The role of private equity group reputation in LBO financing

This paper investigates whether the reputation of acquiring private equity groups (PEGs) is related to the financing structure of leveraged buyouts (LBOs). Using a sample of 180 public-to-private LBOs in the US between January 1, 1997 and August 15, 2007, we find that reputable PEGs are more active in the LBO market when credit risk spreads are low and lending standards in the credit markets are lax. We also find that reputable PEGs pay narrower bank and institutional loan spreads, have longer loan maturities, and rely more on institutional loans. In addition, while we find that PEG reputation is positively related to buyout leverage (i.e., LBO debt divided by pre-LBO earnings before interest, taxes, and amortization (EBITDA) of the target), and leverage is significantly positively related to buyout pricing, we do not find any direct relation between PEG reputation and buyout valuations. The evidence suggests that PEG reputation is related to LBO financing structure not only because reputable PEGs are more likely to take advantage of market timing in credit markets and but also because PEG reputation reduces agency costs of LBO debt.     

Private Equity: Boom and Bust?

The private equity or leveraged buyout (LBO) market in Europe and the U.S. has grown enormously over the last two decades, from $7.5 billion in 1991 to $500 billion in 2006. Much of the financing of recent transactions has come in the form of syndicated debt, which is dispersed after origination to many non‐bank financial institutions. This financing practice has two important possible consequences: First, bankers' incentives to engage in effective ex‐ante screening and ex‐post monitoring of deals have been weakened, which may have led to excessive lending while encouraging buyers to overpay. Consistent with this possibility, the authors provide new evidence that some recent transactions have occurred at very low EBITDA‐to‐capital ratios, financed with high levels of debt that recall those of the late 1980s and early 1990s. Second, there is a scarcity of information about the identity of the ultimate holders of the LBO debt; and as a consequence of the resulting uncertainty, a few defaults of major LBO deals could cause a drying up of new funding for financial institutions. The end result could be that the veil covering the repackaging of LBO debt converts a small shock to the LBO sector into a liquidity crisis for its financiers. Such liquidity problems could in turn affect not the financing and re‐financing of just LBO deals, but other as set classes as well, including lending by banks to public firms. The authors offer a number of suggestions for increasing the transparency of this market.     

Club deals in leveraged buyouts

We analyze the pricing and characteristics of club deal leveraged buyouts (LBOs)—those in which two or more private equity partnerships jointly conduct an LBO. Using a comprehensive sample of completed LBOs of U.S. publicly traded targets conducted by prominent private equity firms, we find that target shareholders receive approximately 10% less of pre-bid firm equity value, or roughly 40% lower premiums, in club deals compared to sole-sponsored LBOs. This result is concentrated before 2006 and in target firms with low institutional ownership. These results are robust to controls for target and deal characteristics, including size, Q, measures of risk, and time and industry fixed effects. We find little support for benign motivations for club deals based on capital constraints, diversification motives, or the ability of clubs to obtain favorable debt amounts or prices, but it is possible that the lower pricing of club deals is an inadvertent byproduct of an unobserved benign motivation for club formation.     

Did Structured Credit Fuel the LBO Boom?

The leveraged buyout (LBO) boom of 2004 to 2007 was fueled by growth in collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) and other forms of securitization. Banks active in structured credit underwriting lent more for LBOs, indicating that bank lending policies linked LBO and CDO markets. LBO loans originated by large CDO underwriters were associated with lower spreads, weaker covenants, and greater use of bank debt in deal financing. Loans financed through structured credit markets did not lead to worse LBOs, overpayment, or riskier deal structures. Securitization markets altered banks' access to capital, affected their lending policies, and fueled the recent LBO boom.     

Predicting the duration and reversal probability of leveraged buyouts

We examine the probability that a firm will return to public status following a leveraged buyout (LBO) transaction and for those LBOs that will eventually reverse, we examine the factors that impact the timing of the reversal. These two dimensions of the reversal decision are studied by estimating standard and split population hazard models for a sample of 343 LBO transactions. Our results indicate that not all LBO firms eventually will reverse, i.e. the net benefits of private status for some firms appear to be permanent. For those LBOs that will reverse, reversal probabilities are found to increase over the first seven or eight years following a typical LBO, then to decline thereafter.     

What Happens During the Private Period?: Evidence from Public‐to‐Private Reverse LBOs

This study provides new evidence on the restructuring activities undertaken by public‐to‐private reverse leveraged buyouts (RLBOs) while owned by private equity firms. The authors' comprehensive sample of public‐to‐private LBOs that return to public ownership through IPOs enables them to observe changes in profitability, valuation, financial structure, operating structure, and cost structure from the time the firms go private through (and after) their emergence through (re‐) IPOs. With their exclusive focus on reverse LBOs involving public‐to‐private deals, the authors reach findings that contradict previous conclusions about RLBOs. At the time of the LBO, the target firms in reverse LBOs are more levered than their peers, pay higher dividends, and are more profitable than their peers. At the same time, however, they appear to have lower market valuations before the buyouts. During the private period, the target firms of reverse LBOs achieve significant increases in employee productivity, asset restructuring, and improved gross margins, while operating with substantially higher levels of debt financing, lower levels of cash and working capital, and greater concentration of equity ownership. After the companies return to public ownership through IPOs, such companies continue to operate with higher leverage and ownership concentration than their publicly traded peers while producing further increases in profitability, resulting in substantial increases in both enterprise and equity valuation. The authors' analysis also shows that higher debt levels from the buyout play an important role in increased enterprise values. The evidence suggests that possible undervaluation as well as expected efficiency gains from restructuring actions are the primary motives for such reverse LBOs.     

Does the monitoring role of buyout houses improve discretionary accruals quality?

Using a sample of reverse leveraged buyout (‘reverse‐LBO’) firms, I find that discretionary accruals quality (AQ), the quality of accruals that are subject to management discretion, significantly improves from pre‐LBO to post‐reverse LBO. Moreover, buyout houses’ board seats and the length of firms’ stay‐in‐private periods are significant explanatory variables for the cross‐sectional variation in discretionary AQ for post‐reverse‐LBO firms. My findings suggest that the monitoring provided by private equity buyout houses improves discretionary AQ, consistent with the view of Jensen (1989a,b) that LBOs are a solution to inefficiencies that arise from agency problems.     

Is it Free Cash Flow, Tax Savings, or Neither?An Empirical Confirmation of Two Leading Going-private Explanations:The Case of ReLBOs

Firms which 'go private' via a leveraged buyout (LBO) retain the option to 'go public' again, a process known as a reverse LBO transaction. This paper examines the rarer phenomenon of reLBOs; that is, the practice of going private via leveraged buyout, reobtaining public status through a new initial public offering, and then going private a second time. Among the several alternative hypotheses explaining LBOs, we focus on two prominent ones – free cash flow and tax savings – to explain reLBOs. With a sample of 21 reLBO firms, we find no empirical support for the free cash flow hypothesis but detect a significant relationship between the decision to go private for the second time and the tax savings potential of the firm.     

我国上市公司杠杆收购绩效研究

企业资源优化配置,实施并购重组是我国目前资本市场上的一大热点.杠杆收购由于其创新性的并购方式,强大的融资能力,成为近年来在我国并购市场上备受瞩目的商业手段.本文通过对我国上市公司发生的杠杆收购案例进行分析,进一步选用因子分析法对公司杠杆收购绩效进行量化分析,得出结论为：杠杆收购对短期的企业绩效有正向激励作用,但是对长期绩效积极影响不明显,企业总体绩效在杠杆收购第3年后下滑,同时归纳出我国目前杠杆收购融资模式主要集中于商业银行贷款、信托机构融资的方式,融资模式较为局限,现存资本市场条件及政策对杠杆收购绩效有所限制.     

Leverage and pricing of debt in LBOs

We show that the structure and pricing of debt in LBOs mostly depend on a single characteristic of the target firm, pre-LBO profitability. We find a positive relationship between pre-LBO profitability and deal leverage that is consistent with a dynamic trade-off theory of capital structure in the presence of adjustment costs. We argue that the wide range of debt tranches used in LBO financing can be folded into two main categories, senior and junior debt, where the pricing of senior and junior debt depends on their relative use and on bankruptcy risk. Our evidence also suggests that senior lenders oversupply cheap credit during hot buyout markets.     

Consolidating Corporate Control: Divisional Versus Whole-Company Leveraged Buyouts

We examine the empirical relation between firm characteristics and the likelihood of choosing a restructuring choice between two types of leveraged buyouts: a whole‐company leveraged buyout (WLBO) and a divisional leveraged buyout (DLBO). Our findings suggest that firm characteristics such as volatility of cash flow and growth potential play an important role in determining a firm's restructuring choice between a WLBO and a DLBO. In particular, firms with greater volatility of cash flow and/or greater future growth potential are more likely to adopt a DLBO than a WLBO as their restructuring choice. These results are consistent with the notion that although low‐growth, high‐cash‐flow firms would create the most value for stockholders by paying out cash and tying future cash flows to the firm's debt service through a WLBO, high‐growth, low‐cash‐flow firms would be better off by selling assets if those assets would be better managed under a DLBO.     

A comparative analysis of leveraged recapitalization versus leveraged buyout as a takeover defense

Two types of defensive scheme—leveraged buyout (LBO) and leveraged recapitalization (LR)—are examined. In particular, this article examines (1) whether the two similar defensive tactics affect stockholder returns differently and (2) what firm attributes are associated with stockholder gains in LBO and LR announcements. This study finds that stocks of both LBO and LR firms, on average, exhibit significant positive abnormal returns during the announcement period, but that the latter experience substantially smaller returns than the former. This study further finds that while mitigation of agency problems associated with a firm's free cash flow is present for both LR and LBO firms, it is more pronounced for the LBO firms. These results provide evidence that a firm with higher free cash flow could benefit a greater reduction of agency costs by going private through a LBO plan than by remaining public through a LR plan.     

Illegal buyouts

This study empirically examines the effects of a regulation change on the structure and governance of leveraged buyouts (LBOs) within the Italian private equity market, whose transactions were only recently legalized. With a new data set covering approximately 85% of the buyout funds active in Italy during the period of 1999–2006, we find that a regulation that prohibits LBOs can reduce their frequency, but does not exclude them altogether. Rather, it inhibits efficient governance and distorts decision making. Overall, the data are consistent with the view that laws prohibiting LBOs result in less efficient LBO arrangements.     

The Determinants of Leveraged Buyout Activity: Free Cash Flow vs. Financial Distress Costs

This paper investigates the determinants of leveraged buyout (LBO) activity by comparing firms that have implemented LBOs to those that have not. Consistent with the free cash flow theory, we find that firms that initiate LBOs can be characterized as having a combination of unfavorable investment opportunities (low Tobin's q) and relatively high cash flow. LBO firms also tend to be more diversified than firms which do not undertake LBOs. In addition, firms with high expected costs of financial distress (e.g., those with high research and development expenditures) are less likely to do LBOs.     

Do Buyouts (Still) Create Value?

We examine how leveraged buyouts from the most recent wave of public to private transactions created value. Buyouts completed between 1990 and 2006 are more conservatively priced and less levered than their predecessors from the 1980s. For deals with post‐buyout data available, median market‐ and risk‐adjusted returns to pre‐ (post‐) buyout capital invested are 72.5% (40.9%). In contrast, gains in operating performance are either comparable to or slightly exceed those observed for benchmark firms. Increases in industry valuation multiples and realized tax benefits from increasing leverage, while private, are each economically as important as operating gains in explaining realized returns.     

Private Equity Syndication: Agency Costs, Reputation and Collaboration

Abstract:  Syndicates are a form of inter-firm alliance in which two or more private equity firms invest together in an investee firm and share a joint pay-off, and are an enduring feature of the leveraged buyout (LBO) and private equity industry. This study examines the relationship between syndication and agency costs at the investor-investee level, and the extent to which the reputation and the network position of the lead investor mediate this relationship. We examine this relationship using a sample of 1,122 buyout investments by 80 private equity companies in the UK between 1993 and 2006. Our findings show that where agency costs are highest, and hence ex-post monitoring by the lead investor is more important, syndication is less likely to occur. The negative relationship between agency costs and syndication, however, is alleviated by the reputation and network position of the lead investor firm.     

Pricing strategy and financial policy

Recent empirical evidence indicates that capital structure changesaffect pricing strategies. In most cases, prices increase followingthe implementation of a leveraged buyout of a major firm inan industry, with the more leveraged firm in the industry charginghigher prices on average. Notable exceptions exist, however,when the leverage increasing firm's rival is relatively unlevered.The first observation is consistent with a model where firmscompete for market share on the basis of price. The second observationcan be explained within the context of a Stackelberg model wherethe relatively unlevered rival acts as the Stackelberg priceleader.     

Morgan Stanley Roundtable on Private Equity and Its Import for Public Companies

The role of private equity in global capital markets appears to be expanding at an extraordinary rate. Morgan Stanley estimates that there are now some 2,700 private equity funds that either have raised, or are in the process of raising, a total of $500 billion. With this abundance of available equity capital, the willingness of private equity firms to participate in “club” deals, and the leverage that can be put on top of the equity, private equity buyers now appear able and willing to pay higher prices for assets than ever before. And thanks in part to this new purchasing power, private equity transactions reportedly account for a quarter of all global M&A activity as well as a third of the high yield and IPO markets. The stock of capital now devoted to private equity reflects the demonstrated ability of at least the most reputable buyout firms to produce consistently high rates of returns for their limited partners. Although a talent for identifying and purchasing undervalued assets may be part of the story, the ability to produce such returns on a consistent basis implies an ability to add value, to improve the performance of the operating companies they invest in and control. And in this round‐table, a small group of academics and practitioners address two main questions: How does private equity add value? And are there lessons for public companies in the success of private companies? According to the panelists, the answer to the first question appears to have changed somewhat over time. The consensus was that most of the value added by the LBO firms of the‘80s was created during the initial structuring of the deals, a process described by Steve Kaplan as “financial and governance engineering,” which includes not only aggressive use of leverage and powerful equity incentives for operating managements, but active oversight by a small, intensely interested board of directors. In the past ten years, however, these standard LBO features have been complemented by increased attention to “operational engineering,” to the point where today's buyout firms feel obligated, like classic venture capitalists, to acquire and tout their own operating expertise. In response to the second of the two questions, Michael Jensen argues that much of the approach and benefits of private equity‐particularly the adjustments of financial policies and stronger managerial incentives‐can be replicated by public companies. And although some of these benefits have already been realized, much more remains to be done. Perhaps the biggest challenge, however, is finding a way to transfer to public companies the board‐level expertise, incentives, and degree of engagement that characterize companies run by private equity investors.     

Divestments and financial distress in leveraged buyouts

This paper investigates the wealth effects of 134 divestments by 41 firms that underwent leveraged buyouts in the 1980s. Stock in these companies is privately owned. Bond returns for publicly traded debt are used to measure the wealth effects of the divestment announcement. These divestments are, on average, not associated with significant wealth effects for the full sample. However, firms that experience financial distress have negative and significant abnormal returns associated with their divestments, while returns in non-event months are insignificant. In contrast, non-distressed firms gain when asset sales are announced. The losses suffered by bondholders in distressed sellers are large and significant when core assets are divested. Bondholders in these firms do not suffer significant losses when non-core assets are divested. Finally, abnormal bond returns are related to the structure of the firms' post-buyout debt. Returns are negatively related to the use of private debt in the capital structure and positively related to the use of subordinated debt.     

Going public to acquire? The acquisition motive in IPOs

Newly public firms make acquisitions at a torrid pace. Their large acquisition appetites reflect the concentration of initial public offerings (IPOs) in mergers and acquisitions-(M&A-) intensive industries, but acquisitions by IPO firms also outpace those by mature firms in the same industry. IPO firms’ acquisition activity is fueled by the initial capital infusion at the IPO and through the creation of an acquisition currency used to raise capital for both cash- and stock-financed acquisitions along with debt issuance subsequent to the IPO. IPO firms play a bigger role in the M&A process by participating as acquirers than they do as takeover targets, and acquisitions are as important to their growth as research and development (R&D) and capital expenditures (CAPEX). The pattern of acquisitions following an IPO shapes the evolution of ownership structure of newly public firms.