partners group global income fund · net asset value $2.00 fixed/floating floating payment...

Report Created on 29 July 2019

Issuer Name

Partners Group Private Markets (Australia) Pty Ltd

Security Name

Partners GroupGlobal Income Fund

Security Recommendation

Subscribe

Security Risk

High

Issuer Outlook

Improving Stable Deteriorating

Key Characteristics

Product TypeListed Investment

Trust

Issue Size*$200,000,000 -

$550,000,000

Net Asset Value $2.00

Fixed/Floating Floating

PaymentFrequency

Monthly

TargetDistribution

RBA cash rate plus 4.00% p.a. (net)

First DistributionRBA cash rate plus

4.00% p.a. (net)

Franking CreditsIncl.

No

ASX ListedYes (ASX Code

[PGG])

Convertible No

GICS Sector**InvestmentCompanies

Asset Class Fixed Income

Sub-Asset Class Credit

ManagerPartners GroupPrivate Markets

ResponsibleEntity

Equity TrusteesLimited

Custodian &Administrator

The Northern TrustCompany

Unit RegistrarBoardroom Pty

Limited

Offer Opens 12 August 2019

Offer Closes 5 September 2019

Allotment Date 20 September 2019

CommencesTrading on

26 September 2019

First PaymentDate

Before December2019

* Issue size to be determined under the Offer. ** We classify PGG within the GICS Sector "Investment Companies", but note that the ASX is likely to assignit a "Not Applicable" classification.

Summary

The Partners Group (PG) Global Income Fund ('the Trust', 'PG GIF') is a listed investment trust (LIT) providing investors with access to a segment of the global direct loan market (ASX code: PGG). Stricter regulatory capital requirements for banks has led to rapid growth in the US$1.2 trillion private debt market whilst exhibiting a low correlation to traditional fixed income instruments. The PG GIF offers an investment opportunity and exposure to a market that has previously been inaccessible in Australia for retail investors. Specialist expertise is required to operate in this market and the global PG private debt team comprises highly skilled and experienced lending specialists. The team consists of over 50 investment professionals supported by a global network of over 1,200 employees, operating in 20 offices and managing $118 billion in assets globally, with $25 billion within private debt strategies.

The Trust will initially implement leverage of up to 50% of the Gross Asset Value (GAV) of the Senior Secured Loan strategy during the initial ramp up phase with the intention of progressively reducing this figure as the allocation to the higher yielding strategies increases. All foreign currency exposure will be hedged into AUD.

The objective of the Trust it to provide Unitholders with a consistent and stable monthly income of RBA Cash Rate +4% from a diversified, global portfolio of private loans with a focus on capital preservation. PG expects to raise a minimum of $200 million ($500 million maximum) from the PG GIF initial public offering, with the ability to accept further applications by way of Oversubscriptions under the Offer of a further $50 million at the discretion of the RE. Management costs associated with the LIT are 1% plus expenses and performance fees of 10% over a hurdle of RBA Cash Rate +6% for the special situations strategy (if the LIT exceeds RBA +4%), capped at 0.25% p.a across a rolling three year period.

Figure 1: 10Y Risk Return1 Figure 2: Relative Value2

Research Report

www.bondadviser.com.au© 2019 BondAdviser. All Rights Reserved.

29 July 2019 |

AusBond Bank Bill 0+ Index

AusBond Credit FRN 0+ Index

S&P/LSTA Leveraged Loans Index

S&P/ASX200 Accumulation

Index

PG GIF (Forward Estimate)

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

5.0%

5.5%

6.0%

6.5%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Return

Volatility

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

Se

p-1

2

De

c-1

2

Ma

r-1

3

Jun

-13

Se

p-1

3

De

c-1

3

Ma

r-1

4

Jun

-14

Se

p-1

4

De

c-1

4

Ma

r-1

5

Jun

-15

Se

p-1

5

De

c-1

5

Ma

r-1

6

Jun

-16

Se

p-1

6

De

c-1

6

Ma

r-1

7

Jun

-17

Se

p-1

7

De

c-1

7

Ma

r-1

8

Jun

-18

Se

p-1

8

De

c-1

8

Ma

r-1

9

PG GIF Performance RBA Cash Rate

1 Excludes leverage. Based on indicative portfolio2 Returns based on indicative portfolio

Security Recommendation - Subscribe as at 29 July 2019

This product is best recommended for investors looking to generate an attractive level of income from a diversified portfolio of private loans that should exhibit a low correlation to traditional asset classes, making it a suitable diversifier to retail investor income portfolios, which are typically biased towards domestically sourced, equity-based and/or hybrid income streams. Our basis for recommendation on the PG GIF is a blend of both subjective and objective analysis of the underlying portfolio and the manager’s background, experience, analytical capability and proven track record in managing various private debt strategies.

A listed investment trust (LIT) structure derives unit holder returns from two sources: distributions and capital returns from the underlying portfolio and share price movements which drive the prevailing premium/discount to Net Tangible Assets (NTA). The latter is a function of market and manager sentiment but also reflects liquidity and structural features of the Trust. Price movements away from NTA would, in our opinion, be more speculative and not a function of asset fundamentals or financial risk management. The former is of course subject to risks, however the investment manager’s successful implementation of its portfolio strategy and risk framework have been in existence since 2006.

The asymmetric return profile of Private Debt strategies means that the success of the LIT and its ability to meet its investment objective is through PG’s ability to source attractive investment opportunities, actively manage risk at a portfolio level (i.e. diversification strategies) and an asset level (i.e. loan review and selection). We are of the firm belief that for asset managers to consistently produce superior risk-adjusted returns they must either have a unique investment strategy, access to specialist products and/or have a competitive advantage. In this case, we believe the PG GIF exhibits the latter through deep industry relationships and comprehensive proprietary databases, giving the investment team an information advantage over competitors that allows it to make enhanced investment decisions.

Broadly, a new wave of accommodative monetary easing has dampened yields across the globe and has left investors with fewer available and stable income-generating opportunities without incurring an increased degree of risk.

The RBA’s recent rate cuts (mid 2019) has arguably extended the later stages of the current credit cycle which poses a risk to all asset classes, but given the PG GIT’s reduced correlation with traditional fixed income instruments and PG’s experience in successfully navigating similar strategies through the GFC, we are confident in the abilities of PG moving forward. We note that the illiquid nature of some strategies within the Trust means that it should be considered as a medium to long-term investment by investors. However, this risk is partially mitigated by PG’s proactive approach to credit and portfolio risk management in addition to the presence of liquid assets within the portfolio.

Overall, the PG GIF is led by a highly experienced team and supported by an industry-respected private-markets asset manager in Partners Group. The alternative lending space is becoming an increasingly popular sub-asset class due to its attractive and steady income levels and strong risk-adjusted returns.

For all the above reasons, we recommend investors Subscribe to the Partners Group Global Income Fund.

Positive / Negative Risk Factors

What factors would change the Recommendation UP

• Partners Group is a leading global private markets asset manager with a comprehensive investment team in scaleand experience that consists of more than 1,200 employees across 20 offices and includes over 50 dedicated PrivateDebt professionals.

• The firm has been investing across private markets for 20 years and has subsequently cultivated deep industryrelations with over 20 major financial institutions in addition to developing a proprietary database that containsfinancial figures from over 8,000 private companies, giving the firm a distinct information advantage overcompetitors.

• The firm places a strong emphasis on capital preservation which is reflected by its low average annual capital lossrates for senior secured loans (0.43% p.a.) and second lien loans (0.20% p.a.) since 2007 and 2006 respectively.

• The target portfolio is well diversified by geography, industry and issuer with no single investment expected tocomprise more than 1.5% of the GAV of the strategy.

• The allocation of investment assets in the Senior Secured Loan Strategy will generate income from inception. Thiswill greatly reduce any cash drag from unallocated capital and minimises the risk of target distributions not beingmet during the initial ramp-up phase of the Trust. However, due to the lower risk/return profile of this strategy, theLIT will utilise leverage to enhance returns of this profile of up to 50% of GAV for the Senior Secured Loans strategy,thus increasing the overall risk profile of the Trust for a time.

• PG minimises sponsor risk through the implementation of Change of Control clauses within lending covenants toborrowers, giving PG the option to exit its position, typically at a premium if a change in equity sponsor occurs.

What factors would change the Recommendation DOWN

• Given the unit price of the LIT is determined in a public market (ASX), the value of the product will be more sensitiveto news flow and other announcements relative to PG’s wholesale offerings.

• Credit quality deterioration (or in a worst-case scenario, issuer defaults) in the PG GIF portfolio could result in amaterial decline in the NAV. We note that the Portfolio will hold sub-investment grade debt that is susceptible toadverse economic conditions. However, this is partially mitigated by PG’s experience in managing private debtstrategies and constructing portfolios that are well diversified by geography, industry and credit quality.

Research Report


29 July 2019 |

• While we are content with the internal controls operating within the Private Lending Strategies and broader PGinvestment platform, operational risk is always a threat to portfolio performance. This includes the failure ofinternal procedures and human error or misjudgement.

• A lower interest rate environment would likely see yields on private loan investments compress and place the targetnet distribution of the RBA Cash Rate + 4.00% in some risk given the concentrated position of floating rateinstruments of the Trust. Furthermore, competition is rapidly intensifying within the private debt market and couldalso lead to further market compression. This risk is partially mitigated through the primary use of interest ratefloors (typically 1.00% for LIBOR).

• There is a high percentage of covenant-lite loans included in the portfolio, which limits protections available to thelender and hence investors, thus increasing the overall risk profile of the LIT.

• The use of leverage within the Trust’s Senior Secured strategy increases its exposure to adverse economic shocks andincreases the outright risk profile of the Trust.

Issuer Outlook - Stable as at 29 July 2019

Investment Objectives, Strategy & Performance

The Partners Group Global Income Fund is a listed investment trust (LIT) which aims to provide investors with access to the $2 trillion private debt market. The investment objective of the Trust is to provide investors with stable monthly income from a globally diversified portfolio of loans, targeting a return of RBA Cash Rate +4.00% p.a. (after fees).

The Global Income Strategy seeks to provide an alternative to traditional fixed income investments by investing in middle market borrowers, demonstrating a bias towards companies in non-cyclical industries with market-leading positions coupled with strong cash flow generation. The Trust will invest across the capital structure through three of its existing strategies; the Senior Secured Loan Strategy (BB/B), Subordinated and Second Lien Strategy (B-/CCC+) and Special Situations Strategy (BB/B).

Investments in the Senior Secured Loan Strategy will typically be made to borrowers generating EBITDA in excess of USD $50 million, with the size of the investment being greater than USD $200 million. The Subordinated and Second Lien loan strategy involves extending facilities that are either; secured by the companies’ assets with security by the way of a second ranking lien, subordinated, unsecured in nature or “Unitranche”, which combines Senior Secured Loans and Second Lien into a single facility. Lastly, the Special Situations strategy involves local direct lending opportunities denominated in AUD and made to an Australian borrower, investments into Senior Secured Loans trading in the secondary market at a discount where PG see’s value and select junior capital investments such as Payment In Kind (PIK) or mezzanine financing.

PG began investing in private debt markets in 2003. From Q4 2012, the firm's Senior Secured (First Lien) Loan Strategy recorded an annualised total return of 4.9%, whilst experiencing capital loss rates of 0.43%. Similarly, its Subordinated and Second Lien Loan Strategy achieved an annualised total return of 8.9% whilst averaging annual default rates of just 0.20%. We note that during this period, the S&P LSTA Leveraged Loan index, which we view as the closest relevant benchmark, has returned ~4.7% p.a with higher capital loss rates of 0.68% - exhibiting PG’s experience and abilities in managing this strategy. Lastly, the firms Mezzanine Loan Investments strategy, which we view as a proxy for the LIT’s Special Situations Strategy, has recorded annualised returns of 8.5%. After analysing the firms returns and capital loss rates of the existing strategies, we are confident in the manager’s ability to successfully execute these similarly for the LIT.

Liquidity, Operational & Financial Risk Management

The Liquidity risk of the PG GIF will be limited as a result of its close-ended nature and its units traded as a listed instrument on the ASX. Instead, the main source of liquidity risk stems from the private nature of the investments being made where only a small secondary market exists, if at all. Therefore, the private debt investments which are made are illiquid by nature and could test the ability of portfolio managers to exit positions in deteriorating credits promptly. This may result in deviations from the LIT’s NAV and unit price in poor market conditions with adverse market sentiment possibly preceding a mark-down in asset prices or vice-versa. To mitigate this, PG closely tracks investment and exit activity and creates a rolling cash flow forecast which generally enables PG to limit liquidity risks associated with private market investments.

Operating Risk is defined by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) as "the risk of loss resulting from inadequate or failed internal processes, people and systems, or from external events”. As such, operational risk captures business continuity plans, environmental risk, crisis management, process systems and operations risk, people related risks, health and safety, and information technology risks. This includes errors in internal controls, hedging policies and other operational aspects of the PG GIF and/or underlying portfolio. The internal controls are overseen by governance mechanisms (see next section), while currency hedging using derivatives could pose a risk to portfolio returns during periods of increased volatility in foreign exchange markets.

Research Report


29 July 2019 |

We believe this risk is partially mitigated as only less-volatile currencies employed by robust sovereign entities are utilised and which are principally the Euro (EUR) and United States Dollar (USD), with no exposure to volatile emerging market currencies, which can present hedging issues. The Quantitative and Risk Management Team are responsible for determining the Trust’s foreign currency exposure on a regular basis, whilst the Global Portfolio Committee calculates the appropriate hedging parameters. PG does have some limited operating experience through a similar currency hedging strategy employed through the wholesale Partners Group Global Value Fund, however only 70% of exposures are hedged back to AUD. Given PG’s extensive experience operating in private markets across the globe, we are comfortable with current hedging policies and procedures. All foreign currency exposure of the PG GIF will be hedged back to Australian dollars and are typically done so through the use of 3-month forward contracts.

Partners Group’s focus on mitigating risk begins with its investment bias towards borrowers which exhibit conservative characteristics (i.e. non-cyclical industries, strong cash flow profile etc.) and continues throughout the entirety of the investment process. If a target investment qualifies for the approved list of credits following a rigorous credit review it is then allocated to eligible portfolios within position risk limits. Once a credit investment has been approved and allocated within relevant position risk limits and compliance policies, PG adopts a pro-active approach in the form of credit monitoring and risk management. Credits are monitored through a proprietary database which tracks loan/deal level data, internal approval processes and relevant credit metrics in conjunction with actively monitoring credit news flows and price changes. Additionally, credits are reviewed at weekly portfolio management meetings and at quarterly credit and industry Investment Committee (IC) meetings. Furthermore, these proprietary systems are utilised to manage risk in accordance with client objectives and constraints, whilst the risk management process review is conducted by the Investment Oversight Committee (IOC) and Global Product Committee (GPC).

The LIT will be supported by a dedicated team of 35 portfolio and risk management personnel, reporting to the Chief Risk Officer. These staff are responsible for liaising with portfolio managers and credit analysts on an ex-ante basis to ensure credits are performing and risk levels remain within specified parameters.

Governance, Asset Stewardship & Internal Controls

PG is a large, global asset manager operating across various private asset classes. As such, firm-wide governance is crucial to ensure internal controls are established and maintained. Importantly, these functions are independent of the portfolio construction process and comprise dedicated committees providing continual oversight.

• The Investment Oversight Committee (IOC) provides advice and support to the Board of Directors, the managementand the investment committees regarding the assessment of quality and consistency of decision processes,investment performance and investment risks incurred by the Trust.

• The Global Investment Committee is comprised of the firm’s most senior professionals and is responsible forsupervising the overall investment approach, informed of all investment opportunities, due diligence and overseesthe investment recommendations for all private market investments made within the Trust.

• The Risk and Audit Committee (RAC) is responsible for developing, monitoring and reviewing the firm’s riskmanagement policies. In addition to this, the RAC advises the Board of Directors in the areas of audit and risk control,evaluates the appropriateness of the group-wide financial reporting, internal control systems and the generalmonitoring of business risks.

At a product level, the PG GIF is a closed-ended listed investment trust (LIT) domiciled in Australia (issued by Partners Group Private Markets Australia Pty Ltd) with a single class of units on issue. The LIT is registered with ASIC as a Managed Investment Scheme, and Equity Trustees Limited is the Responsibility Entity (RE) acting in the best interest of holders. Partners Group Private Market (Australia) Pty Ltd is the Manager of the Trust as well as the Investment Manager. The Product Disclosure Statement (PDS), Trust Deed and Investment Management Agreement (IMA) are key documents governing the PG GIF.

Research Report


29 July 2019 |

Quantitative Analysis

In quantitatively evaluating the future performance of this strategy, we have adopted the CreditMetrics framework, a proven methodology created by JPMorgan in 1997 which was later purchased by MSCI in 1999. We note that the portfolio is subject to two broad overarching risks, namely credit and liquidity, but the latter is challenging to model with conviction, especially in a market where publicly available transactional data is limited. For this reason, our focus will be solely on credit risk for analytical purposes.

The CreditMetrics model attempts to model credit migrations (i.e. improvements or deteriorations in the credit quality of an asset), which will directly impact the valuation of Partners Group Global Income Fund (PG GIF, through Net Asset Value). Based on estimated fair value yield curves, we can revalue each individual holding for each derived credit rating. Although Partners Group has a robust track record in minimising capital losses (see: Portfolio Construction), our analysis places no limit on adverse credit migration to model a possible worse-case scenario for investors. We note that this approach takes no implicit assumption of Partners Group’s capability and longstanding track record of capital preservation.

We model the probability of mark-to-market losses from Moody’s historical data known as transition rates (Table 1 below). Specifically, this data represents long-term statistics (1981-2018) regarding the probability of an issuer being upgraded or downgraded from its current credit rating over a certain period. Additional commentary and modelling of different transition rates can be found in Appendix 3, which examines the impact of distressed (2009) and benign (2018) economic conditions.

Despite the recommended investment horizon being 3-5 years, we apply a one-year credit migration outlook for our quantitative framework to limit the uncertainty of variables. For each rating band and for the majority of the population, an instrument’s credit rating is likely to remain static over this timeframe with some probability (>10%) of a one-notch upgrade or downgrade. Note that the probability of a credit rating downgrade will typically exceed the probability of an equivalent rating upgrade, highlighting that credit migrations are negatively skewed. Our analysis builds on the principles behind Merton’s structural credit model to randomly generate a series of credit ratings in one year’s time. The core assumption is that asset (firm) returns are normally distributed and that the value of an issuer in one year is determined by the credit rating (or default) of the company at that time.

Table 1. Moody’s Global Corporate 1-Yr Credit Rating Transition Rates1

Cu

rre

nt

Ra

tin

g

1-Yr Forward Transition

AAA AA A BBB BB B CCC Default

AAA 91.11% 8.18% 0.61% 0.07% 0.02% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

AA 0.84% 89.62% 8.95% 0.44% 0.06% 0.04% 0.02% 0.02%

A 0.05% 2.59% 91.14% 5.51% 0.50% 0.11% 0.04% 0.06%

BBB 0.03% 0.15% 4.29% 90.58% 3.90% 0.71% 0.16% 0.19%

BB 0.01% 0.04% 0.45% 6.74% 83.28% 7.67% 0.77% 1.05%

B 0.01% 0.03% 0.15% 0.49% 5.37% 82.53% 7.32% 4.10%

CCC 0.00% 0.02% 0.02% 0.09% 0.39% 7.63% 79.82% 12.03%

1Average transition rates from 1981-2018 Source: BondAdviser, Moody’s

As mentioned, the Partners Group CIT consists of three different components across debt markets, being 1st lien loans, 2nd lien / subordinated loans and special situation loans. Given the different nature of each of the assets, our methodology was applied individually across the three sets, before aggregating the weighted contributions to determine the Partners Group CIT (Figure 5) result. We assume there is no FX impact, noting this is mostly mitigated by Partners themselves through hedging on a 3-month forward basis.

We simulate 10,000 scenarios where each portfolio asset has an end credit rating defined by the transition probabilities in each of the three sleeves. Mapping valuation changes to these hypothetical credit rating states, we derive a probability distribution of portfolio valuations for each sleeve (Figures 4 to 6). The revaluation overlay allows us to estimate (unrealised) credit loss over a one-year horizon and illustrates the valuation impact of adverse credit migrations across all three sleeves of Partners Group CIT and the portfolio in total.

Given the portfolio is entirely comprised of non-investment-grade, loan-assets, under the constraints of our model, the Portfolio’s exposure has an adverse effect on capital value. We caveat this excludes the impact of expected portfolio income and explicitly prohibits upwards revaluation for loan assets. As such, credit loss is manageable with a mean loss of ~4.03% and with portfolio value-at-risk (at a 1% VAR probability) of ~7.25% loss.

The quantitative framework defines the forward-looking risk score for our overall product assessment of Partners Group CIT. This is consistent with the BondAdviser Fund Research Methodology and overlays an objective evaluation to our recommendation. On the basis of our analysis, we assign the Partners Group CIT a risk score of ‘B’ which also equates to a weighted-average credit rating of the portfolio at the end of a one-year period.

Research Report


29 July 2019 |

Figure 3. Partners Group CIT Credit Migration Impact1 – Target Portfolio

Given loans are held to maturity by the lender, they typically are not marked-to-market for profit purposes as would otherwise occur with fixed-income instruments. Credit migration risk will typically not impact marked loan profitability in the absence of default. Capital regulations are relatively immaterial (compared to banks) for equity-funding non-bank lenders such as Partners Group. As a result, the primary quantitative downside risk to a non-bank portfolio is the expected loss (product of the probability of default and the loss given default).

Downwards revaluation of a loan asset will directly impact the NAV, this decision can be subjective and binary which makes it difficult to model with respect to credit risk. We have assumed loans are fully drawn, which exacerbates the expected loss, if loans are not fully drawn. Furthermore, we assume there is no migration upwards (for loan assets) and that loan assets are priced at par unless impaired or in default. Although arbitrary, impairment for the purposes of modelling direct loans (i.e. not traded) is exclusively revalued on a jump-to-default basis, based on average recovery rates by subordination from Moody’s. Tradable loans are impaired for any level of negative migration, reflecting the higher discount rate implied by a greater probability of default, this is not dissimilar to the expected market reaction, where expected losses are marked-to-market.

The indicative portfolio of Partners Group CIT has a mean loss of ~4.03% (as mentioned above), median loss of ~3.95% and displays a largely symmetrical distribution (γs = -0.4) given the interaction between asset classes.

For the 1st Lien sleeve, total portfolio value-at-risk (at a 1% VaR probability) is ~3.55%, mean loss is ~2.08%, median loss is ~2.04% and has a largely symmetrical skew (γs = -0.3).

For the 2nd Lien sleeve, total portfolio value-at-risk (at a 1% VaR probability) is ~3.78%, mean loss is ~1.36%, median loss is ~1.26% and has a negative skew (γs = -0.6). This is a function of the underlying direct loans having no revaluation upside in the case of positive migration. The distribution is more bi-modal (less smooth), given the smaller number of underlying assets, which results in fewer possible simulated outcomes.

For the Special Situations sleeve, total portfolio value-at-risk (at a 1% VaR probability) is ~2.24%, mean loss is ~0.60%, median loss is of ~0.57% and has a negative skew (γs = -0.8). The distribution is acutely bi-modal, given it contains few underlying assets (<10), which results in fewer possible simulated outcomes. This impact is amplified given the simulated assets are hypothetical and largely uniform, restricting the possible universe of outcomes.

We note on a standalone basis, both the 2nd Lien and Special Situations components have a higher expected loss, however, given they form smaller proportions of the portfolio, the impact on total loss is cushioned. We also recognise that our explicit negative skew (no upwards revaluation) does not factor in any equity-like upside that is commonly prevalent in special situation deals.

This risk assessment does not account for the previously mentioned expertise of the Partners Group team in avoiding defaults and instead assumes that assets would be held to default. In reality, covered issuers are actively researched and followed and subjected to many levels of scrutiny and oversight. We expect that, in-line with demonstrated history, assets would be managed prior to such an event occurring.

Another key assumption in our testing is the complete exclusion of income in the transition scenarios, which would more than compensate for the (unrealised) market value losses from adverse credit ratings changes within the Partners Group CIT.

Considering all of the above and in particular our conservativeness in assuming no pre-emptive actions are taken before a default and for no running income, we are comfortable with Partners Group CIT and on management’s ability to avoid significant credit losses whilst delivering the targeted income levels.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

-20% -15% -10% -5% 0%Expected Loss

CumulativeProbability (RHS)

-20.0%

-18.0%

-16.0%

-14.0%

-12.0%

-10.0%

-8.0%

-6.0%

-4.0%

-2.0%

0.0%

Ex

pe

cte

d L

oss

95% VaR

99% VaR

Research Report


29 July 2019 |

Figure 4. Partners Group CIT Credit Migration Impact1 – 1st Lien Portfolio Component

Figure 5. Partners Group CIT Credit Migration Impact1 – 2nd Lien / Subordinated Portfolio Component

Figure 6. Partners Group CIT Credit Migration Impact1 – Special Situations Portfolio Component

1Moody’s average transition rates from 1981-2018 have been utilised. Table 2. in Appendix 3 shows the revaluation adjustments.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

-8% -6% -4% -2% 0%Expected Loss

Cumulative Probability (RHS)

-8.0%

-7.0%

-6.0%

-5.0%

-4.0%

-3.0%

-2.0%

-1.0%

0.0%

1.0%

Ex

pe

cte

d L

oss

95% VaR

99% VaR

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

-8% -6% -4% -2% 0%Expected Loss


-8.0%

-7.0%

-6.0%

-5.0%

-4.0%

-3.0%

-2.0%

-1.0%

0.0%

1.0%

Ex

pe

cte

d L

oss

95% VaR

99% VaR

-8.0%

-7.0%

-6.0%

-5.0%

-4.0%

-3.0%

-2.0%

-1.0%

0.0%

1.0%

Ex

pe

cte

d L

oss

95% VaR

99% VaR

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

-8% -6% -4% -2% 0%Expected Loss


Research Report


29 July 2019 |

Investment Process

The investment process is administered by Partners Group’ Global Private Debt Team, with the core team

consisting over 50 experienced credit professionals who are further supported by eight industry analytics teams.

Through its 850 private market relationships across the Partners Group platform, PG tracks ~34,000 assets through its proprietary PRIMERA database giving it an information advantage over its competitors. Additionally, the database has seen PG develop a robust origination pipeline that saw PG screen 416 credits in 2018. Incoming credit opportunities are screened by the private debt investment team during biweekly deal source/screening meetings where they are evaluated by the Investment Committee (IC) which decides whether to advance an investment to the next stage of the process.

For the liquid component of the Trust that typically encapsulated the first lien strategy, each credit is assigned to an industry analyst who prepares a credit ‘view’ which is shared with the IC as part of the screening process. Once a credit has passed initial screening it is subject to a first credit review where a comprehensive qualitative and quantitative credit analysis is conducted, after which an analyst produces a more detailed credit paper and assigns the potential investment with a credit score. The credit paper discusses information sourced from third parties, management teams, ESG checks, industry experts and legal due diligence. Additionally, PG will also assess transaction pricing, debt levels and financial aspects of the target company and management. If the investment passes the IC’s second credit review, they are added to the approved list of credits (“Transaction Advice”).

If the investment opportunity is accepted by the IC and progresses through the first review, analysts conduct a second review to model worst-case scenarios and address any remaining credit concerns and questions from the IC members. If the IC approves, the credit is added to the approved list and a Transaction Advice will then be updated to reflect position and risk limits.

The above process differs slightly for the direct lending investments which comprise the majority of the Second

Lien and Special Situation strategies. Whilst the overall process largely remains the same, the investment

process for a direct lending investment is generally more rigorous and to a greater detail, including an extra

‘preliminary investment recommendation’ stage prior to an investment being approved due to the investments

inherently private nature. Direct lending investments require additional due diligence conducted over legal, tax

and structure prior to execution because of this feature. Post-execution, the inherent illiquidity of these

investments restricts portfolio managers’ ability to efficiently reduce position sizes and rebalance portfolios.

Any credits that are not approved by the IC due to credit or pricing concerns will continue to be tracked by performance and price movements.

Portfolio Construction

The target portfolio of the PG GIF is derived from the Group’s existing Private Lending strategy. The portfolio will consist of the Senior Secured Strategy (60-100%), Subordinated and Second Lien Strategy (0-20%) and Special Situations Strategy (0-25%). We note that initially the Trust will comprise almost entirely of the Senior Secured Loan strategy, with these investments being warehoused prior to launch and thus reducing the risk to investors that income targets are not met during the initial ramp-up phase of the Trust. Following this, PG will start to allocate a higher proportion of the Trust’s GAV to the Trust’s other strategies to achieve a pick-up in yield. The portfolio will consist purely of private loans, made either bilaterally or as a member of a syndicate (i.e. Leveraged Loans).

The portfolio will be highly diversified by geography, industry and borrower. For the Senior Secured Loan strategy, no borrower will consist of more than 1.5% of the Trust’s GAV, whilst industry exposure is restricted to less than 15% of GAV. A similar approach is implemented for the Special Situations, as well as the Subordinated and Second Lien strategies, with no single investment that forms part of these strategies comprising more than 1.5% of the Gross Asset Value (GAV) of the Trust. Furthermore, the Senior Secured strategy will utilise portfolio level term financing of 5+ years in order to generate a higher return for the LIT through the use of leverage of up to 50% of GAV during the initial ramp-up period, with this figure reducing to an average of 25% on an ongoing basis. The financing is over a portfolio of underlying loans in the LIT, but due to its limited recourse nature will only hold security of senior secured loans within the LIT. Whilst this leverage increases the risk profile of the Trust, we remain comfortable with the level of risk of the portfolio given historical capital loss rates on senior secured instruments by way of first lien are ~0.43%.

The Trust will primarily invest in floating rate instruments, with 95% of the Trust’s Gross Asset

Value (GAV) providing floating rate exposure, minimising interest rate duration and providing a natural

hedge to rising interest rates. Additionally, all investments denominated in EUR and USD will be hedged back

to AUD.

Portfolio Management

The portfolio management process is largely focused on proactively monitoring and managing portfolio risks. The firm places an emphasis on regular quantitative and qualitative monitoring of debt investments extending beyond monthly and quarterly reports. Credit monitoring is conducted through actively analysing credit news

Research Report


29 July 2019 |

flows and price changes, watch lists, bi-weekly earnings meetings, weekly portfolio management meetings and

quarterly credit and industry investment committee meetings.

The firms approach to portfolio management is characterised by capitalising on market inefficiencies and relative value opportunities, as well as capturing capital gains and minimising credit losses through rebalancing

of the portfolio. A mixture of proprietary and external analytical tools is utilised by PG in the ongoing management of its portfolios. These tools include the thinkFolio portfolio modelling system, WSO as a platform

for trade reconciliations and position settlements and the Primera Debt Dashboard which is used for credit monitoring purposes and provides the team with an overview of all approved credits.

Figure 7. Investment Process

Source: BondAdviser, Partners Group

Sourcing

• “PRIMERA” database containing investment information on 34,000assets

• Bi-weekly Sourcing Meeting

• External Sourcing: Banks/GP Sponsorsetc

• Internal Sourcing:

• Reverse Enquiries

• Secondary Market

• Integrated PG Platform

Screening

• Assign credit to analyst responsiblefor the industry

• Management presentation, CreditMemo & PG Proprietary databaseinformation analysed

First Credit Review

• Comprehensive Credit Analysis:

• Qualitative

• Quantitative

• Address credit concerns raised by ICin Screening phase

• Prepare detailed credit paper andcredit score

• Credit paper discussed in depth inDaily Investment Committee meeting

Second Credit Review

• Downside scenario financial modelbuilt

• Credit documentation

• Outstanding credit concerns andquestions addressed

• Detailed discussion of updated creditpaper in daily Investment Committee

• Update Transaction Advice reflectingincreased hold limit for approvedinvestments

Portfolio Construction

• Diversified portfolio of ~150 obligorsacross First Lien, Second Lien andSpecial Situations strategies

Risk Management

• Proprietary systems to manage risk inaccordance with holding/position risk limitsand Trust mandates

• Risk management process review byInvestment Oversight Committee (IOC) andGlobal Product Committee (GPC)

• Utilise Risk Management tools embedded inthinkFolio

• Senior Secured Loan Strategy:

o 60-80% allocation

o BB/B

o Average loan duration of 3 years

o Target Return: US Libor +5%

• Subordinated and Second Lien Strategy:

o 0-20% allocation

o B-/CCC+

o Average loan duration of 3 years

o Target Return: US Libor +8%

• Special Situations Strategy:

o 0-25%

o BB/B

o 3-4-year average loan duration

o US Libor +6%

Credit Monitoring & Portfolio Management

• Active monitoring of credit news flows andprice changes

• Watch List

• Bi-weekly earnings meetings

• Weekly Portfolio Management meeting

• Quarterly Credit and Industry IC meetings

• Capitalise on market inefficiencies andrelative value opportunities

• Portfolio rebalancing to recognise capitalgains/minimise credit losses

Research Report


29 July 2019 |

Appendix 1: Target Portfolio Overview (as at 26 July 2019)

PG GIF Breakdown Target Portfolio Credit Quality

Composition 1st Lien 2nd Lien SS Total

Asset Allocation

60-100% 0-20% 0-25% 100%

Issuers 90-120 15-30 0-30 ~150

Max 2.00% 1.00% 1.00% 0.67%

Securities 135-180 23-45 45 ~225

Average 0.24% 0.21% 0.21% 0.23%

Max 1.38% 0.83% 1.72% 1.72%

Metrics* 1st Lien 2nd Lien SS Total

Target Return US Libor

+5%

US Libor +8%

US Libor +6%

US Libor +5.6%

Maturity (Years)**

5.8 6.8 6.9 6.1

Industry Diversification (Top 10)*** Issuer Loan Price Distribution

Maturity Profile Yield Distribution

Source: BondAdviser, Partners Group

*Figures are all averages of estimated target portfolio composition.

**To legal maturity, does not include optional call dates.

***Estimated based on PG CIT’s target portfolio allocation by Industry

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

$96 $97 $98 $99 $100

Ex

po

sure

Price

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Ex

po

sure

Years to Maturity

BB B CCC D NR

SS 0.0% 0.0% 8.1% 0.0% 0.0%

2nd Lien 0.0% 0.0% 16.2% 0.0% 0.0%

1st Lien 20.8% 54.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

20.8%

54.9%

24.3%

0.0% 0.0%0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

1st Lien 2nd Lien SS

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

<2% <4% <6% <8% <10% <12%

Ex

po

sure

Yield (%)

3%

3%

3%

3%

5%

5%

5%

5%

5%

7%

0% 5% 10%

Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure

Diversified Consumer Services

Internet & Direct Marketing…

Software

IT Services

Pharmaceuticals

Health Care Technology

Health Care Equipment

Food & Staples Retailing

Health Care Providers & Services

Research Report


29 July 2019 |

Appendix 2: About Partners Group

Founded in Switzerland in 1996, Partners Group is a private equity firm with over US$83 billion of assets under

management across conventional private equity, private real estate, private debt and private infrastructure. Employing more than 1,200 staff, the group is headquartered in Zug, Switzerland with over 20 offices globally

and an Australian office in Sydney.

The group takes an active role in working with management teams to ensure strong performance and future investment opportunities, most of which last between five and eight years. Partners Group’s operations in Australia focus on private debt markets, both in direct investments and through investments in reputable managers, providing access to the wider private market.

Historically, liquidity constraints and extensive lock-up periods have limited private debt opportunities to banks and institutional investors. Partners Group has developed an operating model and product suite such that these opportunities are made available to private individuals in spite of the illiquidity of underlying investments and without the lock-up periods typical of a conventional private fund. Currently, the group offers The Partners Group Global Value Fund (AUD), the Partners Group Multi-Asset Fund and the Partners Group Global Real Estate fund, allowing investors to gain exposure to private markets with either monthly or daily liquidity.

Private debt funds offered by Partners Group allow investors to maintain a less volatile portfolio insulated from public market sentiment, while the group’s involvement with management teams ensure relative value and actual earnings, rather than sector-wide performance. The longer investment lifespan intrinsic in private debt allows for favourable risk-adjusted returns relative to public markets, while Partners Group’s product structure allows for greater flexibility for investors, providing strong returns while maintaining diversification free of market noise.

Figure 8. Partners Groups AUM Breakdown

Partners Group Global Value Fund

AUM: A$1,400 million

Partners Group

AUM: A$118 billion

Partners Group Australia

AUM: A$10 billion

Partners Group Global Value Fund

AUM: A$1,400 million

Partners Group Global Real Estate Fund

AUM: A$129 million

Partners Group Global Multi-Asset Fund

AUM: A$184 million

Partners Group Institutional Clients

AUM: A$~8,200 million

Research Report


29 July 2019 |

Partners Group Senior Executives

Martin Scott, Partner, Head of Australia

Martin joined Partners Group in 2008 as Head of Australia, a member of the Global Executive Board and Director of the Partners Group Australia Board. Prior to joining Partners Group, Martin was head of Investment Sales at Zurich Financial Services after serving as Institutional Sales Manager at Zurich Schudder Investments. Martin graduated from the University of Technology Sydney before studying marketing at the Macquarie Graduate School of Management.

Bill Berry, Partner, Global Head of Private Debt

Bill serves as Head of the Private Debt business and is a member of the Global Executive Board. Bill previously served in a variety of senior roles at Bank of America/Merrill Lynch including as Global Co-head of Counterparty Portfolio Management and Head of EMEA Structured Credit and Securitisation and Solutions, before being appointed Co-President of Capula Investment Management. Berry graduated with a bachelor’s degree in Economics from the Princeton University, and an M.B.A from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

Andrew Bellis, Managing Director, Head of Liquid Loans

Andrew is Head of the Liquid Loans business and is a member of the Global Liquid Debt Investment Committee. Prior to joining Partners Group in 2017, Andrew was Managing Director of 3i Group, after working as a Director at Credit Suisse and Merrill Lynch. Andrew holds a Master of Science degree in physics from Imperial College London.

Scott Essex, Partner, Head of Private Debt Americas

Scott been at Partners Group since 2007 and serves as Head of the Americas Private Debt unit. He serves as a member of the Global Investment Committee, Chairman of the Global Direct Investment Committee and a member of the Global Liquid Debt Investment Committee. In addition, Scott sits on the Board of Directors of the firm’s portfolio companies Affordable Care, Inc., ATX Networks, Capital Spring Finance Company, Sabre Industries, Inc and DMS. Scott previously worked at Lazard and GE Capital and holds an M.B.A from the McDonough School of Business at Georgetown University.

Chris Bone, Head of Private Debt Europe

Chris is Head of the European Private Debt business and serves as a member of the Global Direct Debt Investment Committee and the Global Liquid Debt Investment Committee. Prior to joining Partners Group, Chris worked in a variety of roles at Price Waterhouse Coopers, Ernst & Young, RBS Global Banking & Markets, and AlpInvest Partners before joining Partners Group in 2010. Chris graduated with BA in Economics and Politics and a master’s degree in finance from Durham University, and is also a Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) Charter holder.

Research Report


29 July 2019 |

Appendix 3: Further Quantitative Analysis

In addition to the credit migration impact using long term average transition probabilities (as displayed in Figure

3 and again here, Figure 9 for reference), we have also modelled the estimated credit migration impact based on different economic conditions. The process is identical, however single-year (as compared to multiple year

averages) transition probabilities have been utilised (Table 2 to 4). This allows for testing across benign and stressed economic conditions. We have kept recovery rates uniform throughout our modelling; this is to account

for the large variation of single-year recovery rates. Additionally, single-year recovery rates can be spurious if they are unreflective of broader economic conditions (i.e. a recovery of zero in a single year has more drag

compared against its impact over the long-term).

Figure 9. Adj. Long Term Average Transition Rates Credit Migration Impact – Target Portfolio

Figure 10. Adj. 2009 Transition Rates Credit Migration Impact – Target Portfolio

Figure 11. Adj. 2018 Transition Rates Credit Migration Impact – Target Portfolio

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

-20% -15% -10% -5% 0%Expected Loss


-20%

-18%

-16%

-14%

-12%

-10%

-8%

-6%

-4%

-2%

0%

Ex

pe

cte

d L

oss

95% VaR

99% VaR

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

-20% -15% -10% -5% 0%Expected Loss


-20%

-18%

-16%

-14%

-12%

-10%

-8%

-6%

-4%

-2%

0%

Ex

pe

cte

d L

oss

95% VaR

99% VaR

-20%

-18%

-16%

-14%

-12%

-10%

-8%

-6%

-4%

-2%

0%

Ex

pe

cte

d L

oss

95% VaR

99% VaR

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

-20% -15% -10% -5% 0%Expected Loss


Research Report


29 July 2019 |

By using 2009 single-year transition rates, we test the portfolio against a proxy for distressed markets where

downgrades and jump-to-default are significantly more frequent than the long-term average. We note the significant assumptions and limitations in doing such. Punitive migration probabilities result in a total portfolio

value-at-risk (at a 1% VaR probability) of ~15.53%, mean loss is ~11.28%, median loss is ~11.25% and displays a

near symmetrical distribution (γs = -0.1).

By using 2018 single-year transition rates, we test the portfolio against a proxy for benign markets, where downgrades and jump-to-default were less frequent than the long-term average. Soft migration probabilities

result in a total portfolio value-at-risk (at a 1% VaR probability) of ~5.89%, mean loss is ~3.11%, median loss is

~3.01% and has a near symmetrical distribution (γs = -0.1).

For reference, using the average from 1981-2018, the portfolio has a total portfolio value-at-risk (at a 1% VAR probability) of ~7.25% loss, mean loss is ~4.03% (as mentioned above), median loss is ~3.95% and displays a largely symmetrical distribution (γs = -0.4).

Again, we note this modelling excludes expected income and explicitly assumes all assets are held to default. Given Partners Group track record during the GFC (16.3% model Net IRR for Subordinated / 2nd Lien Strategy in

2009) we would expect assets to be managed before a worst-case outcome (as modelled here) occurs.

Table 2. Adjusted Long-Term Average Transition Rates1

FROM/TO: AAA AA A BBB BB B CCC Default

AAA 91.11% 8.18% 0.61% 0.07% 0.02% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

AA 0.00% 90.47% 8.95% 0.44% 0.06% 0.04% 0.02% 0.02%

A 0.00% 0.00% 93.79% 5.51% 0.50% 0.11% 0.04% 0.06%

BBB 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 95.05% 3.90% 0.71% 0.16% 0.19%

BB 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 90.51% 7.67% 0.77% 1.05%

B 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 88.58% 7.32% 4.10%

CCC 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 87.97% 12.03%

1 Moody’s average transition rates from 1981-2018. Adjusted for loans not being revalued upwards of par.

Table 3. Adjusted Single Year (2009) Transition Rates2


AAA 62.42% 37.58% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

AA 0.00% 70.98% 27.57% 1.27% 0.18% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

A 0.00% 0.00% 80.46% 17.91% 0.62% 0.75% 0.00% 0.26%

BBB 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 87.29% 9.58% 1.57% 0.17% 1.38%

BB 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 76.81% 18.18% 1.45% 3.56%

B 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 72.22% 18.21% 9.58%

CCC 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 61.38% 38.62%

2 Moody’s single-year transition rates for 2009. Adjusted for loans not being revalued upwards of par.

Table 4. Adjusted Single Year (2018) Transition Rates3


AAA 92.45% 7.54% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

AA 0.00% 93.80% 6.20% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

A 0.00% 0.00% 94.42% 5.46% 0.12% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

BBB 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 97.37% 2.53% 0.00% 0.11% 0.00%

BB 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 90.51% 8.89% 0.59% 0.00%

B 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 89.30% 9.48% 1.23%

CCC 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 89.17% 10.83%

3 Moody’s single-year transition rates for 2018. Adjusted for loans not being revalued upwards of par.

Research Report


29 July 2019 |

Research Methodology

Every research report prepared by BondAdviser includes a clear recommendation on the security. This recommendation frameworkis designed to help investors navigate different investment opportunities by identifying the market price, yield, term to maturity,liquidity, volatility and risk.

The guide below may help you understand our research opinions. For further information on our research approach, you can referto our RG79 statement by clicking here.

Research Opinions key

• Buy - Over the next 12 months, the analyst expects the security to outperform the current yield due to credit spreadtightening or favourable movements in the underlying yield curve.

• Hold - Over the next 12 months, the analyst expects the security to provide stable returns broadly in line with the currentyield but with little credit spread tightening.

• Sell - Over the next 12 months, the analyst expects the security to underperform the current yield due to credit spreadwidening or adverse movements in the underlying yield curve.

• Suspended - The recommendation has been suspended temporarily due to the disclosure of new information or marketevents that may have a significant impact on our recommendation. This also includes situations where we have been givennon-public information and we need to temporarily suspend our coverage in order to comply with applicable regulationsand/or internal policies.

• Not Rated - A security that has not been assigned a formal recommendation.

• Ceased Coverage - The recommendation has ceased due to issuers failure to disclosure necessary information or coverage issubjectively removed in accordance with our Research Governance Statement.

About BondAdviser

BondAdviser is Australia’s only specialist independent fixedincome research platform providing valuable informationand clear investment recommendations for all ASX-listedinterest rate securities and a broad range of over-the-countercorporate bonds.

We are the first choice for financial advisers, stockbrokers,private banks; and wealth management firms that needaccess to the highest quality, most timely and independentfixed income insights and useful analytical tools.

Clients use BondAdviser to meet their risk, governance andcompliance requirements. Partnering with us gives themconfidence they have a transparent audit trail when makingrecommendations about fixed income securities. This ensuresthey can demonstrate they have always acted in their clients’best interests.

Offering a one-stop-shop for pre-trade analytics, complianceand post trade support in Australian fixed income securities,we provide independent research recommendations updateddaily.

The company is not aligned to any financial servicesorganisation and the executive team brings over 75 years’combined experience in the fixed income sector.

Learn moreTo learn more about the fixed income market visit ourwebsite www.bondadviser.com.au

Important Information

The web application, the Content and the Reports are not intended to provide financial product advice and must not be relied upon orconstrued as such. The statements and/or recommendations on this web application, the Content and/or the Reports are our opinions only. Wedo not express any opinion on the future or expected value of any Security and do not explicitly or implicitly recommend or suggest aninvestment strategy of any kind.

The Content and the Reports provided at this web application have been prepared based on available data to which we have access. Neitherthe accuracy of that data nor the research methodology used to produce the Content and Reports can be guaranteed or warranted. Some of theresearch used to create the Content and the Reports is based on past performance. Past performance is not an indicator of futureperformance. We have taken all reasonable steps to ensure that any opinion or recommendation in the Content or the Reports is based onreasonable grounds. The data generated by the research in the Content or the Reports is based on research methodology that has limitations;and some of the information in the Content or the Reports is based on information from third parties.

We do not therefore guarantee the currency of the Content or the Reports. If you would like to assess the currency, you should compare theContent or the Reports with more recent characteristics and performance of the assets mentioned within it. You acknowledge that investmentcan give rise to substantial risk and a product mentioned in the Content or the Reports may not be suitable to you.

You should obtain independent advice specific to your particular circumstances, make your own enquiries and satisfy yourself before youmake any investment decisions or use the Content or the Reports for any purpose. This web application and the Content and the Reportsprovide general information only. There has been no regard whatsoever to your own personal or business needs, your individualcircumstances, your own financial position or investment objectives in preparing the Content and Reports available at this web application.

We do not accept responsibility for any loss or damage, however caused (including through negligence), which you may directly or indirectlysuffer in connection with your use of this web application or the Content or the Reports, nor do so we accept any responsibility for any suchloss arising out of your use of, or reliance on, information contained on or accessed through this web application, the Content or the Reports.

Research Report


29 July 2019 |

https://www.bondadviser.com.au/documents-and-links/

https://www.bondadviser.com.au/documents-and-links/

partners group global income fund · net asset value $2.00 fixed/floating floating payment...

Documents