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.     

Coming Through in a Crisis: How Chapter 11 and the Debt Restructuring Industry Are Helping to Revive the U.S. Economy

During the recent financial crisis, U.S. bankruptcy courts and debt restructuring practitioners were faced with the largest wave of corporate defaults and bankruptcies in history. In 2008 and 2009, $1.8 trillion worth of public company assets entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection—almost 20 times the amount during the prior two years. And the portfolio companies of U.S. private equity firms faced a towering wall of debt that, many observers predicted, was about to wipe out most of the industry. But far from the death of private equity or a severe contraction of corporate America, the past three years have seen an astonishingly rapid working off of U.S. corporate debt overhang, allowing corporate profits and values to rebound with remarkable speed and vigor. And as the author of this article argues, corporate America's recovery from the recent financial crisis provides a clear demonstration of the importance of U.S. bankruptcy laws and restructuring practices in maintaining the competitiveness of U.S. companies and the long‐run growth of the U.S. economy.     

私募股权投资基金研究——基于券商角度

次贷危机的爆发,使得诸多国际私募股权基金纷纷转战中国,挖掘中国市场价值。当前,中国已经成为全球私募股权基金的投资中心之一。从我国私募股权基金市场的格局来看,目前已经形成了多种组织模式并存、参与者逐渐扩大化的态势。与传统的靠天吃饭的盈利模式不同,券商开展直投业务不仅有利于自身赢利空间的拓展,而且有利于发挥地域优势,针对中小企业的需求提供特色服务,其自身也具备一定的优势。本文沿袭这条思路,重点对我国券商参与直投业务的相关规定、券商开展直投业务的现状及其问题进行了讨论。     

The Impact of Sovereign Wealth Funds on Corporate Value and Performance

The last few years have seen a remarkable increase in the participation of sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) in global capital markets. In this article, the author draws on a unique dataset of SWF international holdings—one that dates back to the year 2002 and includes individual SWF holdings in more than 8,000 companies in 58 countries—to provide evidence of the impact of SWFs on corporate values and operating performance. Contrary to claims that SWFs expropriate minority investors and pursue political agendas, the main finding of the author's study is that SWF ownership is associated with positive changes in both corporate market values and operating returns. In support of these findings, the author also identifies three important ways that SWFs work to increase the performance and value of the companies they invest in: (1) as long‐term holders that provide a stable source of financing; (2) as representatives of deep pools of international capital in search of global diversification opportunities that are likely to provide companies with a lower‐cost (as well as more “patient”) source of equity capital; and (3) as politically well‐connected strategic investors that enable their companies to leverage important connections when accessing new product markets.     

境内外私募股权基金比较研究

在亚洲等新型市场国家,私募股权基金投资并帮助那些优质的公司进一步拓展发展空间,并提供就业机会,引入先进的财务管理经验,且为其投资者提供高额回报,进而促进经济的发展,这使得亚洲尤其是中国地区的私募股权投资得到大幅度发展。本文的研究正是基于全球私募股权市场热火朝天的发展和我国私募股权交易数额呈级数增长的背景下进行。     

How do investment patterns of independent and captive private equity funds differ? Evidence from Germany

Empirical literature emphasizes a positive contribution of private equity investors, which results from their combined provision of capital, monitoring, and management support. The aim of this study is to show that these previous results, which are based mostly on the analysis of US independent closed-end private equity funds, cannot be generalized since the private equity industry should not be treated as homogenous. We argue that it is necessary to distinguish between different types of private equity providers because their differing governance structures, strategic goals and experiences have a decisive influence on their value adding activities. The results of this study—which uses a data set of 179 German private equity-backed companies—are consistent with the conjecture that independent and corporate private equity providers tend to have a more pronounced role in corporate governance and monitoring of the companies they finance, than bank-dependent and governmental funds which often serve only as bridge investors.      

Private equity and Covid-19

We survey more than 200 private equity (PE) managers from firms with $1.9 trillion of assets under management (AUM) about their portfolio performance, decision-making and activities during the Covid-19 pandemic. Given that PE managers have significant incentives to maximize value, their actions during the pandemic should indicate what they perceive as being important for both the preservation and creation of value. PE managers believe that 40% of their portfolio companies are moderately negatively affected and 10% are very negatively affected by the pandemic. The private equity managers—both investment and operating partners—are actively engaged in the operations, governance, and financing in all of their current portfolio companies. These activities are more intensively pursued in those companies that have been more severely affected by the Covid-19 pandemic. As a result of the pandemic, they expect the performance of their existing funds to decline. They are more pessimistic about that decline than the venture capitalists (VCs) surveyed in Gompers et al. (2021). Despite the pandemic, private equity managers are seeking new investments. Rather than focusing on cost cutting, PE investors place a much greater weight on revenue growth for value creation. Relative to the 2012 survey results reported in Gompers, Kaplan, and Mukharlyamov (2016), they appear to give a larger equity stake to management teams and target somewhat lower returns.     

Determinants of Sovereign Wealth Fund Cross‐Border Investments

Using a sample of 1,590 purchases of stock by sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) in listed firms in 78 target countries between 1985 and 2011, we study the country‐level determinants of SWF cross‐border investment. We find that SWFs from countries with high levels of openness and economic development, but with less developed local capital markets, will make more cross‐country transactions, while target countries with higher levels of investor protection and more developed capital markets will attract more SWF investment. Our findings support the investment facilitation hypothesis, suggesting that SWFs act purely or principally as commercial investors facilitating cross‐border corporate investment.     

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.     

If private equity sized up your business

As the dust settles on the recent frenzy of private equity deals (including transactions topping $20 billion), what lessons can companies glean? Directors and executives of public companies may now be slightly less fearful of imminent takeover, yet the pressure remains: They face shareholders who wonder why they aren't getting private-equity-level returns. Rather than dismiss the value private equity has created as manipulated or aberrant, public company leaders should recognize the disciplined management that often underlies it. Pozen, a longtime leader in the financial services industry, finds that in the aftermath of buyouts, companies undergo five major thrusts of reform. These translate into five key questions that directors should pose to senior management: Have we left too much cash on our balance sheet instead of raising our cash dividends or buying back shares? Do we have the optimal capital structure, with the lowest weighted after-tax cost of total capital, including debt and equity? Do we have an operating plan that will significantly increase shareholder value, with specific metrics to monitor performance? Are the compensation rewards for our top executives tied closely enough to increases in shareholder value, with real penalties for nonperformance? Finally, does our board have enough industry experts who have made the time commitments and been given the financial incentives necessary to maximize shareholder value? The era of private equity is far from over - the top funds have become very large and are likely to play an influential role in future market cycles. Boards that ask these questions, and act on them, won't just beat the takeover artists to the punch. They will build stronger businesses.     

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.     

Sovereign pension and social security reserve funds: A portfolio analysis

Sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) have been increasing in numbers and in the global reach of their investment activities. At the same time, they seem to experience the adverse consequences of the financial crisis differently than other financial intermediaries. This paper assesses whether and how a retirement-financing purpose has affected their investment strategies since the global financial crisis, as opposed to the strategies of other public pension entities that do not operate as SWFs. We construct a sample of 12 sovereign pension reserve funds (SPRFs) and social security reserve funds (SSRFs) and analyze the effects of size, operational model, country development, the fund's experience, and quality of disclosures on strategic asset allocation for the period 2007–2014. We also investigate the relevance of “home bias.” Our results show that SPRFs invest more aggressively than SSRFs, but are less exposed to domestic investments. We do not find major shifts in asset allocation induced by the financial crisis, except for a recent decrease of home-country exposures.     

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.     

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.”     

SPACs: An Alternative Wav to Access the Public Markets

Lost amidst the news of the real estate crisis, soaring oil prices, undercapitalized banks, and falling stock prices is a trend that has been quietly building in the U.S. capital markets. Instead of doing traditional IPOs, companies are increasingly going public by merging with Special Purpose Acquisition Companies, commonly known as SPACs. SPACs are publicly traded pools of capital formed for the sole purpose of merging with an operating company. Since the beginning of 2007, they have raised nearly $16 billion in U.S. markets, capital that is now being channeled into billion dollar‐plus mergers. Hedge funds, which provide the bulk of this capital, invest in SPACs as a way to create a customized portfolio of securities that provide private equity‐like exposure but also liquidity and the right to vote on the proposed acquisition. Frequently formed by well‐known sponsors such as Thomas Hicks and Nelson Peltz, SPACs now feature prominently in corporate discussions of strategic options. Companies that consider merging with SPACs often face complicated circumstances, require a major recapitalization, operate in a niche sector that lacks an institutional following, or have no obvious strategic buyers. The author describes how SPACs, by means of privately‐negotiated, tailored transactions, provide companies with access to the public markets in ways that a traditional IPO often cannot. The article includes case studies of three companies in unusual circumstances that, instead of doing IPOs, established access to public markets by merging with a SPAC.     

Access to private equity and real firm activity: Evidence from PIPEs

We study how access to private equity financing affects real firm activities using a broad panel of publicly traded U.S. firms that raise external equity through private placements (PIPEs) between 1995 and 2008. The public firms relying on PIPEs are generally small, high-tech firms that cannot finance investment internally and likely face severe external financing constraints; PIPEs are by far the most important source of finance for these firms. We show that firms use PIPE inflows to maintain extremely high R&D investment ratios and to build substantial cash reserves. We also use GMM techniques that control for firm-specific effects and the endogeneity of the decision to raise private equity and find that PIPE funding has a substantial impact on corporate investment in cash reserves and R&D, and a smaller but significant impact on investment in non-cash working capital, but little impact on fixed investment or acquisitions. Our estimates indicate that R&D investment initially increases by $0.20–$0.25 for each dollar of private equity flowing into the firm, and that PIPE funds initially invested in cash ultimately go to R&D. These findings offer direct evidence that access to private equity finance has an important effect on the key input that drives innovation at the firm- and economy-wide levels.     

STRATEGIC HEDGING

This article presents a new approach to financial risk management whose primary objective is to ensure that companies have sufficient internal funds and access to outside capital to carry out their strategic investments. The foundation of this approach is a comprehensive measure of corporate exposure that views the firm as a collection of current cashgenerating assets and future investment opportunities and that attempts to show how changes in fundamental economic variables can threaten the firm's ability to realize its strategic objectives. As such, the measure of exposure reflects the effect of expected changes in economic variables not only on the firm's operating cash flows but also on its future investment requirements.
Because its focuses only on the exposures that need protection when regular sources of funds are exhausted, this strategic hedging approach will generally lead to a more conservative hedging policy. In so doing, it should enable companies to avoid the excessive and costly "micro" hedging of individual transactions—an approach that can easily degenerate into speculation.     

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.     

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.     

Friends or foes? Target selection decisions of sovereign wealth funds and their consequences

This paper examines investment strategies of sovereign wealth funds (SWFs), their effect on target firm valuation, and how both of these are related to SWF transparency. We find that SWFs prefer large and poorly performing firms facing financial difficulties. Their investments have a positive effect on target firms' stock prices around the announcement date but no substantial effect on firm performance and governance in the long run. We also find that transparent SWFs are more likely to invest in financially constrained firms and have a greater impact on target firm value than opaque SWFs. Overall, SWFs are similar to passive institutional investors in their preference for target characteristics and in their effect on target performance, and SWF transparency influences SWFs' investment activities and their impact on target firm value.