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.     

Leveraged Buyouts in the U.K. and Continental Europe: Retrospect and Prospect

The markets for management buyouts in the U.K. and continental Europe have experienced dramatic growth in the past ten years. In the U.K., buyouts accounted for half of the total M&A activity (measured by value) in 2005. And as in the U.S. during the‘80s, the greatest number of U.K. buyouts in recent years have been management‐ and investor‐led acquisitions of divisions of large corporations. In continental Europe, by contrast, the largest fraction of deals has involved the purchase of family‐owned private businesses. But in recent years, increased pressure for shareholder value in countries like France, Netherlands, and even Germany has led to a growing number of buyouts of divisions of listed companies. Like the U.K., continental Europe has also seen a small but growing number of purchases of entire public companies (known as private‐to‐public transactions, or PTPs), including the largest ever buyout in Europe, the €13 billion purchase this year of the Danish corporation TDC. In view of the record levels of capital raised by European private equity funds in recent years‐which, until 2005, exceeded the amounts invested in any given year‐we can expect more growth in private equity investment in the near future. In continental Europe, the prospects for buyouts remain especially strong, given both the pressure from investors to restructure larger corporations and the possibilities for adding value in family‐owned firms. But, as the authors note, today's private equity firms face a number of challenges in earning adequate returns for their investors. One is increased competition. In addition to the increased activity of U.S. private equity firms, local private equity investors are also facing competition from hedge funds and new entrants such as government‐sponsored operators, family offices, and wealthy entrepreneurs. Another major challenge is finding value‐preserving exit vehicles. Although an IPO is an option for the largest buyouts with growth prospects, most buyout investments are harvested either through sales to other companies or, increasingly, other private equity firms. The latter transactions, known as “secondary” buyouts, now account for a significant share of new funds invested by private equity firms across Europe.     

Private Equity,Corporate Governance,and the Reinvention of the Market for Corporate Control

In the early 1980s, during the first U.S. wave of debt‐financed hostile takeovers and leveraged buyouts, finance professors Michael Jensen and Richard Ruback introduced the concept of the “market for corporate control” and defined it as “the market in which alternative management teams compete for the right to manage corporate resources.” Since then, the dramatic expansion of the private equity market, and the resulting competition between corporate (or “strategic”) and “financial” buyers for deals, have both reinforced and revealed the limitations of this old definition. This article explains how, over the past 25 years, the private equity market has helped reinvent the market for corporate control, particularly in the U.S. What's more, the author argues that the effects of private equity on the behavior of companies both public and private have been important enough to warrant a new definition of the market for corporate control—one that, as presented in this article, emphasizes corporate governance and the benefits of the competition for deals between private equity firms and public acquirers. Along with their more effective governance systems, top private equity firms have developed a distinctive approach to reorganizing companies for efficiency and value. The author's research on private equity, comprising over 20 years of interviews and case studies as well as large‐sample analysis, has led her to identify four principles of reorganization that help explain the success of these buyout firms. Besides providing a source of competitive advantage to private equity firms, the management practices that derive from these four principles are now being adopted by many public companies. And, in the author's words, “private equity's most important and lasting contribution to the global economy may well be its effect on the world's public corporations—those companies that will continue to carry out the lion's share of the world's growth opportunities.”     

Private Equity,the Rise of Unicorns,and the Reincarnation of Control‐based Accounting

This article discusses the rise of intangibles‐intensive companies and private equity (PE) since the late 1970s, and the role of both in bringing about the creation of a streamlined, more flexible set of accounting rules that, since their approval by the IASB and FASB in 2009, have been used by private companies and their investors. The PE industry comprises both venture capital (VC) firms that fund high‐growth enterprises and leveraged buyout (LBO) firms that fund more traditional, cash‐generating operations. Mainly because of the greater risks associated with both VC‐backed firms and LBOs—risks that make them ill‐suited for most public investors—such companies tend to require the more direct and active oversight provided by PE investors. And as the author goes on to argue, the more direct and active ownership of PE investors, as compared to the governance provided by most public‐company boards, suggests that financial accounting and reporting play a fundamentally different role in private than in public companies. Whereas the primary role of public‐company GAAP has increasingly (since the creation of the SEC in 1933) been to provide information for outside investors when valuing companies, the most important function of accounting reports in private companies is internal control—more specifically, ensuring that the interests of the managers of their portfolio companies are aligned with those of all the providers of capital. And recognizing this difference in the role of accounting, both the IASB and FASB responded to the requests of various parties (including private companies) by approving in 2009 the use by private companies of a streamlined and more flexible set of accounting standards. To the extent that the workings of PE markets continue to reduce the numbers of U.S. public companies, the author predicts that the resulting increase in the use of private‐company GAAP will continue to shift the primary role of accounting away from valuation and back toward its traditional roots in internal control and corporate governance.     

The Future of Private Equity

A distinguished University of Chicago financial economist and longtime observer of private equity markets responds to questions like the following:

• ? With a track record that now stretches in some cases almost 30 years, what have private equity firms accomplished? What effects have they had on the performance of the companies they invest in, and have they been good for the economy?
• ? How will highly leveraged PE portfolio companies fare during the current downturn, especially with over $400 billion of loans coming due in the next three to five years?
• ? With PE firms now sitting on an estimated $500 billion in capital and leveraged loan markets shut down, are the firms now contemplating new kinds of investment that require less debt?
• ? If and when the industry makes a comeback, do you expect any major changes that might allow us to avoid another boom‐and‐bust cycle? Have the PE firms or their investors made any obvious mistakes that contribute to such cycles, and are they now showing any signs of having learned from those mistakes?

Despite the current problems, the operating capabilities of the best PE firms, together with their ability to manage high leverage and the increased receptiveness of public company CEOs and boards to PE investments, have all helped establish private equity as “a permanent asset class.” Although many of the deals done in 2006 and 2007 were probably overpriced, the “cov‐lite” deal structures, deferred repayments of principal, and larger coverage ratios have afforded more room for reworking troubled deals. As a result of that flexibility, and of the kinds of companies that get taken private in leveraged deals in the first place, most troubled PE portfolio companies should end up being restructured efficiently, thereby limiting the damage to the overall economy. Part of the restructuring process involves the use of the PE industry's huge stockpile of capital to purchase distressed debt and inject new equity into troubled deals (in many cases, their own). At the same time the PE firms have been working hard to rescue their own deals, some have been taking significant minority positions in public companies, while gaining some measure of control. Finally, to limit overpriced and overlev‐eraged deals in the future, and so avoid the boom‐and‐bust cycle that appears to have become a predictable part of the industry, the discussion explores the possibility that the limited partners and debt providers that supply most of the capital for PE investments will insist on larger commitments of equity by sponsors to their own funds and individual deals.     

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.     

The Capital Structure of PE‐Funded Companies (and How New Debt Instruments and Investors Are Expanding Their Debt Capacity)

The capital structures and financial policies of companies controlled by private equity firms are notably different from those of public companies. The concentration of ownership and intense monitoring of leveraged buyouts by their largest investors (that is, the partners of the PE firms who sit on their boards), along with the contractual requirement of PE funds to return their capital within seven to ten years, have resulted in capital structures that are far more leveraged than those of their publicly traded counterparts, but also considerably more provisional and “opportunistic.” Whereas the average U.S. public company has long operated with roughly 30% debt and 70% equity, today's typical private‐equity sponsored company is initially capitalized with an “upside‐down” structure of 70% debt and just 30% equity, and then often charged with working down its debt as quickly as possible. Although banks supplied most of the debt for the first wave of LBOs in the 1980s, the remarkable growth of the private equity industry in the past 25 years has been supported by the parallel development of a new leveraged acquisition finance market. This financing innovation has led to a general movement away from a bankcentered funding base to one comprising a relatively new set of institutional investors, including business development corporations and hedge funds. Such investors have shown a strong appetite for new debt instruments and risks that banks have been unwilling or, thanks to increased capital requirements and other regulatory burdens, prohibited from taking on. Notable among these new instruments are second‐lien loans and uni‐tranche debt—instruments that, by shifting the allocation of claims on the debtor's cash flow and assets in ways consistent with the preferences of these new investors, have had the effect of increasing the debt capacity of their portfolio companies. And such increases in debt capacity have in turn enabled private equity funds—now sitting on near‐record amounts of capital from their limited partners—to bid higher prices and compete more effectively in today's intensely competitive M&A market, in which high target acquisition purchase prices are being fueled by a strong stock market and increased competition from corporate acquirers.     

Private Equity and Portfolio Companies: Lessons from the Global Financial Crisis

Critics of private equity have warned that the high leverage often used in PE‐backed companies could contribute to the fragility of the financial system during economic crises. The proliferation of poorly structured transactions during booms could increase the vulnerability of the economy to downturns. The alternative hypothesis is that PE, with its operating capabilities, expertise in financial restructuring, and massive capital raised but not invested (“dry powder”), could increase the resilience of PE‐backed companies. In their study of PE‐backed buyouts in the U.K.—which requires and thereby makes accessible more information about private companies than, say, in the U.S.—the authors report finding that, during the 2008 global financial crisis, PE‐backed companies decreased their overall investments significantly less than comparable, non‐PE firms. Moreover, such PE‐backed firms also experienced greater equity and debt inflows, higher asset growth, and increased market share. These effects were especially notable among smaller, riskier PE‐backed firms with less access to capital, and also for those firms backed by PE firms with more dry powder at the crisis onset. In a survey of the partners and staff of some 750 PE firms, the authors also present compelling evidence that PEs firms play active financial and operating roles in preserving or restoring the profitability and value of their portfolio companies.     

Playing to their strengths? Evidence that specialization in the private equity industry confers competitive advantage

The paper examines whether private equity (PE)-backed buyouts have higher post-buyout operating profitability than comparable companies as a result of the alleged superior governance mechanism of private equity (“The Jensen hypothesis”) and whether relative investment specialisation by industry or stage provides the PE firm with a competitive advantage over its peers (“The advantages-to-specialization hypotheses”). A sample of 122 UK buyouts over the period 1995–2002 and a matched sample of non-PE-backed UK companies are constructed to test the three hypotheses. We find that over the first 3 post-buyout years (i) operating profitability of PE-backed companies is greater than those of comparable companies by 4.5%, consistently with the Jensen hypothesis; (ii) industry specialization of PE firms adds 8.5% to this premium, consistently with the industry-specialization hypothesis; (iii) stage (buyout) specialization does not impact profitability but may provide a spur to growth, inconsistently with the stage-specialization hypothesis. Finally, initial profitability of the PE-backed company plays a major role in post-buyout profitability, suggesting that skill in investment selection and financial engineering techniques may be more important than managerial incentives in generating higher PE company performance.     

University of Texas Roundtable on The State of the U.S. Private Equity Market

In this discussion that took place at the 2017 University of Texas Private Equity conference, the moderator began by noting that since 2000, the fraction of the U.S. GDP produced by companies that are owned or controlled by global private equity firms has increased from 7% to 15%. What's more, today's PE firms have raised an estimated $1.5 trillion of capital that is now available for investing. And thanks in part to this abundance of capital, the prices of PE transactions have increased sharply, with EBITDA pricing multiples rising from about 8.8X in 2012 to 11.5X at the beginning of 2017. Partly as a consequence of such abundant capital and high transaction prices, the aggregate returns to U.S. private equity funds during this four‐year period have fallen below the returns to the stockholders of U.S. public companies. Nevertheless, the good news for private equity investors is that the best‐performing PE firms have continued their long history of outperforming the market. And the consistency of their performance goes a long way toward explaining why the overwhelming majority of the capital contributed by limited partners continues to be allocated to funds put together by these top‐tier PE firms. In this roundtable, a representative of one of these top‐tier firms joins the founder of a relatively new firm with a middle‐market focus in discussing the core competencies and approaches that have enabled the best PE firms to increase the productivity and value of their portfolio companies. Effective financial management—the ability to manage leveraged capital structures and the process of readying their companies for sale to potential strategic or financial investors—is clearly part of the story. But more fundamental and critical to their success has been their ability to find undervalued or undermanaged assets—and either retain or recruit operating managements that, when effectively monitored and motivated, are able to realize the potential value of those assets through changes in strategy and increases in operating efficiency.     

What Public Companies Can Learn from Private Equity Pay Plans

Studies of private equity pay, including one by current SEC commissioner Robert Jackson, have pointed to restrictions on equity sales as a key difference between private equity and public company pay. In this article, the author argues that there is another very important difference: equity compensation in PE pay plans is typically front loaded, with top executives of portfolio companies often required to buy shares, and receiving upfront option grants on three times the number of shares they purchase. Such front‐loaded equity compensation allows PE pay plans to avoid the unintended effects of the “competitive pay policy” that have been embraced by public companies for the past 50 years. Competitive pay—targeted, for example, to provide 50th percentile total compensation regardless of past performance—has the effect of creating a systematic “performance penalty,” rewarding poor performance with more shares and penalizing superior performance with fewer shares. The author's research shows that, for public companies during the past decade or so, the number of shares granted has fallen by 7% for each 10% increase in share prices—and that, primarily for this reason, the front loaded option grants used by PE firms have provided five times more incentive (“pay leverage”) than the average public company's annual series of equity grants. What's more, to the extent that PE pay has been guided by partnership and fixed‐sharing concepts rather than competitive pay, it is the spiritual heir to the value‐sharing concepts that guided public company pay in the first half of the 20th century. For 60 years, General Motors used value sharing in “economic profit”—10% of GM's profit above a 7% return on capital was the formula for the bonus pool for many years—as the basis for all incentive compensation. The author uses the GM history to highlight four ways to improve public company incentives and corporate governance.     

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: Accomplishments and Challenges

The authors provide an overview of the main accomplishments of private equity since the emergence of leveraged buyouts in the 1980s, and of the challenges now facing the industry—challenges that have been encountered before during three major growth waves and two full boom‐and‐bust cycles. In so doing, the authors review a large and growing body of academic studies responding to questions like these:

• (1) How have PE buyout companies performed relative to their public counterparts? And to the extent there have been improvements in operating performance and productivity gains, how have such gains been achieved? What role have PE firms played in this process?
• (2) Especially in light of the large fees and profit shares paid to the PE firms, or GPs, and the significant “control” premiums over market paid to the selling companies, how have the returns to the LPs that provide the bulk of the funding for PE funds compared to the returns earned by the shareholders of comparable public companies?
• (3) Apart from the high fees earned by its GPs, why is PE so controversial? Beyond their effects on productivity and benefits for investors, what are the employment and other social effects of buyouts and PE?
• (4) What are the prospects for future PE returns to their LPs, especially in light of the volume of capital commitments and high purchase multiples that were being paid, at least until the onset of the COVID pandemic? And what role, if any, should PE activity be expected to play in the recovery from the pandemic?

     

EQT: Private Equity with a Purpose

The primary factors driving the remarkable growth of private equity have been the industry's attractive and stable returns in combination with its active ownership model. Nevertheless, critics have been questioning whether the PE industry can maintain its historic returns, and challenging its fee and incentive structures as well as its notable lack of transparency and diversity. And the alleged systemic effects of the industry on social problems like income inequality and climate change have become large enough to create a perceived threat to PE's long‐term “license to operate.” In this article, the authors discuss the commitment of EQT, the publicly listed and Stockholm‐headquartered private markets firm (and eighth largest PE fundraiser in the world), to the “future‐proofing” of both its portfolio companies and the company itself. The company envisions itself as undertaking a “journey” toward sustainability and positive impact and, in so doing, furnishing a model that other PE firms might find useful in helping “future‐proof” the entire industry. As part of that commitment, EQT recently published a “Statement of Purpose” signed by its the board of directors that focuses a societal impact lens on its entire portfolio of companies and assets, reinforces its public commitments to diversity and other “clean and conscious” practices, and aims to leverage digital technologies to enhance financial returns and real‐world outcomes. Transparency and a mindset focused on achieving positive impact are the keys to PE's earning high and stable returns and to securing its long‐term license to operate.     

Do Private Equity Funds Increase Firm Value? Evidence from Japanese Leveraged Buyouts

The author summarizes the findings of his recent study of 62 buyouts of listed Japanese companies by both Japanese and “foreign” private equity funds that were transacted between 2000 and 2007. Roughly half of the author's sample of transactions were accomplished by means of takeover bids by PE funds, and such deals were transacted at prices that represented a premium (of roughly 12%) to current market values. Most of the other PE transactions were privately negotiated deals in which the purchase prices involved discounts (of about 15% on average) to current value. For both sets of deals, however, the announcements of such buyouts were associated, on average, with a significantly positive stock market reaction. By the cutoff date of the study (May 2010), 30 of the 62 acquired firms had realized “exits.” Those companies (though not the others) experienced significant average improvements in operating performance; and the extent of such improvements were roughly consistent with the size of the positive market reaction to the buyout announcements. The test results suggest that the value increases can be attributed to the more efficient use of assets and reduction of operating costs. Meanwhile, there was no evidence suggesting that the acquired firms cut back on their research and development, capital investments, or employee wages and growth. What's more, examination of the operating performance of the 30 companies after their exits showed no deterioration in profitability or investment spending.     

The Contributions of Stewart Myers to the Theory and Practice of Corporate Finance*

In a 40‐plus year career notable for path‐breaking work on capital structure and innovations in capital budgeting and valuation, MIT finance professor Stewart Myers has had a remarkable influence on both the theory and practice of corporate finance. In this article, two of his former students, a colleague, and a co‐author offer a brief survey of Professor Myers's accomplishments, along with an assessment of their relevance for the current financial environment. These contributions are seen as falling into three main categories:

• ? Work on “debt overhang” and the financial “pecking order” that not only provided plausible explanations for much corporate financing behavior, but can also be used to shed light on recent developments, including the reluctance of highly leveraged U.S. financial institutions to raise equity and the recent “mandatory” infusions of capital by the U.S. Treasury.
• ? Contributions to capital budgeting that complement and reinforce his research on capital structure. By providing a simple and intuitive way to capture the tax benefits of debt when capital structure changes over time, his adjusted present value (or APV) approach has not only become the standard in LBO and venture capital firms, but accomplishes in practice what theorists like M&M had urged finance practitioners to do some 30 years earlier: separate the real operating profitability of a company or project from the “second‐order” effects of financing. And his real options valuation method, by recognizing the “option‐like” character of many corporate assets, has provided not only a new way of valuing “growth” assets, but a method and, indeed, a language for bringing together the disciplines of corporate strategy and finance.
• ? Starting with work on estimating fair rates of return for public utilities, he has gone on to develop a cost‐of‐capital and capital allocation framework for insurance companies, as well as a persuasive explanation for why the rate‐setting process for railroads in the U.S. and U.K. has created problems for those industries.

     

Eclipse of the Public Corporation or Eclipse of the Public Markets?

The authors look back at Michael Jensen's 1989 article “The Eclipse of the Public Corporation.” They find some of his predictions have been borne out but other important ones, not. Jensen concluded that the publicly held corporation was in decline and had outlived its usefulness in many sectors. He argued that agency costs made public corporations an inefficient form of organization and that new private organizational forms promoted by private equity firms would likely replace the public firm. The number of public firms in the U.S. has declined significantly but there are still many hugely profitable and successful public companies. U.S. public markets are still well‐suited for firms with mostly tangible assets. So, what we are really witnessing is an eclipse not of public corporations, but of the public markets as the place where young firms with mostly intangible capital seek their funding. This is especially true when the usefulness of the intangible assets has yet to be proven. Sometimes the market is extremely optimistic about some intangible assets, but otherwise firms with unproven intangible assets may be better off funding themselves privately. This evolution has a downside: investors limited to public markets are cut off from investing in high intangible‐asset firms. Additionally, as fewer firms remain publicly listed, fewer firms will be transparent to society.     

Lifting the Veil on Reverse Leveraged Buyouts: What Happens During the Private Period?

We document the different types of restructuring activities undertaken during the private period after the reverse leveraged buyout (RLBO) of previously public firms. Preceding the LBO, firm leverage significantly exceeds that of their peers, while their profitability is better than the industry. However, despite their superior performance, these firms are undervalued before going private. While private firms undertake value‐enhancement measures by increasing employee productivity, asset restructuring, decreasing cost of goods sold, and increasing ownership concentration. Enhanced valuation at the RLBO is a result of value capture, as well as efficiencies obtained from restructuring activities. We also identify factors determining the private period duration.     

U.S. Corporate Governance: Accomplishments and Failings A Discussion with Michael Jensen and Robert Monks

Two of America's most prominent shareholder activists discuss three major issues surrounding the U.S. corporate governance system: (1) the case for increasing shareholder “democracy” by expanding investor access to the corporate proxy; (2) lessons for public companies in the success of private equity; and (3) the current level and design of CEO pay. On the first of the three subjects, Robert Monks suggests that the U.S. should adopt the British convention of the “extraordinary general meeting,” or “EGM,” which gives a majority of shareholders who attend the meeting the right to remove any or all of a company's directors “with or without cause.” Such shareholder meetings are permitted in virtually all developed economies outside the U.S. because, as Monks goes on to say, they represent “a far more efficient and effective solution than the idea of having shareholders nominate people for the simple reason that even very involved, financially sophisticated fiduciaries are not the best people to nominate directors.” Moreover, according to both Jensen and Monks, corporate boards in the U.K. do a better job than their U.S. counterparts of monitoring top management on behalf of shareholders. In contrast to the U.S., where the majority of companies continue to be run by CEO/Chairmen, over 90% of English companies are now chaired by outside directors, contributing to “a culture of independent‐minded chairmen capable of providing a high level of oversight.” In the U.S., by contrast, most corporate directors continue to view themselves as “employees of the CEO.” And, as a result, U.S. boards generally fail to exercise effective oversight and control until outside forces—often in the form of activist investors such as hedge funds and private equity—bring about a “crisis.” In companies owned and run by private equity firms, by contrast, top management is vigorously monitored and controlled by a board made up of the firm's largest investors. And the fact that the rewards to the operating heads of successful private equity‐controlled firms are typically multiples of those received by comparably effective public company CEOs suggests that the problem with U.S. CEO pay is not its level, but its lack of correlation with performance.     

PERFORMANCE LEVERAGE, AND OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE IN REVERSE LBOs

Previous studies have provided convincing evidence of improvements in the performance of companies that undergo leveraged buyouts (LBOs). This article presents evidence from the authors' recent study of the performance of 90 "reverse LBOs–LBO firms that go public again in an IPO—after they return to public ownership. The aim of the study was to track the performance of reverse LBOs and to reveal any association between operating performance and changes in leverage and equity ownership.
Among the principal findings of the study were the following: Despite a substantial decline in leverage ratios and equity ownership by insiders at the time of the IPOs, equity ownership of reverse LBOs remained more concentrated and leverage higher than that of public companies in the same industries.
The operating performance of reverse LBOs was significantly better than that of the median firm in their industries in the year prior to and in the year of the IPO. Although there is some evidence of a deterioration in the performance of the reverse-LBO firms, they continue to outperform their industry competitors for at least four full fiscal years after the IPO.
Greater reductions in the percentage equity owned by managers and other insiders at the time of the reverse LBO are associated with larger declines in operating performance.
The stock price performance of reverse LBOs after going public appears more "rational" than that of other IPOs—that is, there is less initial under pricing and no sign of the negative, longer-term abnormal returns reported by recent studies of IPOs.