Case File
efta-02627821DOJ Data Set 11OtherEFTA02627821
Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 11
Reference
efta-02627821
Pages
2
Persons
0
Integrity
Extracted Text (OCR)
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
From:
David Stern
Sent:
Friday, January 18, 2019 6:12 AM
To:
Jeffrey Epstein
Subject:
Bond Fund
Can you check if this is of interest to Rothschild?
Discussing it now with Pictet and Julius Baer.
I can start this with US$ 50m (ICM, Taiwan family) and feel confident =ther families will follow us quickly.
Thanks
David
The problem
- Large family offices are increasingly managing their own wealth.
- Chinese family office wealth is largely first generational.
- Do not trust outside parties much and want direct control of their =ssets
- Do not understand that institutionalized asset management cannot turn =n a dime and move in and out.
- Do not like funds because assets locked up, no visibility, and no real =ontrol once funds have been deployed.
- Do not like paying fees.
- Want steady return through bonds but do not want to give up =lexibility, control and transparency.
The solution
- Create a bond fund at Rotschild that large family offices could assign =und managers specific for their pool of capital.
Rotschild would get the fund managers along with the client to make =ure they are up to par.
- Family office would get the benefit of Rotschild funding, trading =latform and bond access.
- Family office would have visibility into the bonds and some control on =und manager.
- As the bond fund would be essentially a Rotschild product under =otschild risk guidelines and management, should be
leveragable. This is =mportant because it means the cash isn't stuck and can be =everaged against as the family office
needs and thus preserves =lexibility. This isn't super different from existing bond fund =hich are also leveragble. The key
difference is that the fund manager =s assigned over by family office and the transparency, mandate, risk =evel is clear
to the family office. Basically, incentive of family =ffice is more aligned.
- As this bond fund is a Rotschild product, other families should be =ble to subscribe to the bond fund as well.
What is the benefit to Rotschild?
- Increased AUM from family office putting a $50 minimum onto the =latform to trade bonds.
- Increased fee flow as Rotschild would essentially be charging fees on =he bond trades. As it is bonds it would be more
the bid ask spread but =hould still provide bond desk with more flow
- Lending for trades would be locked to Rotschild. More lending fees.
- Base platform fee on large AUM. (0.3-0.5%?)
- Family offices would undoubtedly recommend their employees, friends, =ompanies to invest in their "bond fund" as it
would be =E2$4safer" leasing to even greater AUM and all the above =enefits.
Practicality points
- ICM is looking with a few banks to do exactly the above and has 4 year =rading experience as a licensed hedge fund
with track record.
- ICM is looking to do 50-150 min In said platform.
EFTA_R1_01843592
EFTA02627821
ICM would want to do this because family funds are scattered in =ifferent companies and accounts and this allows for
centralization in a =ay a hedge fund cannot easily allow. (EX: when it is not a Rotschild =ond fund for example the family
has to keep funds at the private bank =nd at the hedge fund leading to inefficient use of capital. Much =impler to have
all the funds at the private bank invested in a private =ank product; however, we would not do so because 1) fees are
too high; =) insufficient transparency; 3) leverage not as good; 4) in short =rivate bank is much inferior to owning a
hedge fund platform =ntentionally to gouge clients. In the past this was fine but with 2nd =en having worked at the
banks, we just set up our own platforms now. We =ust keep minimums at banks necessary to keep it open and trade
=Isewhere which is a big loss to Banks. For reference, ICM across hedge =und equities and bonds pays around 1.5 a year
on fees.
- ICM family side would want to pool corporate capital into this. Cannot =ool into hedge fund. Currently capital pooled
into commercial banks =hich makes us a lot less and bad service for investment management.
- In short, ICM aren't the only ones with this problem. Would =ike to setup biz around this - there is demand and i can
bring others =wiftly.
<?xml version=.0" encoding=TF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE plist PUBLIC "-//Apple//DTD PLIST 1.0//EN" "http://www.apple.com/DTDs/PropertyList-1.O.dtd">
<plist version=.0">
<dict>
<key>conversation-id</key>
<integer>330617</integer>
<key>date-last-viewed</key>
<integer>0</integer>
<key>date-received</key>
<integer>1547791940</integer>
<key>flags</key>
<integer>8590195713</integer>
<key>gmail-label-ids</key>
<array>
<integer>2</integer>
<integer>6</integer>
</array>
<key>remote-id</key>
<string>891753</string>
</dict>
</plist>
2
EFTA_R1_01843593
EFTA02627822
Technical Artifacts (5)
View in Artifacts BrowserEmail addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.
Phone
2627821Phone
2627822Phone
7791940URL
http://www.apple.com/DTDs/PropertyList-1.O.dtdWire Ref
referenceRelated Documents (6)
DOJ Data Set 10CorrespondenceUnknown
EFTA Document EFTA01779891
0p
DOJ Data Set 10OtherUnknown
EFTA01837754
1p
DOJ Data Set 10OtherUnknown
EFTA01682184
186p
DOJ Data Set 11OtherUnknown
EFTA02537098
1p
DOJ Data Set 10CorrespondenceUnknown
EFTA Document EFTA01884822
0p
DOJ Data Set 10CorrespondenceUnknown
EFTA Document EFTA01719107
0p
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.
Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.