Public vs. Private Equity*

Many corporate executives view private equity as a last resort, as expensive capital that should be tapped only by companies that don't have access to presumably cheaper public equity. The reality of private equity, however, is more complex, and potentially quite rewarding, for both shareholders and management. This paper surveys some of the academic work on the costs and benefits of public vs. private equity, contrasting the private equity investment process with its public counterpart and exploring how such a process may add value. The importance of public equity, particularly for very large companies and growth companies with large capital requirements, is indisputable. But as investment bankers and other practitioners have noted, under certain circumstances the public markets effectively become “closed” to some public companies. Moreover, the cost of equity raised in public markets involves much more than the direct costs of underwriters, attorneys, and accountants. Some indication of the indirect costs is provided by the market's typically negative reaction to announcements of seasoned equity offerings. Although the negative reaction averages about 3%, in some cases stock prices drop by as much as 10%, thereby diluting the value of existing stockholders. Most academics attribute this reaction to the informational disadvantage of public stockholders. Private equity is designed in large part to overcome this information problem by replacing the monitoring performed by the typical public company board with the oversight of better informed and more highly motivated owners. A growing body of academic research suggests that private equity investors add value to the companies they invest in, and that the best investors are consistently effective in so doing. What's more, even public companies that tap private equity seem to benefit. As the author found in his own research on PIPES (Private Investment in Public Equity Securities) transactions, even though such securities are issued to private equity investors at a discount to the prevailing market price, the average market response to the announcement of such transactions is a positive 10%. In short, the participation of private equity investors is perceived to create value, and some of this value is shared with the rest of the market.     

Benefits of diversifying investments into emerging markets with time-varying correlations: An Australian perspective

Australian investors can reduce their overall portfolio risk by diversifying into equities from other markets. Emerging markets have attracted significant interest because of their low correlations with Australian equity market returns; however, a number of studies have indicated that correlations between equity returns are increasing over time, so using unconditional estimates of correlations in a portfolio optimization model can result in the selection of a portfolio that may not be optimal.We use an Asymmetric Dynamic Conditional Correlation GARCH model to estimate time-varying correlations and include these correlation estimates in the portfolio optimization model. The assets used for portfolio construction comprise seven emerging market indices that are available to foreign investors. This study finds that, despite increasing correlations, there are still potential benefits for Australian investors who diversify into international emerging markets.     

Harmful diversification: Evidence from alternative investments

Alternative assets have become as important as equities and fixed income in the portfolios of major investors, and so their diversification properties are also important. However, adding five alternative assets (real estate, commodities, hedge funds, emerging markets and private equity) to equity and bond portfolios is shown to be harmful for US investors. We use 19 portfolio models, in conjunction with dummy variable regression, to demonstrate this harm over the 1997–2015 period. This finding is robust to different estimation periods, risk aversion levels, and the use of two regimes. Harmful diversification into alternatives is not primarily due to transactions costs or non-normality, but to estimation risk. This is larger for alternative assets, particularly during the credit crisis which accounts for the harmful diversification of real estate, private equity and emerging markets. Diversification into commodities, and to a lesser extent hedge funds, remains harmful even when the credit crisis is excluded.     

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.     

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.     

Stock exchange competition in a simple model of capital market equilibrium

This paper uses a simple model of mean-variance capital markets equilibrium with proportional transactions costs to analyze the competition of stock markets for investors. We assume that equity trading is costly and endogenize transactions costs as variables strategically influenced by stock exchanges. Among other things, the model predicts that increasing financial market correlation leads to a decrease of transaction costs, an increase in cross-border trading activity, and to a decrease in the home bias of international equity flows. These predictions are consistent with the recent evolution of international stock markets.     

The Evolution of Private Equity in Emerging Markets: The Case of Poland

In the last ten years, there has been a pronounced shift toward emerging markets in institutional investor allocations of capital to private equity. While the lion's share of the allocations to emerging markets have gone to the “BRIC” nations, lesser‐known markets like Poland are threatening to steal the spotlight. Economic stabilization, development of the private sector, a favorable business outlook, and continuous improvement of the local institutional infrastructure (laws, accounting rules, and fiscal regimes) have all contributed to the development of a vibrant private equity industry in Poland. Most private equity firms in Poland structure their deals around five broad investment themes: technology; media; and telecommunications; manufacturing; consumer services; business services; and financial services. Local private equity firms have traditionally adopted two different strategies towards these sectors. The first group of private equity firms initially targeted manufacturing, with the conviction that, as the Polish economy developed, the satisfaction of consumer needs for basic products would be the largest source of market demand. The second group assumed that the market would require access to more services to accommodate the growing local economy. Both approaches have proved reasonably successful, as the leaders among these two groups of firms have continued to succeed in raising new funds while achieving high returns for their limited partners. And while the accomplishments of the private equity industry have been made possible by the extent of Poland's transformation from a socialist into a market economy, the industry itself continues to play an important role in this transformation by providing both outside capital and know‐how for local firms and managers.     

Who exacerbates the extreme swings in the Chinese stock market?

We investigate which investors buy or sell relatively more on the days when the absolute value of market returns or the daily range of market index prices exceeds 5% in the Chinese stock market. Unlike Dennis and Strickland [Journal of Finance 57(5): 1923–1949 (2002)] who find that institutional investors are buying (selling) more when there is a large market increase (decline) in U.S. equity markets, we find that institutional investors in China are systematically buying more than the less sophisticated individual investors during extreme market swings, particularly on extreme market-down days. We reveal that institutional investors in China (primarily pension funds), provide a stabilizing influence during market downturn days. Our findings highlight the benefits of having active institutional investors in an extremely volatile emerging market dominated by less sophisticated individual investors.     

The Private Equity Market: An Overveiw

The private equity market is an important source of funds for start‐up firms, private middle‐market firms, firms in financial distress, and public firms seeking buyout financing. Over the past fifteen years it has been the fastest growing corporate finance market, by an order of magnitude over the public equity and public and private bond markets. Despite its dramatic growth and increased significance for corporate finance, the private equity market has received little attention. This study examines the economic foundations of the private equity market, analyzes its development and current role in corporate finance, and describes the market's institutional structure. It examines the reasons or the market's explosive growth over the past fifteen years and highlights the main characteristics of that growth. It provides data on returns to private equity investors and analyzes the major secular and cyclical influences on returns. It describes the important investors, intermediaries, issuers, and agents in the market and their interactions with each other. Drawing on data from trade journals, the study also estimates the market's size as of year‐end 1995.     

SECURITIZATION: A FINANCING STRATEGY FOR EMERGING MARKETS FIRMS

With emerging markets now in crisis, companies in developing countries are finding it difficult to obtain financing. Securitization, a transaction structure in which the securities sold to investors are backed by a company's receivables, is one of the few vehicles with at least the potential to provide financing at economic rates in the current environment of uncertainty.
Unlike U.S. securitization issues, emerging markets transactions often use a structure known as "future flows" securitization, in which the securities are backed by receivables that are not expected to be generated until after issuance. This article begins by describing how the process of future flows securitization carves out securities with levels of political risk acceptable to foreign capital market investors. Then it traces the history of emerging markets securitization from its origins in Latin America to its more recent uses during the Asian crisis. Securitization helped bring foreign investors back to Latin America after its debt crisis of the early 1980s. And while the Asian crisis has sharply reduced new issuance for all kinds of emerging market financings, the volume of securitization issues appears to have declined less precipitously than other types of transactions geared to foreign investors. Moreover, investment bankers are now hard at work planning new securitization issues for companies in both Latin America and Asia.
In exploring the longer-term effects of securitization on both domestic issuers and their economies, the author suggests that securitization could play a pivotal role in restoring emerging markets companies' access to global financial markets. Indeed, with a few exceptions such as Malaysia, most emerging markets are now responding to the crisis by taking measures to protect investors, such as requiring greater financial transparency and dispelling legal uncertainties that have discouraged securitization in particular and overseas investment more generally.     

Do foreign investors improve stock price informativeness in emerging equity markets? Evidence from Vietnam

Most of previous studies on stock price informativeness tend to focus on the context of mature stock markets while this issue is more acute in emerging equity markets where regulatory and institutional structure are weak. This paper examines the relationship between foreign ownership and stock price informativeness in Vietnam stock market. We utilize a data set covering firm attributes of non-financial firms listed on the Ho Chi Minh City stock exchange over the period 2007–2015. Employing different estimation techniques for panel data, the empirical results indicate that foreign investors improve stock price informativeness in Vietnam stock market. The finding from this paper confirms the important role of foreign investors in emerging equity markets.     

Winning a deal in private equity: Do educational ties matter?

In this paper, we investigate the role of educational ties in private equity. Although we cannot observe all the funds that bid for a target company, we construct the set of potential bidders based upon their size and investment cycle, as well as the location and sector of their target companies. By gathering detailed educational histories of fund partners and CEOs of target firms, we find a significantly higher incidence of educational ties in completed deals than exists among the set of potential bidders. We argue that educational ties between fund managers and CEOs of target companies play a (positive) role in sourcing deals and winning competitive transactions. The alma maters of CEOs and private equity partners are notably concentrated among the top universities, and we find that exclusivity of educational ties is important. However, we find no evidence that such educational ties produce higher returns for investors.     

Institutional influence on syndicate structure and cross‐border leveraged buyouts

We explore the extent to which differences in countries’ formal and informal institutions reduce cross‐border leveraged buyout transactions and the potential influence these same institutions have on how private equity (PE) investors choose to enter these transactions. Although institutional differences have frequently been viewed as barriers to cross‐border investment, we find evidence that these same differences may motivate a PE firm's decision to enter the transaction with a syndicate of firms rather than undertaking the transaction on their own. Cultural differences between a PE firm and the target nation are significantly related to the choice to enter the deal via a multinational syndicate. The varying nationalities within the syndicate contribute to enhanced familiarity, with average institutional distances between the syndicate and target firms being significantly lower than for single‐PE‐led deals. Overall, deals undertaken by syndicates are more likely to be successfully completed and require less time in negotiation. These results persist even after accounting for selection bias with regard to target country choice. We explore whether other features of the syndicate are responsible for improved deal outcomes, such as repeated transactions with the same partners, but find no evidence that this is the case.     

TOWARD A GLOBAL MODEL OF VENTURE CAPITAL?

While the U.S. still accounts for about two‐thirds of the world's total private equity fund‐raising and investment, other countries have been adopting American practices and are experiencing significant growth in their private equity markets. In fact, a case can be made that a global market for venture capital and private equity is emerging, at least in Western Europe and North America, where venture markets are seeing significant convergence in funding levels, investment patterns, and realized returns. To date, however, the European Union has had little success in establishing community‐wide commercial laws, taxation regimes, or corporate governance policies, so each country's private equity funds are organized in segmented national markets, and investment also tends to be largely localized. The Asian markets are even more fragmented: venture capital shows no sign of taking root in Japan, and China lacks the basic legal infrastructure needed to support a vibrant venture capital market. Venture capitalists create value through their role as active investors, and government and business leaders around the world have come to realize that venture capital and private equity investing can be a significant force in promoting economic development and technological progress. In general, countries with English common law codes offer greater protection to inves‐tors; the ratio of venture capital spending to GDP for common law countries is nearly double that in civil law countries. Government efforts to promote venture capital would probably be better focused on eliminating regulatory road‐blocks, lowering taxes, and provid‐ing a favorable investor climate. In the meantime, it appears that pri‐vate equity fund‐raising and invest‐ment have hit their cyclical lows and are poised to surpass $250 billion globally within three or four years and to reach one‐half trillion dollars by the end of the decade. The author also predicts that India, whose history as a former British colony has given it a common law framework as well as system of elite universities and technical institutes known for the quality of its gradu‐ates, should become one of the five leading venture capital markets by the end of this decade.     

资本市场开放与股权资本成本——基于沪港通、深港通的实证研究

本文基于沪港通和深港通研究资本市场开放对中国内地股权资本成本的影响。研究发现,受政策风险和市场环境等因素所限,沪港通在初始阶段并未对沪市公司的股权资本成本产生显著影响,但随着政策进一步完善、市场逐渐稳定和交易不断活跃,其对股权资本成本的降低效果于实施两年后开始显现;深港通建立在沪港通的制度基础和运行经验上,其在开通后显著降低了标的公司的股权资本成本。本文还进一步分析了资本市场开放影响股权资本成本的竞争渠道和信息渠道,发现深港通对股权资本成本的降低作用主要集中在投资者竞争程度较高,或是公开信息质量较高、信息不对称程度较低的股票样本。     

资本市场开放与股权资本成本——基于沪港通、深港通的实证研究

本文基于沪港通和深港通研究资本市场开放对中国内地股权资本成本的影响。研究发现,受政策风险和市场环境等因素所限,沪港通在初始阶段并未对沪市公司的股权资本成本产生显著影响,但随着政策进一步完善、市场逐渐稳定和交易不断活跃,其对股权资本成本的降低效果于实施两年后开始显现;深港通建立在沪港通的制度基础和运行经验上,其在开通后显著降低了标的公司的股权资本成本。本文还进一步分析了资本市场开放影响股权资本成本的竞争渠道和信息渠道,发现深港通对股权资本成本的降低作用主要集中在投资者竞争程度较高,或是公开信息质量较高、信息不对称程度较低的股票样本。     

Mimicking insider trades

We examine whether outside investors mimic insider trades by analyzing the daily transactions of foreign institutional investors (FII) in the Indian emerging market. We find that the value relevance of insiders' opportunistic buy trades is much higher in our context relative to that reported for developed markets. More importantly, we find that FII mimic opportunistic buy trades, which is more pronounced for firms that are informationally more opaque or have lower corporate governance quality. A long-short strategy based on FII's transactions after opportunistic trades generates an additional abnormal return of approximately 29% annually, compared to transactions based on routines trades.     

Risk-Adjusted Performances of World Equity Indices

This article investigates whether equity indices of twenty-four emerging and twenty-eight developed markets compensate their investors equally after adjusting for total or downside risk, and examines the predictive power of reward-to-risk ratios for expected market returns. We find that when all fifty-two markets are ranked based on their alternative reward-to-risk ratios, almost all of the countries in the top (bottom) quartile are emerging (developed) markets. The pooled means of the reward-to-risk ratios are also significantly higher for emerging markets. Both portfolio and regressions analysis reveal that there is a significantly positive relation between various reward-to-risk metrics and expected market returns.     

Dynamic relationships among equity flows,equity returns and dividends: Behavior of U.S. investors in China and India

This research examines the linkages among U.S. equity flows to China and India, their equity returns, and their fundamental variables. We find that positive shocks to U.S. equity flows to China and India elicit an insignificant response to returns. This finding provides evidence that U.S. institutional investors are not a destabilizing influence in these markets. However, positive innovations to dividends in both China and India have a negative impact on returns. We conjecture that the high potential growth rates in these markets make it preferable for companies to retain earnings rather than pay dividends. In India, shocks to dividend yields have a strong negative influence on U.S. equity flows. Our results validate the need to take into account fundamental variables when examining U.S. investor behavior in emerging equity markets.     

U.S. Equity Investment in Emerging Stock Markets

This article examines U.S. equity flows to emerging stock marketsfrom 1978 to 1991 and draws three main conclusions. First, despitethe recent increase in U.S. equity investment in emerging stockmarkets, the U.S. portfolio remains strongly biased toward domesticequities. Second, of the fraction of the U.S. portfolio thatis allocated to foreign equity investment, the share investedin emerging stock markets is roughly proportional to the shareof the emerging stock markets in the global market capitalizationvalue. Third, the volatility of U.S. transactions in emerging-marketequities is higher than in other foreign equities. The normalizedvolatility of U.S. transactions appears to be falling over time,however, and we find no relation between the volume of U.S.transactions in foreign equity and local turnover rates or volatilityof stock returns.