March 31, 2007.
. Product revenue increased by $23.5 million, or 62%, from $38.0 million in the nine-month period ended
March 31, 2006, to $61.5 million in the nine-month period ended March 31, 2007.
. Support and services revenue increased $2.9 million, or 63%, from $4.5 million in the nine-month period
ended March 31, 2006, to $7.4 million in the nine-month period ended March 31, 2007, as a result of
increased revenue associated with post-contractual support contracts accompanying new system sales, post
contractual support contract renewals and increased revenue from training services and installations.
Competition
As a result of the convergence of voice and data networking technologies that characterize IP enterprise
telecommunications systems, SHOR competes with providers of enterprise voice communications systems,
such as:
o Providers of IP systems, including 3Com and Cisco Systems; and
o Providers of hybrid systems, including Alcatel-Lucent, Avaya, Inter-Tel, Mitel Networks
(which recently announced plans to acquire Inter-Tel) and Nortel Networks.
Use of $68mm in IPO proceeds
. Working capital and other general corporate purposes.
. May use up to $5.0 million of the net proceeds acquire technology from an unrelated third party that
SHOR expects will extend and enhance the functionality of existing products.
===================
Spectra Energy L.P.	SEP, C+, 7
natural gas transporation/storage L.P.						Post-IPO shrs: 44.6m
Houston, TX	2004	2005	2006	March, 06*	March, 07*	IPO Mkt
Rev ($mm)	$82	$80	$83	$22	$26	Cap (mm)
Operating Income %	41%	33%	46%	24%	56%	$892
Equity in earnings of**	$36	$46	$41	$7.1	$11.4	@$20
Profit (loss) $mm	$53	$57	$64	$9.5	$21.7
Profit (loss) %	64.6%	71.3%	77.2%	42.8%	82.2%
Adjusted EBITDA ($mm)	$55	$50	$56	$10	$20
EBITDA %	67.1%	62.5%	67.8%	45.0%	74.2%
Cash available for distr ($mm)	$74	$78	$80	$21	$36
Cash available for distr: rev%	90.2%	97.5%	96.9%	94.6%	136.4%
**uncosolidated affiliates				*quarter ended March 31, pro forma
VALUATION RATIOS	IPO Mrkt	Price /	Price /	Price /	Price /	% offered
	Cap (mm)	Sales	Earnings	BookValue	TangibleBV	in IPO
Spectra Energy LP (SEP)	$892	8.4	10	0.9	1.6	22%
SCORECARD		Mgt	Market	Market Do-	Proprie-	Total
1-5, 5 is high			Growth	mination	tary	rating
20 is perfect		2	2	2	1	7
Unit offering
LP Units: Initial distribution rate
. $1.20 per year
. 6% annual rate
Business
. Limited partnership recently formed by Spectra Energy (NYSE: SE, $16.6bb market cap)to own and
operate natural gas transportation and storage assets.
. Initial assets consist of interests in two interstate natural gas pipeline systems located in the southeastern
United States with over 2,100 miles of pipelines, interests in two natural gas storage facilities in Texas and
Louisiana with aggregate working gas storage capacity of approximately 35 billion cubic feet, or Bcf, and a
liquefied natural gas, or LNG, storage facility in Tennessee.
Growth plan
. Intends to utilize the significant experience of Spectra Energy's management team to execute the growth
strategy, including the acquisition and construction of additional energy assets.
. Spectra Energy, which is comprised of the former natural gas businesses of Duke Energy Corporation
(NYUSE: DUK, $23bb market cap), became a stand-alone publicly traded company in January 2007.
. At December 31, 2006, Spectra Energy had approximately 17,500 miles of natural gas transportation
pipelines and approximately 265 Bcf of natural gas storage capacity (including the assets to be contributed
to SEP).
SE assets
o East Tennessee System. owns and operates 100% of the approximately 1,400-mile East Tennessee
interstate natural gas transportation system, which extends from central Tennessee eastward into southwest
Virginia and northern North Carolina, and southward into northern Georgia. East Tennessee also owns and
operates an LNG storage facility in Kingsport, Tennessee with working gas storage capacity of
approximately 1.0 Bcf and regasification capability of 150 MMcf/d.
o Gulfstream System. owns a 24.5% interest in the approximately 690-mile Gulfstream interstate natural
gas transportation system, which extends from Pascagoula, Mississippi and Mobile, Alabama across the
Gulf of Mexico and into central Florida.
o Market Hub System. owns a 50.0% interest in Market Hub, which owns and operates two high
deliverability salt cavern natural gas storage facilities located in Louisiana and Texas with aggregate
working gas storage capacity of approximately 35 Bcf.
Results of Operations - Unconsolidated Affiliates
. Account for Gulfstream and Market Hub using the equity method of accounting.
. As such, the 24.5% interest in Gulfstream's net operating results and the 50.0% interest in Market Hub's
net operating results are reflected as equity in earnings of unconsolidated affiliates in SEP's Consolidated
Statement of Operations
Use of $188mm in IPO proceeds
o purchase approximately $145.3 million of qualifying investment grade securities, which will be assigned
as collateral to secure the term loan portion of the credit facility;
o pay approximately $7.2 million of expenses associated with the offering and related formation
transactions;
o Distribute $25.0 million in cash to subsidiaries of Spectra Energy as reimbursement for capital
expenditures incurred by subsidiaries of Spectra Energy prior to this offering related to the assets to be
contributed to upon the closing of this offering, which distribution will be made in partial consideration of
the assets contributed to SEP upon the closing of this offering; and
o use remaining proceeds of $10.0 million to fund working capital.
> Entered into a $500 million credit facility under which SEP expects to borrow approximately $145.3
million in term debt and $125 million in revolving debt upon the closing of this offering.
. Will distribute the aggregate amount of the proceeds of such borrowings to subsidiaries of Spectra
Energy, which distribution will be made in partial consideration of the assets contributed to upon the
closing of this offering
===================
Spreadtrum Com	SPRD, C+, 7
Chinese designer of wireless handset ICs						Post-IPO shrs: 41mm ADSs equiv
Zhangjiang, Shanghai, China	2004	2005	2006	March, 06*	March, 07*	IPO Mkt
Rev ($mm)	$13	$38	$107	$20	$26	Cap (mm)
Gross Profit %	22%	23%	41%	31%	43%	$497
Profit (loss) $mm	-$11	-$12	$14	$0.6	$2.0	@$12
Profit (loss) %	-88.4%	-30.6%	13.4%	3.0%	7.6%
Employees	316	416	576	419	637
				*quarter ended March 31
Quarterly results	6-Jun	Sept 06	Dec 06	March 07
Revenue
. Baseband	$12	$16	$23	$21
. Turnkey	$18	$11	$8	$6
Total revenue	$30	$27	$31	$26
Profit ($mm)	$5	$4	$5	$2
Profit % of reve	16%	14%	17%	8%
VALUATION RATIOS	IPO Mrkt	Price /	Price /	Price /	Price /	% offered
	Cap (mm)	Sales	Earnings	BookValue	TangibleBV	in IPO
Spreadtrum Com (SPRD)	$497	4.7	62	3.4	3.5	21%
SCORECARD		Mgt	Market	Market Do-	Proprie-	Total
1-5, 5 is high			Growth	mination	tary	rating
20 is perfect		2	2	2	1	7
Business
. Fabless semiconductor company that designs, develops and markets baseband processor solutions for the
wireless communications market.
. Combines semiconductor design expertise with our software development capabilities to deliver highly
integrated baseband processors with multimedia functionality and power management.
. Have developed solutions based on an open development platform, enabling our customers to develop
customized wireless products that are feature-rich and meet their cost and time-to-market requirements.
SPRD is a recognized leader in the emerging China semiconductor industry as indicated by various third
party awards received that are based, in part, on the technological innovation of SPRD's baseband
semiconductors.
Awards include
. By the China Semiconductor Industry Association as one of the integrated circuit design companies in
China with the highest growth potential for 2005,
. The People's Republic of China National Science and Technology Advancement First Class Award
awarded by the State Council in 2006 and
. The award by the Management Case Center of Peking University and Communications Weekly as one of
the top telecommunications equipment suppliers for 2006.
Industry overview
. The wireless communications market is highly dynamic and represents one of the most important
communications markets in the world.
. According to iSuppli Corporation, or iSuppli, a leading market research firm focused on the electronics
industry, global wireless (mobile handset) subscribers reached 2.2 billion in 2005, and are expected to grow
to 3.7 billion in 2010.
. In particular, China represents the world's largest wireless market, with 487.4 million wireless subscribers
as of April 2007 according to the Ministry of Information Industry.
> The baseband semiconductor
. The baseband semiconductor is the most critical semiconductor component in the wireless handset.
. It is commonly referred to as the engine of a wireless handset, equivalent to the central processing unit of
a computer. According to iSuppli, revenue from worldwide GSM, GPRS, EDGE and WCDMA baseband
semiconductor shipments reached $8.5 billion in 2005 and is expected to grow to $13.1 billion by 2010
. According to iSuppli, the baseband semiconductor market in China is expected to grow from $3.5 billion
in 2005, representing 30.6% of the worldwide market, to $6.8 billion in 2010, representing 41.3% of the
worldwide market.
Customers and concentration
. SPRD's top five customers in 2004, 2005, 2006 and the three months ended March 31, 2007 collectively
accounted for 66.1%, 52.2%, 40.4% and 54.7%, respectively, of revenue.
. Currently sells substantially products to brand manufacturers, independent design houses, or IDHs,
vendors who specialize exclusively in the design of wireless handsets based on customer specifications, and
original design manufacturers, or ODMs, contract manufacturers who use their own designs and intellectual
property to develop and manufacture wireless handsets for customers
Portfolio
. Of highly-integrated baseband processor solutions that support a broad range of wireless communications
standards, including GSM, GPRS and TD-SCDMA, an international 3G standard for wireless
communications promoted by China.
. A baseband processor is the most critical semiconductor component of a wireless handset, responsible for
encoding and decoding wireless communications transmissions, serving as a platform for the handset's
operating system and multimedia applications, managing storage and directing short range connectivity
such as Bluetooth traffic.
. SPRD solutions also offer a wide array of multimedia capabilities such as TV-out, MP3 digital audio
playback, Motion JPEG, MPEG4 and H.264 digital video playback and 64-channel polyphonic ringtone
playback.
Milestones
SPRD's business model has enabled the rapid development of advanced products.
. Within the first 15 months of inception, had fully developed the first series of integrated baseband
semiconductors for the GSM/GPRS market.
. In June 2005, commercially introduced what SPRD believes to be the world's first fully integrated analog
and digital baseband semiconductor with power management and multimedia functionality.
. In the 3G area, has been instrumental in the development, trialing and planned commercial rollout of the
TD-SCDMA standard.
. In April 2004, developed what SPRD believes to be the world's first dual-mode TD-SCDMA/GSM
baseband processor.
. In addition, is an active member of the TD-SCDMA Industry Alliance, which is responsible for
developing and enhancing the standard globally.
> In February 2007, announced development of a TD-SCDMA baseband semiconductor that supports
HSDPA.
. Intends to offer samples of a baseband processor that supports EDGE in the second half of 2007, and are
developing solutions that will support other 3G wireless standards, such as WCDMA/UMTS.
. In addition, working to develop advanced products to further expand the current portfolio, including
solutions that incorporate smart phone functionality, advanced multimedia applications and other
applications such as mobile digital TV, which allows subscribers to receive television transmissions
through their wireless handsets.
3 Months Ended March 31, 2007 Compared to Three Months Ended March 31, 2006
Revenue
Revenue increased by 32.9% to $26.2 million for the three months ended March 31, 2007 from $19.7
million for the same period in 2006.
. This increase was primarily due to an increase in units of baseband semiconductors shipped to 3.7 million
units in the first quarter of 2007 from approximately 722,000 units in the first quarter of 2006, partially
offset by a decline of 61.7% in the average selling price.
. The decline in average selling price was due, in large part, to the change in product mix.
> Basedband semiconductors
Baseband semiconductors, which typically carry lower average selling prices, accounted for 78.7% of total
revenue for the three months ended March 31, 2007 as compared to 24.6% for the same period in 2006.
> Turnkey solutions
Turnkey solutions, which typically carry higher average selling prices, accounted for 21.3% of total
revenue for the three months ended March 31, 2007 as compared to 75.4% for the same period in 2006.
Revenue affected somewhat by seasonality
. Revenue has generally increased from quarter to quarter, although SPRD experienced declines in revenue
in the first quarter of 2007 to $26.2 million from $31.0 million in the fourth quarter of 2006, in the first
quarter of 2006 to $19.7 million from $20.6 million in the fourth quarter of 2005 and in the third quarter of
2006 to $26.7 million from $29.7 million in the second quarter of 2006.
. These quarter to quarter declines in revenue in the first and third quarters of 2006 and the first quarter of
2007 were primarily due to the seasonality factors, which increased revenue in the preceding quarters.
> Baseband semiconductor sales
Revenue from baseband semiconductor sales has generally increased from quarter to quarter since SPRD
commenced large volume shipments in the third quarter of 2005 while revenue from turnkey solution sales
increased from quarter to quarter in 2005 and then decreased from quarter to quarter in 2006 except an
increase in the second quarter of 2006 as compared to the first quarter of 2006.
. These trends are consistent with a shift in focus toward generating revenue from sales of higher margin
baseband semiconductors, which SPRD began to implement in the first quarter of 2006.
> Baseband seasonality
In the first quarter of 2007, revenue from the sale of baseband semiconductors was 9.1% lower than the
fourth quarter of 2006.
. Shipped approximately 3.7 million units of baseband semiconductors in the first quarter of 2007 as
compared to approximately 3.5 million units in the fourth quarter of 2006
. Although the decline in average selling price had a greater impact than the increase in shipping volume.
Competition
The baseband semiconductor industry is highly competitive and dynamic and is characterized by rapid
technological changes, evolving industry standards, price reductions and rapid product obsolescence.
. Currently sells substantially all of SPRD's products to brand manufacturers, IDHs (Independent Design
Houses) and ODMs (Original Design Manufacturers, a contract manufacturer that uses its own designs and
intellectual property)
. Primarily competes in China with baseband processor solutions providers, such as Analog Devices,
Infineon, MediaTek and Texas Instruments.
. SPRD expands its business, it may compete in the future with additional baseband processor solutions
providers, such as Broadcom, Freescale and NXP.
Use of $85.5mm in IPO proceeds
. Working capital and other general corporate purposes, including to finance our growth, develop new
products and fund capital expenditures
. In addition, we may choose to expand our current business through acquisitions of other businesses,
products or technologies.
===================


===================
Financial Performance & Scoring -- © 2007 Gaskins IPO Desktop/IPOdesktop
Pre-IPO analysis, grading & scoring -- updated June 19
. Business Model Rating Criteria
A = high growth market, potential leader; B = more competitive market; C= 'public venture capital'
. Calculations
. IPO Price to annualized Sales Ratio -- (Price / Sales)
Numerator		Denominator
IPO market capitalization…		Annualized Sales (based on recent results)
(post-IPO # of shares times mid-point of IPO price range)
. IPO Price to annualized Earnings (loss) -- (Price / Earnings)
Numerator		Denominator
IPO market cap		Annualized Earnings (loss) from the last quarter
===================
Blackstone	BX, B-, 8
alternative investment mgr						Post-IPO units:1084mm
New York, NY						IPO market cap: $32.5bb (at $30 per share)
VALUATION RATIOS	IPO Mrkt	Price /	Price /	Price /	Price /	% offered
	Cap (mm)	Sales	Earnings	BookValue	TangibleBV	in IPO
Blackstone (BX)	$32,520	n/a	n/a	2.0	4.4	12%
SCORECARD		Mgt	Market	Market Do-	Proprie-	Total
1-5, 5 is high			Growth	mination	tary	rating
20 is perfect		3	2	2	1	8
Compare & Contrast (annualizing recent quarterly results)
VALUATION RATIOS	IPO Mrkt	Price /	Price /	Price /	Price /	Price
	Cap (mm)	Sales	Earnings	BookValue	TangibleBV	June 19
Merril Lynch (MER)	$78,410	0.9	9.3	2.1	2.3	$90.40
Goldman (GS)	$99,900	1.1	7.9	2.7	3.2	$229.47
Blackstone (BX)	$33,604	n/a*	n/a*	2.0	4.4	@$31
Fortress Inv LLC (FIG)	$10,520	n/a*	n/a*	58.1	58.1	$25.88
Greenhil (GHL)	$1,900	10.9	54.5	12.3	13.9	$66.75
(independent investment banking firm)		*n/a = not available on a comparable basis
			Historical (see NOTES)
	2004	2005	2006	March, 06*	March, 07*	IPO Mkt
Rev ($mm)	$503	$494	$1,120	$221	$480	Cap (mm)
Expense %	55.1%	72.4%	49.4%	44.8%	35.8%	@$30
Profit (loss) $mm*	$1,523	$1,330	$2,266	$487.0	$1,133.0	$32,520
*includes net gains from investment activities				*quarter ending March 31
			Proforma (see NOTES)
New York, NY			2006	March, 07*
Rev ($mm)			$2,335	$1,113
Expense ($mm)			$4,785	$1,331
Net loss ($mm)			-$550	-$58.0
*includes net gains from investment activities				*quarter ending March 31
NOTES
Historical results not indicative
. The summary historical financial data is not indicative of the expected future operating results of The
Blackstone Group L.P. following the reorganization and this offering.
. In particular, following this offering The Blackstone Group L.P. will no longer consolidate in its financial
statements the investment funds that have historically been consolidated in financial statements, with the
exception of proprietary hedge funds and four of the funds of hedge funds.
. In addition, the general partners of certain legacy Blackstone funds that do not have a meaningful amount
of unrealized investments and a number of investment vehicles through which existing owners and other
third parties have made commitments to or investments in or alongside of Blackstone's investment funds
will not be contributed to Blackstone Holdings
Unaudited Pro Forma Statement of Income
. The following unaudited condensed consolidated pro forma statements of income for the three months
ended March 31, 2007 and the year ended December 31, 2006 and the unaudited condensed consolidated
pro forma statement of financial condition as of March 31, 2007 are based upon historical financial
statements.
. In addition, the following pro forma measure of Economic Net Income for the three months ended March
31, 2007 and the year ended December 31, 2006, which represents a supplemental measure used by
management to assess financial performance
Growth plan comments
It appears that BX has several obvious growth plan strategies
. Acquire companies and organizations which compete in the two "Competition" categories (below): Asset
Management and Financial Advisory
. Implement BX's proven private equity/real estate growth formula in China, with the help of the Chinese
government
. Increase funds under management, perhaps also targeting Chinese government funds now invested in US
Treasuries and other US debt instruments
Business
. A leading global alternative asset manager and provider of financial advisory services.
. One of the largest independent alternative asset managers in the world, with assets under management of
$88.4 billion as of May 1, 2007
Four business segments:
o Corporate Private Equity
. Through corporate private equity funds, pursues transactions throughout the world, including not only
typical leveraged buyout acquisitions of seasoned companies but also transactions involving start-up
businesses in established industries, turnarounds, minority investments, corporate partnerships and industry
consolidations.
. Corporate private equity assets under management have grown significantly from $7.6 billion as of
December 31, 2001 to $32.3 billion as of March 31, 2007, representing compound annual growth of 31.8%.
. For the year ended December 31, 2006 and the three months ended March 31, 2007, the corporate private
equity segment generated income before taxes of $1,009.9 million and $197.8 million, respectively.
o Real Estate
. Real estate opportunity funds have made significant investments in lodging, major urban office buildings,
residential properties, distribution and warehousing centers and a variety of real estate operating
companies.
. Real estate assets under management have grown significantly from $3.0 billion as of December 31, 2001
to $19.5 billion as of March 31, 2007, representing compound annual growth of 42.9%.
. For the year ended December 31, 2006 and the three months ended March 31, 2007, the real estate
segment generated income before taxes of $902.7 million and $762.0 million, respectively.
o Marketable Alternative Asset Management
. Comprised of our management of funds of hedge funds, mezzanine funds and senior debt vehicles,
proprietary hedge funds and publicly-traded closed-end mutual funds.
. Marketable alternative assets under management have grown significantly from $3.5 billion as of
December 31, 2001 to $31.4 billion as of March 31, 2007, representing compound annual growth of 51.8%.
. For the year ended December 31, 2006 and the three months ended March 31, 2007, the marketable
alternative asset management segment generated income before taxes of $191.7 million and $113.2 million,
respectively.
o Financial Advisory
. Corporate and mergers and acquisitions advisory services, restructuring and reorganization advisory
services and fund placement services for alternative investment funds.
. Over the past full five years, revenues in the financial advisory segment have grown to $260.3 million,
representing compound annual growth of 22.7%.
. For the year ended December 31, 2006 and the three months ended March 31, 2007, the financial advisory
segment generated income before taxes of $193.9 million and $73.1 million, respectively.
Three Months Ended March 31, 2007 Compared to Three Months Ended March 31, 2006
> Revenues
. $479.4 million for the three months ended March 31, 2007, an increase of $258.4 million or 116.9%
versus the three months ended March 31, 2006.
. The increase was primarily due to increased fund management fees in the real estate segment of $189.5
million related to the acquisition of Equity Office Properties Trust in 2007, and the commencement of the
new real estate fund, Blackstone Real Estate Partners VI, in February 2007.
. In addition, fund management fees increased in the marketable alternative asset management segment by
$36.0 million as a result of growth in assets under management.
. Additionally, revenues in the financial advisory segment increased by $55.2 million primarily from
increased activity in the fund placement business and increases in mergers and acquisition engagements
. The increases in revenues were partially offset by a decrease in portfolio company related fees of $24.1
million related to the corporate private equity segment primarily due to a decrease in LP capital deployed.
> Net Gains from Investment Activities
. Were $3.8 billion (including $631.0 million of general partner carried interest allocation) for the three
months ended March 31, 2007, an increase of $2.1 billion or 124.4% versus the three months ended March
31, 2006.
. The increase was primarily due to an increase in net appreciation in the real estate segment of $2.1 billion
attributed to the funds' office and limited service hospitality portfolios.
. In particular, the funds' office portfolio appreciated based upon pricing achieved on dispositions of assets
associated with the recent acquisition of Equity Office Properties Trust. Approximately $1.6 billion of the
increase in net gains from investment activities was allocated to minority interest holders.
> Assets Under Management
. Were $83.1 billion at March 31, 2007, an increase of $25.6 billion or 44.6% versus March 31, 2006.
. The increase was due to increases in assets under management of $3.5 billion in the corporate private
equity segment, $10.3 billion in the real estate segment and $11.9 billion in the marketable alternative asset
management segment.
> Capital Deployed
. LP capital invested and carry dollars* created were $4.0 billion and $794.7 million, respectively, for the
three months ended March 31, 2007, which represent increases of $2.5 billion (161.8%) and $491.2 million
(161.8%), respectively, versus the three months ended March 31, 2006.
. The increases were primarily due to the investment of $3.5 billion related to the acquisition of Equity
Office Properties Trust in the real estate segment, partially offset by a decrease in LP capital deployed by
the corporate private equity segment of $804.3 million.
*Definition: Carry Dollars Created
. Carry Dollars Created is an operating measure of the value created for BX when BX carry funds make an
investment.
. Carry Dollars Created is calculated by multiplying the aggregate amount of Limited Partner capital
invested by the carry funds in transactions during a given period by the contractual percentage (generally
20%) of the profits that BX earns as a preferred allocation of income (a carried interest) from these
investments, assuming BX achieves specified cumulative investment returns.
Competition
> Asset Management
Depending on the investment, expects to face competition primarily from other private equity funds,
specialized investment funds, hedge fund sponsors, other financial institutions, corporate buyers and other
parties
> Financial Advisory
. Primary competitors are large financial institutions, many of which have far greater financial and other
resources and much broader client relationships than BX and (unlike BX) have the ability to offer a wide
range of products, from loans, deposit-taking and insurance to brokerage and a wide range of investment
banking services, which may enhance their competitive position.
. Competitors also have the ability to support investment banking, including financial advisory services,
with commercial banking, insurance and other financial services revenue in an effort to gain market share,
which puts BX at a competitive disadvantage and could result in pricing pressures that could materially
adversely affect BX'srevenue and profitability. In addition, Park Hill Group operates in a highly
competitive environment and the barriers to entry into the fund placement business are low.
Employees
. As of March 31, 2007, employed approximately 770 people, including our 60 senior managing directors
. With 340 investment and advisory professionals
. Which puts a $100mm market valuation per investment & advisory professional
Distribution policy
Until December 31, 2009, existing owners will not receive distributions in respect of their Blackstone
Holdings partnership units for a year unless and until
. Common unit holders receive aggregate distributions of $1.20 per common unit on an annualized basis for
such year.
. BX does not intend to maintain this priority allocation after December 31, 2009.
. After December 31, 2009, all the income (and accordingly distributions) of Blackstone Holdings will be
allocated pro rata to all partners of the Blackstone Holdings partnerships in accordance with their respective
partnership interests.
Use of $3.83bb in IPO proceeds
Plus proceeds from the sale of non-voting common units to the (China) State Investment Company,
estimated to be $3.0 billion.
> $3.90 billion to purchase interests from our existing owners
> Remaining proceeds of $2.93 billion to purchase newly issued Blackstone partnership interests, and
intends to cause Blackstone Holdings to use $1.2 billion to repay short-term borrowings and the remainder:
o to facilitate the growth of existing asset management and financial advisory businesses, including
funding a portion of general partner capital commitments to BX's carry funds;
o to provide capital to facilitate expansion into new businesses that are complementary to existing asset
management and financial advisory businesses and that can benefit from being affiliated with BX,
including possibly through selected strategic acquisitions
o for other general corporate purposes.
===================



Financial Performance & Scoring -- © 2007 Gaskins IPO Desktop/IPOdesktop
Pre-IPO analysis, grading & scoring -- updated June 9
. Business Model Rating Criteria
A = high growth market, potential leader; B = more competitive market; C= 'public venture capital'
. Calculations
. IPO Price to annualized Sales Ratio -- (Price / Sales)
Numerator		Denominator
IPO market capitalization…		Annualized Sales (based on recent results)
(post-IPO # of shares times mid-point of IPO price range)
. IPO Price to annualized Earnings (loss) -- (Price / Earnings)
Numerator		Denominator
IPO market cap		Annualized Earnings (loss) from the last quarter
===================
SEARCH BY COMPANY		In your browser use 'Edit/Find' to search for companies
or ticker for analysis		scheduled below
===================
June 11wk week IPO schedule
VALUATION RATIOS	IPO Mrkt	Price /	Price /	Price /	Price /	% offered
	Cap (mm)	Sales	Earnings	BookValue	TangibleBV	in IPO
Aegerion Pharm (AEGR)	$242	n/a	-17	3.5	3.5	27%
small-molecule therapeutics: C, 6						Post-IPO shrs: 18.6m

BioFuel Energy (BIOF)	$553	n/a	n/a	3.2	2.4	29%
to build five ethanol plants: C, 7						Post-IPO shrs: 32.5m

BWAY Holding (BWY)	$369	0.2	12	2.9	-1.3	54%
rigid metal & plastic containers: C+, 7						Post-IPO shrs: 22m

GeoVera Ins (GEOV)	$366	1.8	7	1.4	1.6	27%
specialty residential property insurance: C+, 7						Post-IPO shrs: 21.5m

June 11wk financials, analysis, grading, scoring
Aegerion Pharma	AEGR, C, 6
small-molecule therapeutics						Post-IPO shrs: 18.6m
Bridgewater, NJ			2006	March, 06*	March, 07*	IPO Mkt
Profit (loss) $mm			-$6	-$1	-$3.5	$241.8
				*quarter ending March 31		$242
						@$13
VALUATION RATIOS	IPO Mrkt	Price /	Price /	Price /	Price /	% offered
	Cap (mm)	Sales	Earnings	BookValue	TangibleBV	in IPO
Aegerion Pharm (AEGR)	$242	n/a	-17	3.5	3.5	27%
SCORECARD		Mgt	Market	Market Do-	Proprie-	Total
1-5, 5 is high			Growth	mination	tary	rating
20 is perfect		2	2	0	2	6
Business
. Biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of drug products
consisting of single molecules, called small-molecule therapeutics, to treat cardiovascular and metabolic
disease.
. Current product candidates are microsomal triglyceride transfer protein inhibitors that limit secretion of
cholesterol and triglycerides, collectively referred to as lipids, from the intestine and liver and have
demonstrated in humans an ability to significantly reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, or LDL-C.
Two product candicates
. AEGR-733 and AEGR-427 (implitapide), in clinical development.
. Holds exclusive worldwide rights to certain know-how and patents applicable these compounds pursuant
to license agreements completed in 2006 with The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania and Bayer
Healthcare AG, respectively.
Clinical trials
. In 2007, expect additional Phase II clinical trials of AEGR-733 will be initiated to further evaluate its
potential role in reducing LDL-C in patients with hypercholesterolemia, and in the second half of 2007
expects a Phase III clinical trial of AEGR-733 for patients with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia
will be initiated.
. In the second half of 2007, expects a Phase II dose ranging trial will be initiated to evaluate the efficacy
and safety/tolerability profile of AEGR-427 (implitapide) in doses ranging from 30 mg to 50 mg, and a
Phase II pharmacokinetics trial will be initiated to evaluate the ability of AEGR-427 (implitapide) to be
used in combination with statins.
Intellectual property
. AEGR-733 patent portfolio consists of five issued U.S. patents, one pending U.S. non-provisional patent
application and related patents and pending applications in Europe, Australia, Japan, Canada, and Israel.
AEGR holds an exclusive worldwide license from The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania to these
patents and patent applications. The issued patents described above contain claims directed to the
compound, AEGR-733, and various methods of use, including methods of treating atherosclerosis,
hyperlipidemia or hypercholesterolemia, and methods of reducing serum lipid levels, cholesterol and/or
triglycerides. The patents are scheduled to expire betAEGRen 2013 and 2019.
. AEGR-427 (implitapide) patent portfolio consists of four issued U.S. patents, two pending U.S. non
provisional applications, and related patents and pending applications in Europe, Australia, Asia, Africa,
and South America. AEGR holds an exclusive worldwide license from Bayer Healthcare AG to these
patents and patent applications. The issued patents described above contain claims directed to the
compound, AEGR-427 (implitapide), methods for treating obesity and atherosclerosis, and processes for
making AEGR-427 (implitapide). The patents are scheduled to expire betAEGRen 2015 and 2017.
. In addition to the patents and patent applications described above, AEGR has filed four U.S. patent
applications (three non-provisional applications and one provisional application) and four international
applications directed to pharmaceutical combinations of a microsomal triglyceride transfer protein inhibitor
(for example, AEGR-733 or AEGR-427 (implitapide)) and other cholesterol loAEGRring drugs, and to
methods of using such combinations in certain dosing regimens to reduce serum cholesterol and/or
triglyceride concentrations, or to treat and/or control obesity.
Competition
Expects that AEGR-733 and AEGR-427 (implitapide), if approved, will compete with the following:
o Other microsomal triglyceride transfer protein inhibitors.
Currently, there are no microsomal triglyceride transfer protein inhibitor compounds approved by the FDA
for the treatment of hyperlipidemia. In November 2006, Pfizer Inc. announced that it is developing a
microsomal triglyceride transfer protein inhibitor. AEGR believe that this compound has either recently
entered into a Phase II clinical trial, or will shortly. AEGR also understands that Surface Logix, Inc., a
privately-held drug development company, is developing an intestine- specific microsomal triglyceride
transfer protein inhibitor, called SLX-4090 and has recently completed a Phase I clinical trial for this
product candidate. In addition, AEGR understands that Japan Tobacco, Inc. is working on a microsomal
triglyceride transfer protein inhibitor, called JTT-130 that is currently in Phase II trials in Japan and
overseas. AEGR believes that other large pharmaceutical companies may be investigating microsomal
transfer protein inhibitor compounds, but all are believed to be in early stages of development.
o Combination Therapies.
AEGR believes that its product candidates have the potential to address significant unmet medical needs
when used in combination with existing lipid lowering therapies, in particular statins and cholesterol
absorption inhibitors. As such, product candidates, if approved, will compete to varying degrees with fixed
dosage combination therapies, such as Vytorin (ezetimibe / simvastatin) which is marketed by a joint
venture betAEGRen Schering-Plough Corporation and Merck & Co., Inc. and Advicor (niacin extended
release / lovastatin tablets) which is marketed by Abbott Laboratories.
o Statins.
AEGR believes that product candidates have the potential to address significant unmet medical needs when
used in combination with statin therapies. However, to a limited extent product candidates, if approved,
will compete directly with statins, including: Lipitor (atorvastatin) which is marketed by Pfizer Inc.;
Crestor (rosuvastatin) which is marketed by AstraZeneca PLC; and Zocor (simvastatin), which is marketed
by Merck & Co., Inc.
o Cholesterol Absorption Inhibitors.
AEGR believes that its product candidates have the potential to address significant unmet medical needs
when used in combination with cholesterol absorption inhibitors. However, to a significant extent product
candidates, if approved, will also compete directly with this drug class, particularly as a combination
therapy with statins to treat patients with hyperlipidemia, including: Zetia (ezetimibe) which is marketed as
a monotherapy by Schering-Plough Corporation and is currently the only FDA-approved cholesterol
absorption inhibitor on the market. In addition, AEGR understands that Microbia, Inc., a privately-held
drug development company, is developing a cholesterol absorption inhibitor, called MD-0727, that is
currently in Phase I clinical trials. Sanofi-Aventis has also recently announced that it is developing a
cholesterol absorption inhibitor, called AVE-5530, that is currently in Phase IIb clinical development.
AEGR believe that other pharmaceutical companies may be developing cholesterol absorption inhibitor
compounds, but all are believed to be in early stages of development.
o Other Lipid-Lowering
Therapies. Although AEGR believes that its product candidates have the potential to be used in
combination with other lipid-lowering therapies, to a significant extent our product candidates, if approved,
will compete directly with these therapies in the treatment of hyperlipidemia, including: Tricor (fenofibrate
tablets) and Niaspan (niacin), both of which are marketed by Abbott Laboratories. Isis Pharmaceuticals is
developing an antisense apoB-100 inhibitor for lowering high cholesterol and has initiated a Phase II
clinical trial for this product candidate.
Use of $57mm in IPO proceeds
. $10mm to repay debt
. $20.0 to $25.0 million to fund the continued clinical development of AEGR-733, including the initiation
in 2007 of additional Phase II trials and in the second half of 2007 of the Phase III trial in patients with
homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia to be conducted by UPenn, which AEGR believes will fund
these trials through their completion;
. $12.0 to $17.0 million of these net proceeds to fund the continued clinical development of AEGR-427
(implitapide), including the initiation in the second half of 2007 of two additional Phase II trials, which
AEGR believes will fund these trials through their completion; and
. Remaining proceeds for general corporate purposes
===================
BioFuel Energy	BIOF, C, 7
to build five ethanol plants						Post-IPO shrs: 32.5m
Denver, CO			2006	March, 07*		IPO Mkt
Profit (loss) $mm			-$3	-$0.2		Cap (mm)
						$553
				*quarter ending March 31		@$17
VALUATION RATIOS	IPO Mrkt	Price /	Price /	Price /	Price /	% offered
	Cap (mm)	Sales	Earnings	BookValue	TangibleBV	in IPO
BioFuel Energy (BIOF)	$553	n/a	n/a	3.2	2.4	29%
Note: the figures in the filing appear to be inconsistent, because the price-to-tangible book value
ratio by definition is always equal to are greater than the price-to-book value
SCORECARD		Mgt	Market	Market Do-	Proprie-	Total
1-5, 5 is high			Growth	mination	tary	rating
20 is perfect		2	2	2	1	7
Business
. Development stage company whose goal is to become a leading ethanol producer in the United States.
. Currently constructing two 115 Mmgy ethanol plants in the Midwestern corn belt.
. In addition, expects to commence construction of a third 115 Mmgy ethanol plant later this year.
. Once complete, the initial three plants are expected to produce 345 Mmgy of fuel grade ethanol and
1. million tons of distillers grain annually
Cargill
. At each location, Cargill, with whom BIOF has an extensive relationship, has a strong local presence and,
directly or through affiliates, owns adjacent grain storage facilities.
. Three similar sites are being developed in anticipation of the possible construction of additional plants
. All six sites were selected primarily based on access to favorably priced corn as well as availability of rail
transportation and natural gas.
. BIOF ultimately expects to grow, at least in part, through acquisitions.
. However, in current market conditions, BIOF believes it is more attractive financially to build rather than
4buy.
. BIOF will continue to assess the build versus acquire trade-off as BIOF considers initiating construction
on one or more of the next three sites.
About Cargill
. Cargill is one of the world's leading agribusiness companies. Cargill will handle corn procurement,
marketing of ethanol and distillers grain and transportation logistics for BIOF's two initial plants under
long-term contracts.
. In addition, they will lease BIOF their adjacent grain storage and handling facilities.
. BIOF expects to enter into similar agreements for its third plant.
. Finally, BIOF will have access to Cargill's risk management services, which BIOF believes to be
particularly attractive with regard to corn given their virtually unique position in that market.
Market statistics
. According to the RFA, world ethanol production rose to 13.5 billion gallons in 2006.
. The United States and Brazil are the world's largest producers of ethanol.
. According to the RFA, industry capacity in the United States was approximately 4.9 Bgpy in 2006, with
an additional 6.2 Bgpy of capacity under construction as of April 2007.
. The ethanol industry in the United States consists of more than 100 production facilities and is primarily
corn-based, while ethanol production in Brazil is primarily sugar cane-based.
Competition
. Daniels Midland Company, the largest ethanol producer in the United States. According to the RFA, as of
April 2007, Archer Daniels had 1,070 Mmgy of current annual capacity, representing approximately 18%
of total production capacity in the United States. Historically, Archer Daniels' ethanol plants have used
wet-mill technology with a focus on the co-products of ethanol production. Archer Daniels has announced
that it intends to increase its ethanol production capacity by approximately 51% by mid-2008 through the
construction of new dry-mill ethanol plants.
. According to the RFA, as of April 2007, the next nine largest domestic ethanol producers accounted for
approximately 26% of domestic production capacity.
. Other large ethanol producers such as VeraSun Energy Corporation, ASAlliances Biofuels, Inc., Aventine
Renewable Energy, Inc., Abengoa Bioenergy Corporation, US BioEnergy Corporation and Hawkeye
Holdings Inc.
. One such competitor, ASAlliances Biofuels, Inc., has commercial arrangements in place with Cargill
similar to BIOF and Cargill, through a subsidiary, has made an equity investment in that company. In
addition, Cargill has announced plans to expand production at an existing ethanol facility by approximately
110 Mmgy and to develop four new 100 Mmgy ethanol plants in the Midwestern United States.
Use of $147mm in IPO proceeds
. $50mm to repay debt
. All remaining proceeds will ultimately be used to fund the equity portion of the construction costs of the
Alta plant.
. Also intends to borrow up to $125 million of additional debt to finance the remaining costs of
construction of the Alta plant.
===================
BWAY Holding	BWY, C+, 7
rigid metal & plastic containers						Post-IPO shrs: 22m
Atlanta, GA		proforma ==>	2006	March, 06*	March, 07*	IPO Mkt
Rev ($mm)			$969	$456	$436	Cap (mm)
Gross Profit %			14%	11%	15%	$369
Operating Income %			5%	4%	7%	@$17
Interest expense %			4%	4%	4%
Profit (loss) $mm			$6	$0.5	$8.0
Profit (loss) %			0.7%	0.1%	1.8%
EBITDA %			11.9%	10.5%	11.7%
				*six months ending April 2
VALUATION RATIOS	IPO Mrkt	Price /	Price /	Price /	Price /	% offered
	Cap (mm)	Sales	Earnings	BookValue	TangibleBV	in IPO
BWAY Holding (BWY)	$369	0.2	12	2.9	-1.3	54%
SCORECARD		Mgt	Market	Market Do-	Proprie-	Total
1-5, 5 is high			Growth	mination	tary	rating
20 is perfect		2	2	2	1	7
Business
. A leading North American manufacturer of general line rigid metal and plastic containers
. Estimates that it has a number one market share in products that together represented approximately 78%
of fiscal 2006 net sales.
. In fiscal 2006, total net sales were $918.5 million, or $968.9 million on a pro forma basis for the
acquisition of substantially all of the assets of ICL in July 2006.
History
. Since 2003, the management team has lead a successful transformation of the company through
diversification into the general line rigid plastics business.
. In three years, completed four strategic acquisitions, diversified into plastics with $365.5 million in plastic
segment net sales for fiscal 2006 and have achieved a market leading position for the products
manufactured.
Relative segment growth
. The general line rigid plastic container market is growing faster than the general line rigid metal container
market
. On a pro forma basis for the ICL acquisition, plastics packaging segment net sales were 41.5% and metal
packaging net sales were 58.5% in fiscal 2006.
Segments
> Metal packaging segment operates primarily in North America in the general line segment of the metal
container market. In the United States, BWY is the leading producer of steel paint cans, the third largest
producer of steel aerosol cans and we has established significant market positions in most of our other
product lines.
> BWY believes that it is the largest manufacturer of general line rigid plastic containers in the North
American market and produces products in five broad categories: (1) open-head containers; (2) tight-head
containers; (3) "F"-style plastic bottles; (4) plastic drums; and (5) plastic paint bottles.
Customers
. BWY's plastics packaging segment customers include some of the world's leading paint, food and
industrial companies, several of which are also customers of the metal packaging segment.
. Has long-term relationships with customers and in many cases are the exclusive supplier of the customers'
plastic packaging requirements.
. In fiscal 2006, sales to the 10 largest plastics packaging segment customers accounted for approximately
40% of the segment's net sales. Of the fiscal 2006 segment net sales, approximately 18% were to The
Sherwin-Williams Company.
Use of Proceeds from sale of 11.76mm shares
(Kelso Investment Associates VI will be the seller of 9.1mm shares)
100% to selling shareholders
===================
GeoVera Insurance	GEOV, C+, 7
specialty residential property insurance						Post-IPO shrs: 21.5m
Hamilton, Bermuda			2006	March, 06*	March, 07*	IPO Mkt
Total revenues ($mm)			$175	$40	$50	Cap (mm)
Profit (loss) $mm			$35	$3.5	$13.4	$366
Profit (loss) %			20%	9%	27%	@$17
Ratios
. Gross loss			34%	48%	23%
. Combined (exp & loss)			83%	85%	80%
				*quarter ending March 31
VALUATION RATIOS	IPO Mrkt	Price /	Price /	Price /	Price /	% offered
	Cap (mm)	Sales	Earnings	BookValue	TangibleBV	in IPO
GeoVera Ins (GEOV)	$366	1.8	7	1.4	1.6	27%
SCORECARD		Mgt	Market	Market Do-	Proprie-	Total
1-5, 5 is high			Growth	mination	tary	rating
20 is perfect		2	2	2	1	7
Business
. Provider of specialty residential property insurance
. Focuses on two lines of business, Specialty Homeowners and Residential Earthquake, in certain markets
that GEOV believes is suffering from short-and long-term dislocation and where GEOV has strong
underwriting expertise.
. For 2006 60% or revenue from specialty homeowners insurance, 40% from earthquake insurance.
. Sells Specialty Homeowners products primarily on a non-admitted, or excess and surplus lines, basis in
hurricane-exposed states such as Florida, South Carolina and Texas, and Residential Earthquake products
primarily on an admitted basis in earthquake-prone states, such as California, Oregon and Washington.
---------
. Excess line insurance companies (Excess & Surplus) typically insure risks not covered by the standard lines market.
. They are broadly referred as being all insurance placed with non-admitted insurers.
. Non-admitted insurers are not licenced in the states where the risks are located.
. These companies have more flexibility and can react faster than standard insurance companies because
they don't have the same regulations as standard insurance companies.
. State laws generally require insurance placed with surplus line agents and brokers to not be available
through standard licensed insurers.
---------
Competitive strengths
o Leading specialty residential property insurer with expertise in dislocated, underserved markets.
. December 31, 2006, was the largest non-admitted homeowners insurer in Florida as ranked by premiums
written, according to publicly available data from the Florida Surplus Lines Service Office.
. For the year ended December 31, 2005, the most recent year for which data is available, was the largest
private insurer of residential earthquake risk in California as ranked by premiums written, according to
publicly available data from the California Department of Insurance.
o Automated, "no-exceptions" individual risk underwriting platform
Is a primary insurer, providing specialty residential property coverage to individual policyholders.
o Flexibility as a non-admitted primary insurer
Sells Specialty Homeowners products primarily on a non-admitted basis, which provides more flexibility
than admitted carriers to set and adjust premium rates, customize policy forms and enter and exit markets in
response to changing underwriting conditions
History
. Travelers Insurance is the former parrent
. Since GeoVera Holdings had no operations prior to the Acquisition, which occurred on November 1,
2005, it has limited historical financial and operating information
. Prior to the Acquisition, substantially all of the gross premiums written, gross premiums earned, losses
and loss adjustment expenses incurred, underwriting expenses and investment income produced by
GEOV's U.S. Insurance Subsidiaries were ceded to Travelers, the former parent, pursuant to various quota
share reinsurance agreements.
Competition
In the Specialty Homeowners business, competes with state-sponsored residual insurance markets, regional
and single-state insurance companies and, to a lesser extent, national homeowners insurers such as The
Allstate Corporation, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, The Travelers Companies, Inc.,
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Liberty Mutual Holding Company Inc., Safeco Corporation and
others.
. In Florida, primary competitor is Citizens, a state-sponsored residual insurer formed in 2002 to provide
homeowners policies to Florida residents who are unable to secure coverage in the admitted market. For the
year ended December 31, 2006, we were the largest non-admitted homeowners insurer in Florida, as ranked
by premiums written.
. In Texas, competes for certain coastal exposures principally with other non-admitted homeowners insurers
such as the underwriters at Lloyd's and with admitted insurers who write their policies in conjunction with
the Texas Wind Insurance Association, or TWIA. Also underwrites admitted homeowners business in
certain inland counties in Texas, where GEOVcompetes with a broad group of other admitted homeowners
insurers such as Safeco Corporation and Republic Companies Group, Inc.
. In South Carolina, we underwrite Specialty Homeowners policies primarily in coastal counties, where we
compete primarily with Lexington Insurance Company and AXIS Capital Holding Ltd., both of which
operate on a non-admitted basis.
. In California, state law requires all homeowners insurers to offer their homeowners policyholders a
separate catastrophic residential earthquake policy with statutorily mandated deductibles, coverage
limitations and other state-mandated provisions every two years. Currently, companies that account for
approximately 70% of the California homeowners insurance market on a direct premium basis participate
in the CEA.
. Other than the CEA and homeowners insurers offering state-mandated mini-policies, GEOV believes that
it currently has only two direct competitors for residential earthquake business in California: AXIS Capital
Holding Ltd. and Pacific Specialty Insurance Company.
. In Oregon and Washington, homeowners insurers typically offer residential earthquake coverage as an
endorsement to existing homeowners policies. Some homeowners insurers in these states, such as Allstate
Insurance Company, have stopped offering residential earthquake coverage to their policyholders, while
others have raised deductible levels and restricted new business in certain areas. GEOV believes that its
product design and customer service capabilities compare favorably with those carriers who continue to
offer residential earthquake coverage in these states.
Use of $29mm in IPO proceeds from sale of 2mm shares
(shareholders intent to sell 3.9mm shares)
. Contributions to the capital of Insurance Subsidiaries and for other general corporate purposes
. Selling shareholder is the parent GeoVera Insurance Group Holdings, Ltd., who will own 73% post-ipo
===================


Financial Performance & Scoring -- © 2007 Gaskins IPO Desktop/IPOdesktop
Pre-IPO analysis, grading & scoring -- updated June 6
. Business Model Rating Criteria
A = high growth market, potential leader; B = more competitive market; C= 'public venture capital'
. Calculations
. IPO Price to annualized Sales Ratio -- (Price / Sales)
Numerator		Denominator
IPO market capitalization…		Annualized Sales (based on recent results)
(post-IPO # of shares times mid-point of IPO price range)
. IPO Price to annualized Earnings (loss) -- (Price / Earnings)
Numerator		Denominator
IPO market cap		Annualized Earnings (loss) from the last quarter
===================
SEARCH BY COMPANY		In your browser use 'Edit/Find' to search for companies
or ticker for analysis		scheduled below
===================
June 4wk week IPO schedule
VALUATION RATIOS	IPO Mrkt	Price /	Price /	Price /	Price /	% offered
	Cap (mm)	Sales	Earnings	BookValue	TangibleBV	in IPO
Einstein Noah Rst BAGL	$313	0.8	67	-7.7	-2.9	32%
3 brands of bagel specialty restL C, 6.5						Post-IPO shrs: 15.6m

FBR Capital (FBCM)	$1,098	1.9	25	2.2	2.2	19%
REIT sub of Friedman Billings: C+, 6						Post-IPO shrs:65m

Infinera Corp (INFN)	$915	4.7	-12	6.4	6.4	17%
(photonic-based) optical networking: B-, 8						Post-IPO shrs: 83m

Limelight Net (LLNW)	$861	15.4	-11	5.7	5.7	18%
delivers rich media over the Internet: B-, 8.5						Post-IPO shrs: 78m

Response Gtncs (RGDX)	$76	11.9	-27	3.9	3.9	30%
diagnostic tests for cancer: C, 5.5						Post-IPO shrs: 10m

Starent Networks STAR	$624	5.6	68	5.6	5.6	17%
multimedia infrastructure for mobile oper: B-, 8						Post-IPO shrs: 62m

Yingli Green Energy YGE	$1,548	7.0	358	3.1	3.3	22%
Vertically integrated photovoltaic prod: B-, 8						Post-IPO shrs: 129m
Total	$5,435
June 4wk financials, analysis, grading, scoring
Einstein Noah Rest	BAGL, C, 6.6
3 brands of bagel specialty rest						Post-IPO shrs: 15.6m
Golden, CO	2004	2005	2006	March, 06*	March, 07*	IPO Mkt
Rev ($mm)	$374	$389	$390	$97	$96	Cap (mm)
Gross Profit %	18%	19%	20%	19%	20%	$313
Depreciation & amortization%				6.2%	2.5%	@$20
Operating Income %	1%	2%	5%	2%	6%
Profit (loss) $mm	-$17	-$14	-$7	-$12.0	$1.2
Profit (loss) %	-4.7%	-3.6%	-1.8%	-12.4%	1.2%
EBITDA %	9.2%	9.8%	10.8%	8.5%	9.4%
				*quarter ending March 31
Note: operating income increased in the March 07 quarter in large part because depreciaton & amortization
decreased to 2.5% from 6.2%
VALUATION RATIOS	IPO Mrkt	Price /	Price /	Price /	Price /	% offered
	Cap (mm)	Sales	Earnings	BookValue	TangibleBV	in IPO
Einstein Noah Rst BAGL	$313	0.8	67	-7.7	-2.9	32%
SCORECARD		Mgt	Market	Market Do-	Proprie-	Total
1-5, 5 is high			Growth	mination	tary	rating
20 is perfect		2	2	1.5	1	6.5
Secondary - traded on pink sheets - symbol: NWRG.PK between $18 & $20, with an average daily volume
of 6200 shares
Business
. BAGL believes it is the largest owner/operator, franchisor and licensor of bagel specialty restaurants in
the US.
. 600 restaurants in 36 states and the District of Columbia under the Einstein Bros. Bagels, Noah's New
York Bagels and Manhattan Bagel brands.
. As a leading fast-casual restaurant chain, BAGL's restaurants specialize in high quality foods for
breakfast, lunch and afternoon snacks in a café atmosphere with a neighborhood emphasis.
Locations
. Einstein Bros. restaurants are 33 states and the District of Columbia
. Noah's restaurants in three states on the West Coast
. Manhattan Bagel restaurants concentrated in the Northeast.
. Einstein Bros. and Noah's restaurants are company-owned or licensed, while Manhattan Bagel restaurants
are predominantly franchised.
Operations
. As of April 3, 2007, have identified 20 company-owned restaurants that anticipated to close over the next
three years as their leases expire. Generally, these restaurants have an AUV (annual unit volume) of
$550,000 or less and contribute negligible cash flow.
. Recently implemented a number of initiatives in an effort to drive sales and improve profitability
including quality service checklists, secret shopper inspections, improved ordering systems and enhanced
training programs.
. These initiatives have led to positive comparable store sales over the past nine quarters, which reversed a
two-year negative trend.
New Restaurant Openings
. During 2004, 2005 and 2006, opened four, four and five new company-owned restaurants, respectively
. In 2007, plans to open a total of 11 to 15 new company-owned restaurants.
. For Einstein Bros., has targeted Atlanta, Chicago, Las Vegas, Phoenix, and various cities in Florida for development.
. For Noah's, intends to focus development efforts on Portland, Seattle and various cities in California.
. As of April 3, 2007, opened one new Noah's location located in Portland, Oregon.
Current restaurant base
As of April 3, 2007, owned and operated, franchised or licensed 597 restaurants.
. Current base of company-owned restaurants under core brands includes 336 Einstein Bros. restaurants and
74 Noah's restaurants.
. Also, franchises 79 Manhattan Bagel restaurants and licenses/franchises 97 Einstein Bros. restaurants and
three Noah's restaurants.
. In addition, has eight restaurants operates under non-core brands.
History
. Commenced operations as an operator and franchisor of coffee cafes in 1993.
. Substantial growth in the restaurant counts occurred through a series of acquisitions.
. In 1998, we acquired the stock of Manhattan Bagel Company. In 1999, acquired the assets of Chesapeake
Bagel Bakery.
. Largest acquisition was in 2001 when BAGL acquired substantially all the assets of Einstein/Noah Bagel
Corp. in an auction conducted by the bankruptcy court.
. To consummate this acquisition, engaged in several rounds of financing that included the issuance of
$165.0 million of debt and $65.0 million of mandatorily redeemable preferred stock.
. In mid-2003, recapitalized our balance sheets with the issuance of $160.0 million of indentures and the
issuance of $57.0 million of mandatorily redeemable preferred stock.
. In late 2003, the current management team assumed their respective roles. This team focused on our core
business, the operation of company-owned restaurants and the improvements necessary to generate positive
operating income and cash flow.
. In early 2006, based on improved financial condition and favorable market conditions, redeemed the
$160.0 million indenture and replaced it with the current debt structure.
Competition
. Competes in the fast-casual segment of the restaurant industry
. Also considers other restaurants in the fast-food, specialty food and full-service segments to be
competitors.
Use of $90mm IPO proceeds
Repay debt
===================
FBR Capital Markets	FBCM, C+, 6
REIT sub of Friedman Billings						Post-IPO shrs:65m
Arlington, VA	2004	2005	2006	March, 06*	March, 07*	IPO Mkt
Rev ($mm)	$583	$574	$419	$128	$148	Cap (mm)
Profit (loss) $mm	$90	$48	-$10	$4.8	$11.0	$1,098
Profit (loss) %	15.4%	8.4%	-2.3%	3.8%	7.4%	@$17
				*quarter ending March 31
VALUATION RATIOS	IPO Mrkt	Price /	Price /	Price /	Price /	% offered
	Cap (mm)	Sales	Earnings	BookValue	TangibleBV	in IPO
FBR Capital (FBCM)	$1,098	1.9	25	2.2	2.2	19%
SCORECARD		Mgt	Market	Market Do-	Proprie-	Total
1-5, 5 is high			Growth	mination	tary	rating
20 is perfect		2	2	1	1	6
Price range of stock
. Prior to this offering, no public trading market currently existed for FBCM's common stock.
. However, shares of FBCM common stock originally issued in connection with the 2006 private offering
became eligible for resale to qualified institutional buyers in accordance with Rule 144A under the
Securities Act and for reporting on Nasdaq PORTAL market
. The stock has traded at $15.25 on the PORTAL market.
Business
. An indirect majority-owned taxable REIT subsidiary of FBR Group, and investment bank
. Formed in June 2006 as a Virginia corporation to be the holding company for FBR Gro