Exits,Performance, and Late Stage Private Equity: the Case of UK Management Buy‐outs

Using a hand‐collected dataset of 1,225 buy‐outs, we examine post buy‐out and post exit long term abnormal operating performance of UK management buy‐outs, during the period 1980–2009. Our univariate and panel data analysis of post buy‐out performance conclusively show positive changes in output. We also find strong evidence for improvements in employment and output and a lack of significant changes in efficiency and profitability following initial public offerings (IPO) exits. IPOs from the main London Stock Exchange (LSE) market outperform their counterparts from the Alternative Investment Market (AIM) only in terms of changes in output. For secondary management buy outs (SMBOs), performance declines during the first buy‐out but in the second buy‐out performance stabilises until year three, after which profitability and efficiency fall while employment increases. Although private equity (PE) backed buy‐outs do not exhibit either post buy‐out or post exit underperformance, they fail to over‐perform their non‐PE backed counterparts. In the subsample of buy‐outs exiting via IPOs on the AIM, PE firms do not outperform non‐PE buy‐outs. Our findings highlight the importance of tracing the overall performance of buy‐outs over a longer period and controlling for sample selection bias related to the provision of PE backing.     

Private Equity,Buy‐outs and Insolvency Risk

Private equity restructuring using debt has been criticized for increasing financial distress and bankruptcy especially following the financial crisis. We build a unique dataset comprising the population of over 9 million firm‐year observations and 153,000 insolvencies during the period 1995–2010. We compare the insolvency hazard of the spectrum of buy‐out types within the corporate population over time and investigate the risk profile of the companies pre‐buy‐out. Controlling for size, age, sector and macro‐economic conditions, private‐equity backed buy‐outs are no more prone to insolvency than non‐buy‐outs or other types of management buy‐ins. Moreover, leverage is not the characteristic that distinguishes failed buy‐outs from those surviving.     

Institutional Investment in Listed Private Equity

This paper examines institutional investors’ propensity to invest in a relatively unknown asset class of listed private equity. Based on data provided by LPEQ, Preqin and Scorpio Partnership covering 171 institutional investors in Europe in 2008–2010, we find allocations are primarily a function of size, type, location, decision‐making authority and liquidity preferences. Investment in listed private equity is more commonly made by institutions that are smaller, private (not public) pension institutions, institutions that have a preference for liquidity, quick access, and administrative and cash flow management simplicity, and institutions that are based in the UK, Switzerland, Sweden and the Netherlands. As well, institutions are less likely to invest in listed private equity when investment decision‐making is empowered to an alternative asset class team.     

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.     

What Drives Private Equity Returns?– Fund Inflows,Skilled GPs,and/or Risk?*

This paper analyzes the determinants of returns generated by mature European private equity funds. It starts from the presumption that this asset class is characterized by illiquidity, stickiness, and segmentation. Given this presumption, Gompers and Lerner (2000) have shown that venture deal valuations are driven by overall fund inflows into the industry that yield the putative ‘money chasing deals’ phenomenon. It is the aim of this paper to show that this phenomenon explains a significant part of the variation in private equity funds' returns. This is especially true for venture funds, as they are affected more by illiquidity and segmentation than buy‐out funds. In the context of a WLS‐regression approach the paper reports a highly significant impact of total fund inflows on fund returns. It can also be shown that private equity funds' returns are driven by GP's skills as well as stand‐alone investment risk. In a bootstrapping context we can show that most of these results are quite stable.     

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.”     

University of Texas Roundtable on LP Perspectives on the State of Private Equity

In this wide‐ranging discussion among four limited partner investors in private equity, the LPs commented on the rates of return they expect from PE, the fees they pay their general partners, and the length of their time commitments to PE investments. After noting the enormous growth in the value of assets under private management, and the reduction in public equity investment by many large institutional investors, each of the four LPs said that their institutions expected to maintain or continue to increase their proportion of portfolio investment in PE. The LP panelists were virtually unanimous in expecting PE rates of return in the 9%‐11% range, as compared to 7%‐8% for public equities. The panelists also seemed to agree that although committing to PE investments for terms longer than the traditional seven to ten years could result in higher returns and lower costs, they were reluctant to make such commitments because they valued the financial flexibility afforded by shorter holding periods. Several LPs claimed that their institutions were scrutinizing the explicit and implicit fees charged by the GPs, and the level of fees was encouraging LPs to co‐invest in deals alongside the GPs. And in response to a closing suggestion that the recent flurry of IPOs could signify the beginning of a major reversal away from private capital, another LP expressed strong doubt, noting that “the private ownership model has clearly shown superior governance, and greater ability to manage leveraged capital structures and create value than public companies over the long term.”     

The Return to Direct Investment in Private Firms: New Evidence on the Private Equity Premium Puzzle*

This paper uses a novel dataset to analyze the return to direct investments in private firms by pension funds. We have two key findings. First, direct investments in private firms have underperformed public equity by 392 basis points per annum under conservative risk adjustments. Second, initial mispricing, due to over‐optimism or misperceived risk, and subsequent low capital gains seem to explain the gap in returns to private firms. Overall, these findings complement the finding of Moskowitz and Vissing‐Jørgensen (2002) of low returns on entrepreneurial investments and provide new insight into the existence of what they call the private equity premium puzzle: Even professional investors with well‐diversified portfolios like pension funds seem to get a poor risk‐return tradeoff from investing directly in private firms.     

Does IPO Pricing Reflect Public Information? New Insights from Equity Carve‐Outs

We examine the efficiency of initial public offering (IPO) pricing using a sample of over 300 equity carve‐outs from 1985 to 2009. The partial adjustment theory posits that the initial return of IPOs is predictable based on private information, but public information is fully incorporated. Prospect theory is consistent with both private and public information not being fully incorporated in the offer price. Our analysis confirms that both price update and initial return of carve‐out IPOs can be predicted based on the parent firm's returns during the prepricing and preissuing periods. Further, postissue ownership of the parent firm is associated with significantly higher price update and initial return, while IPOs where the majority of the proceeds are paid out register lower initial return. The size of the subsidiary and relative size of the offering are also significantly related to price update and initial return. These findings are consistent with prospect theory.     

University of Texas Roundtable on The Role of Private Equity in the Financing and Restructuring of Oil and Gas Companies

In this second of two University of Texas roundtables, four highly successful veterans of the U.S. energy industry, with considerable experience running both public and private companies, discuss recent developments in this rapidly evolving industry. Among the most remarkable—and a major focus of this discussion—is the dramatic expansion of the output and productivity of the Permian Basin of West Texas, and the role of private equity in accomplishing it. Although the Permian has been a major source of oil and gas since 1920, the combination of massive horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing has contributed to a tripling of production volumes from about 800,000 barrels per day to 2.5 million during the past ten years. In fact, the productivity gains are said to be so great that, even with the huge run‐up in the cost of acquiring acreage (to as high as $40,000 per acre), today's producers are projecting annual operating returns of 20% even if oil prices fail to rise above their current level of about $50 a barrel. What's more, there appears to have been a fairly clear division of labor between private and public companies in this recent development of the Permian. With most of the high‐priced acreage now being acquired by larger public companies, the primary role of private equity has been to identify and make good on opportunities to increase the productivity and value of smaller operations that can then be sold to public companies—companies that have the size and access to capital to benefit from the economies of scale produced by combining them with their other operations. Thanks to their earlier position in the value chain, investments by private equity groups have generally not only produced higher payoffs, on average, but involved larger operating and financial risks. And this difference in risk profile is reflected in a notable difference in hedging practices between public and private equity‐controlled companies. This difference was summed up as follows by a private equity partner who has also run several public oil and gas companies: To a much greater extent in private equity than in public companies, we think of our projects and companies as delivering value that is largely independent of changes in oil prices. Hedging is our way of saying we don't want to take oil price risk if we don't have to. We do not count on price increases to make our required returns. The returns come from operating the company successfully without the help of commodity prices.     

Equity Markets Do Not Fit All: an Analysis of Public‐to‐Private Deals in Continental Europe

Concentration of family‐based ownership and recent development of private equity companies in Continental Europe suggest that the motivations and results of public‐to‐private (PTP) deals may differ from well‐studied cases in the USA and the UK. We overview the PTP market and measure the cumulative abnormal returns (CARs) of 106 PTP deals concluded in Continental Europe from 2000 to 2005, introducing a model to explain the abnormal returns. Our results partially confirm findings of previous studies, namely, that undervalued and smaller firms register higher CARs. We additionally find that deals promoted by family owners register higher abnormal returns, whereas financial investors and private operating firms show no impact.     

Valuation and Performance of Reacquisitions Following Equity Carve‐Outs

While existing literature reports a positive market reaction to parent companies conducting carve‐outs, we find that the response to carve‐outs that are ultimately reacquired is negative or insignificant. Reacquired units perform considerably worse than those that are not reacquired. Thus, parents may perceive that the market does not recognize the potential of these poorly performing units, and reacquires them to capitalize on the parents' private information. The reacquisition announcement results in a favorable market reaction for the parents and the units. However, parents experience negative long‐term buy‐and‐hold abnormal returns when they reacquire less than 100% of units' shares.     

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.     

Relationship Banking and Loan Syndicate Structure: The Role of Private Equity Sponsors

Using a sample of syndicated loans to private equity (PE)‐backed initial public offering companies, we examine how a third‐party bank relationship influences the syndicate structure of a loan. We find that a stronger relationship between the lead bank and the borrower's PE firm enables the lead bank to retain a smaller share of the loan and form a larger and less concentrated syndicate, especially when the borrower is less transparent. A stronger PE‐bank relationship also attracts greater foreign bank participation. Our findings suggest that the lead bank's relationship with a large equity holder of the borrower facilitates information production in lending.     

The Future of Private Equity

After a period of robust growth, the private equity industry has experienced a marked decline. In the wake of the 2008 economic crisis, the future of the venture and buyout industries seems unclear. This speech discusses four possible scenarios for the future of the private equity industry by examining the short‐ and long‐run determinants of private equity supply and demand. Possible scenarios include Recovery, Back to the Future, The Limited Partners' Desertion, and A Broken Industry. Although support is given for each of the scenarios, a clear prediction for the future remains difficult. The future of the private equity market is likely to be the subject of debate for some time to come.     

Morgan Stanley Roundtable on The State of Global Private Equity

In this discussion led by Alan Jones, Morgan Stanley's head of Global Private Equity, the University of Chicago's Steve Kaplan begins by surveying 25 years of academic research on private equity. Starting with Kaplan's own Ph.D. dissertation on leveraged buyouts during the 1980s, finance academics have provided a large and growing body of studies documenting the ability of private equity firms to make “sustainable” (that is, maintained over a three‐ or four‐year period) improvements in the operating performance of their portfolio companies, whether operating abroad or in the U.S. Even more impressive, the findings of Kaplan's new study (with Tim Jenkinson of Oxford and Bob Harris of the University of Virginia) suggest that these improvements have been large enough to enable PE funds raised between 1990 and 2008 to deliver returns to their limited partners that have averaged 300 to 400 basis points higher per year than the returns to the S&P 500. And given the “persistence” of PE fund returns—the tendency of the funds of the same PE firms to show up in the top quartile of performers year after year—that Kaplan has documented in earlier work, the performance of private equity seems notably different from that of mutual funds and hedge funds, where there has been little if any consistency in the returns provided by the top performers. Following Kaplan's overview of the research, four representatives of today's leading private equity firms explore questions like the following:

• ? How do the best PE firms, after paying premiums to acquire their portfolio companies and collecting large management fees, provide such consistently high returns to their limited partners?
• ? How did PE portfolio companies perform during the last recession, when many popular business publications were predicting the death of private equity—and what, if anything, does that tell us about how private equity adds value?
• ? What can PE firms do to avoid, or at least limit the damage from, the overpricing and overleveraging that tend to occur near the end of the boom‐and‐bust cycle that appears to be a permanent feature of private equity?

As Jones notes in his opening comments, the practitioners' answers to such questions “should help investors distinguish between the alpha that the firms represented at this table have generated through active management from the ‘closet beta’ that critics say results when private equity firms simply create what amounts to a levered bet on the public equity markets.”     

Price Discovery and Dissemination of Private Information by Loan Syndicate Participants

We delineate key channels through which flows of confidential information to loan syndicate participants impact the dynamics of information arrival in prices. We isolate the timing of private information flows by estimating the speed of price discovery over quarterly earnings cycles in both secondary syndicated loan and equity markets. We identify borrowers disseminating private information to lenders relatively early in the cycle with firms exhibiting relatively early price discovery in the secondary loan market, documenting that price discovery is faster for loans subject to financial covenants, particularly earnings‐based covenants; for borrowers who experience covenant violations; for borrowers with high credit risk; and for loans syndicated by relationship‐based lenders or highly reputable lead arrangers. We then ask whether early access to private information in the loan market accelerates the speed of information arrival in stock prices. We document that the stock returns of firms identified with earlier private information dissemination to lenders indeed exhibit faster price discovery in the stock market, but only when institutional investors are involved in the firm's syndicated loans. Further, the positive relation between institutional lending and the speed of stock price discovery is more pronounced in relatively weak public disclosure environments. These results are consistent with institutional lenders systematically exploiting confidential syndicate information via trading in the equity market.     

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.     

The impacts of parent’s listing status on subsidiary’s financial constraint and cost of equity capital: the case of equity carve‐outs

We find that listed parents’ carve‐outs have investment‐cash‐flow sensitivities 70 per cent lower than unlisted parents’ carve‐outs, on average. Such a finding is stronger when we consider only equity carve‐outs in technological industries. The finding suggests that listed parents are more capable of alleviating the financial constraint of their carved‐out units than private parents. Our further analysis shows that listed parents’ carve‐outs also have a lower cost of equity than their counterparts, but such difference cannot be explained by corporate transparency, as implied by analyst coverage and analysts’ forecast dispersion. Therefore, we argue that the benefits from affiliation with a listed parent to the carve‐out come mainly from the parent’s financial support rather than an increase in corporate transparency.     

The Pricing of Equity Carve-Outs

This article examines the pricing of stock for 251 equity carve‐outs during the 1986–1995 period. We document a mean initial‐day return of 5.83% and a mean one‐week return of 5.43%. Among carve‐outs, the initial underpricing is lower for issues represented by high prestige investment bankers and those that have a lower offer price. In comparison with 251 initial public offering (IPO) firms matched by size and book‐to‐market ratio of equity, carveouts exhibit significantly lower initial‐day returns, but their buy‐and‐hold returns for sixmonth and one‐year periods are not significantly different from IPOs. The IPO firms have a three‐year return of 28.82% which is significantly higher than the 21.07% return for the carve‐out firms.