A CDO for Secondaries?

A year or so ago I floated the idea of an index fund for EM private assets.

What if there were an asset manager that could agglomerate a sufficient pool of capital through a publicly listed vehicle (e.g., a super-SPAC) to go out and purchase — in whole or in part — scores of PE-backed companies across EM?

Would a diversified portfolio — at scale — provide better risk-adjusted returns than existing public and private equity funds? 

My bias had been toward equity.

But what if the answer is debt? 

And not just any kind of debt, but securitized debt?

 * * *

Andrew Lo — Director of the MIT Laboratory for Financial Engineering — recently gave a fascinating lecture on new funding models for biomedical innovation as part of the Markus’ Academy series of webinars at Princeton’s Bendheim Center for Finance.

Lo argues that, whilst we’re living amidst a revolution in a variety of ‘omics’ (e.g., genomics, proteomics, microbiomics), to actualize and commercialize scientific and medical advancements, we need a revolution in economics — particularly in how we finance innovation.

At first glance it might seem like an odd proposition.

Even if U.S. venture is exhibiting a ‘diversity breakdown,’ biopharma companies are sitting on $1.5 trillion in ‘firepower’ to fund transactions.

Isn’t there enough funding available already?

Lo asks us to ponder whether it’s worth making a $200m investment in something with the profile of a single anti-cancer compound (i.e., 5% probability of a positive payoff after 10 years of R&D). If successful, annual profits would be $2B / year for 10 years (a present value of $12.3B).

At a 95% failure rate, investing makes little sense.

But Lo points out that if you could invest in 150 programs simultaneously (totaling $30B of capital), the probability of 3 successes out of 150 attempts is 98.18%, and the Sharpe ratio increases from 0.02 to 0.34.

* * *

What if we translate this idea to the EM private markets index?

Would we see:

  • A lower cost of capital for EM companies?
  • Longer runways for value creation?
  • Higher risk-adjusted returns for investors?
  • Lower fees?
  • Greater liquidity (e.g., coupons)?

I don’t know.

But I wonder: maybe — maybe — the solution for the artisanal industry of EM private markets is diversification and massive scale?

— Mike


Viktor Shvets on The Great Rupture

In the latest episode of the Portico Podcast, I speak with Viktor Shvets, a global strategist at Macquarie, and the author of the deeply thought-provoking book The Great Rupture, which investigates the past and interrogates current trends to probe the question: do we need to be free to be innovative, prosperous, or even happy?

You may want to grab a pen and some paper to take notes for this episode because Viktor is a polymath who will engage your brain in some important — and at times, unsettling — thought experiments.

Viktor and I discuss:

  • Why he wrote a book that looks for lessons in the 12th to 15th Centuries to guide us through the next two decades;
  • Whether the ‘operating system’ of open markets, property rights, and open minds that generated prosperity in the past is in retreat — and even if it were, would it matter;
  • The confluence of the information and financial revolutions, and how these two forces are hollowing out the core frameworks of society;
  • The state’s usurpation of the free market and what it means for capitalism and commercial banking;
  • The prospects for emerging markets in an era of de-globalization and the importance of EMs’ non-tradable sectors;
  • Whether universal basic income might liberate people from scarcity and empower them to live lives of their choosing.

But there is so, so much more.

Check it out on Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts | Spotify


Does PE Investment in Healthcare Benefit Patients?

No.

  • “Our estimates show that PE ownership increases the short-term mortality of Medicare patients by 10%, implying 20,150 lives lost due to PE ownership over our twelve-year sample period. This is accompanied by declines in other measures of patient well-being, such as lower mobility, while taxpayer spending per patient episode increases by 11%.”
     
  • “We find that going to a PE-owned nursing home increases the probability of taking antipsychotic medications — discouraged in the elderly due to their association with greater mortality — by 50%.”
     
  • “We find that PE ownership leads to a 3% decline in hours per patient-day supplied by the frontline nursing assistants who provide the vast majority of caregiving hours and perform crucial well-being services such as mobility assistance, personal interaction, and cleaning to minimize infection risk and ensure sanitary conditions. Overall staffing declines by 1.4%.”
     
  • A puzzle is why nursing homes are attractive targets given their low and regulated profit margins, often cited at just 1-2%. Using CMS cost reports, we find that there is no effect of buyouts on net income, raising the question of how PE firms create value. There are three types of expenditures that are particularly associated with PE profits and tax strategies“monitoring fees” charged to portfolio companies, lease payments after real estate is sold to generate cash flows, andinterest payments reflecting the importance of leverage in the PE business model (Metrick and Yasuda, 2010; Phalippou et al., 2018). We find that all three types of expenditures increase after buyouts, with interest payments rising by over 300%. These results, along with the decline in nurse availability, suggest a systematic shift in operating costs away from patient care.”

Bain’s Global PE Report

A few highlights from the year in review:

  • Global buyout deal value reached $592m (up 8% yoy) whilst deal count declined by 24%;
     
  • ~70% of U.S. buyouts were priced above 11x EBITDA whilst ~80% of deals are leveraged 6x or greater; and,
     
  • The number of global buyout exits appears to have fallen below 1,000 — the worst year since 2009.

Hugh MacArthur and Mike McKay ask: Have classic buyout funds run their course?

When I look at the data points highlighted above, I think the answer will turn out to be a resounding ‘yes.’

MacArthur and McKay point to the rise of specialist funds, carving out space for a discussion on the evolution of Vista’s strategy, among other things.

Look. Buyout firms absolutely need a differentiated value proposition.

But in a world of capital superabundance, the average buyout firm offers declining utility as an allocator of capital.


Governance

Speaking of Vista.
 
By now you will have heard that Vista’s founder, Robert Smith, struck a non-prosecution deal with the U.S. government in which he admitted to evading taxes for 15 years.
 
There are some lawsuits alleging mismarked assets and self-dealing.
 
Amidst all the talk about ESG, do institutional LPs value good governance?
 
In the case of Vista, one seems to. Several don’t.
 
But it’s a much bigger question (Abraaj: Redux 👀).

Do institutional LPs actually do their homework on larger funds?
 
Or are the investment teams too cozy with their contractors?


Zhou Xiaochuan and the eRMB

Caixin / Nikkei Asia published an important article from former PBOC governor Zhou Xiaochuan on the landscape for a digital renminbi. This is a space worth watching.


From the Bookshelf

Human history is indeed filled with endless possibilities; and the Renaissance saw this more clearly than either classicism, Catholicism or the Reformation. But it did not recognize that history is filled with endless possibilities of good and evil. It believed that the cumulations of knowledge and the extensions of reason, the progressive conquest of nature and (in its later developments) the technical extension of social cohesion, all of which inhere in the “progress” of history, were guarantees of the gradual conquest of chaos and evil by the force of reason and order. It did not recognize that every new human potency may be an instrument of chaos as well as of order; and that history, therefore, has no solution of its own problem.

— Reinhold Niebuhr, The Nature and Destiny of Man: Volume II. Human Destiny (Charles Scribner’s Sons: 1964)

# # #

The information presented in this newsletter is for informational purposes only. Portico Advisers does not undertake to update this material and the opinions and conclusions contained herein may change without notice. Portico Advisers does not make any warranty that the information in this newsletter is error-free, omission-free, complete, accurate, or reliable. Nothing contained in this newsletter should be construed as legal, tax, securities, or investment advice.

Copyright © by Portico Advisers, LLC 2021, all rights reserved.

An Extractive Industry

I remember it like it was yesterday.

30 years ago, my father — God rest his soul — dragged me to the hardware store, with the promise that yet another of my boyhood weekends would be spent “building character.”

But this weekend was different.

Instead of heading home after securing the lumber and dirt, we stopped by a Toys “R” Us.

Dad told me to look around while he spoke with a manager, and when I sauntered back to the front of the store, the manager was retrieving — ever so delicately — a Nintendo Entertainment System from a locked display case. My Dad’s outstretched hands rose to the ceiling, as if offering a prayer, ready to catch the box should the manager tumble from the ladder.

Nintendo. Humankind’s third-greatest invention (after the wheel and the Gutenberg press).

That trip to Toys “R” Us was one of the most joyful moments of my childhood. I am certain that I am not alone — Toys “R” Us was an iconic company that enriched the lives of millions of children.

And private equity destroyed it.

Let’s not mince words: leveraged buyouts (LBOs) constitute an extractive industry.

In the case of Toys “R” Us, Bain Capital, KKR, and Vornado took the company private in a $6.6B LBO in 2005. It is now bankrupt and closing all of its stores — without paying employees any severance.

In the year of the acquisition, the company generated $11.2B in annual sales, and the linked article says their biggest competitors at the time were the discount retailers Wal-Mart and Target. (Amazon’s shares were ~$35, fwiw).

Revenue was never a problem. Net sales never dipped below $11.3B (in fact they exceeded $13B between 2007-13). However, according to SEC filings, Toys “R” Us’s debt burden jumped from $1.86B at acquisition to $5.5B in the fiscal year after the deal, and annual interest expense climbed from $130m in the year of the acquisition to $400m+ beginning in 2006 (see charts). Optimizing capital structures for whom, one might ask.

ToysRUs2

The LBO firms were on the take from the get-go. According to SEC filings, “upon consummation of the Merger, [Toys “R” Us] paid the Sponsors a fee in the aggregate amount of $81 million for services rendered and out-of-pocket expenses.”

In addition, SEC filings show that between 2005-17, Toys “R” Us paid out aggregate “Sponsor management and advisory fees” of $204m. An analysis in The Atlantic suggests there may have been $128m in (incremental?) transaction fees as the company bought up KB Toys (another Bain Capital bankruptcy special) and other toy retailers.

Consider that between 2014-16, when Toys “R” Us was posting losses of $867m, $256m, and $48m, the company paid out advisory fees of $22m, $18m, and $6m. In other words, in the three years that the private equity sponsors were overseeing losses before taxes of nearly $1.2B, they still drew fees of $46m.

That giant sucking sound you hear is LBO firms hoovering out the value from a cash-generating company. One that likely could have remained a going concern, had the LBO firms not forced down such an onerous debt burden.

Again, 30,000 employees were fired without receiving severance. This is Dickensian villainy at its finest. It evokes The Ghost of Tom Joad.

The FT reports that some of KKR’s pension fund clients “are re-examining their relationship with the investment group amid anger over the treatment of workers at the bankrupt retailer.” They should.

But they shouldn’t stop there — they should re-evaluate their investments in LBOs altogether.

Here’s the dirty little secret: when pensions invest in LBO funds, they are fueling inequality.

The entire LBO model is predicated on bogging down cash-generating businesses with debt, and compelling managements’ hands to create efficiency gains (i.e., layoffs). In other words, thousands of people must lose their jobs and benefits, and be plunged into a state of precarity, in order for pensioners to remain secure in their stipends. It is absolutely zero-sum.

One of the most rigorous takedowns of the LBO model is Eileen Applebaum and Rosemary Batt’s Private at Equity Work. I highly recommend it.

Notably, one of their conclusions is that, unlike LBOs, private equity investments in small and midsize companies can drive meaningful business growth and innovation. I — and others — would argue that the opportunities for shared value creation are even greater in emerging and frontier markets.

When I came up with Portico’s ethos, I jotted down the following:

Value creation > value extraction
Build something that increases the general welfare. While there are riches to be made in value extraction, we do not believe in doing well at the expense of others. Spread dignity.

The fate of Toys “R” Us is precisely the type of BS I had in mind when I wrote those lines.

I would encourage all investors to consider the long-term consequences of the LBO model, and to eschew such extractive forms of investment.

Alla prossima,
Mike

P.S. The newsletter is taking a hiatus in August. See you in September.

Raising a Fund

At Portico, we believe in fund managers who are trying to build businesses and increase prosperity across the world.

In a sense, Portico was founded as an anti-gatekeeper. We believe that too many service providers in this industry operate in a black box, and that this lack of transparency ultimately hurts everyone.

With that in mind, we created the Informal Guide to Raising Your First Fund. Our goal with this product is to empower fund managers with the knowledge they need to develop an institutional-quality pitchbook. We’ve bundled it with a 27-page sample pitchbook to maximize its practical utility, and the feedback we’ve received tells us it’s equally relevant for managers raising funds III, IV, and beyond.

Given the exceedingly difficult fundraising environment, we’re pleased to announce that we are now offering it for only $149. It’s more important to us that a greater number of firms succeed — and that the industry develop — than that we sit on useful knowledge.

Invest in yourself. As our next story demonstrates, it’s only going to get tougher for EM managers to raise capital.

Abraaj: Redux

(For background, read parts III, and III)

This is way bigger an exposure than anyone expected … What is shocking is that the company invested almost 10 percent of its total assets and all their investment book with one company.

I am surprised that the company had more than 70 percent of its 1.5 billion-dirham investment portfolio exposed to a single fund and this was never flagged by the auditors or questioned by the shareholders.

These two quotes come from a Bloomberg article on Air Arabia’s disclosure that it faces a $336m exposure to funds managed by Abraaj.

That is a lot of granola. But it’s only part of the story.

Abraaj executed a pre-IPO investment in Air Arabia in 2007, and it secured two board seats in the process. Arif Naqvi retained his position on the board through 2017 (though he didn’t show up to the first three meetings in 2017).

Somehow, nobody seemed to see a conflict of interest in Air Arabia directing “all their investment book” to a board member’s firm?

It gets worse. The Wall Street Journal reports that, “Money originating from Air Arabia was used to replenish the [Abraaj Growth Markets Health Fund], according to people familiar with the situation. KPMG’s review of the fund didn’t mention this, one of those people said.”

KPMG, you may recall, was the firm Abraaj selected to examine the books of its healthcare fund after this whole imbroglio erupted in the press. KPMG is also the auditor of Air Arabia (among other Abraaj portfolio companies).

And then there’s the bombshell.

A separate Wall Street Journal article reveals that PricewaterhouseCoopers, a provisional liquidator for Abraaj Holdings, “have ‘been unable to obtain standalone annual financial statements or management accounts’ for the holding company, a situation they described as ‘highly irregular.’”

Absolutely extraordinary. It’s a sentence worth reading again.

According to the Journal, the PwC report goes on to say:

This lack of financial record-keeping raises the question of how the company’s directors were able to ensure the company was solvent and being effectively managed.

Investment management fees revenue had, for some years, been insufficient to meet its operating costs.

Any liquidity shortfall was largely funded through new borrowings.

Reuters reporting adds that “Abraaj’s total debt stood at $1.07 billion … including $501.4 million in unsecured debt and $572.4 million [in] secured debt.”

The launch of the $6B mega-fund may be viewed in a new light.

The whole situation stinks.

And the stink is on many hands.

Who was doing due diligence? With what documents? Where was the fund administrator?

Institutions were throwing money at Abraaj. Washington State Investment Board, for example, unanimously approved an investment of up to $250m, plus fees and expenses, in the mega-fund, “based on Abraaj’s solid overall investment performance, large, institutionalized team … [and] a consistent investment and risk underwriting process applied globally.”

During the preceding Private Markets Committee meeting, Hamilton Lane “discussed [Abraaj’s] approach to investing, reputation, culture, track record, and currency risk” and supported the staff’s recommendation to invest in the fund.

They’re not the only ones. It’s just that their minutes are public.

Consider, for example, the long list of third parties that provided Abraaj the equivalent of a Good Housekeeping Seal of approval:

  • Abraaj reportedly received its third A+ rating from the UN Principles for Responsible Investment last year.
  • Arif Naqvi was on the Board of the UN Global Compact and a Founding Commissioner of the Business and Sustainable Development Commission
  • He is also a member of “The B Team” — a self-appointed group of business leaders that seeks to advance ESG, etc. Literally the first challenge on their website is, “Drive full transparency: be open, transparent and free from corruption, with good governance and accountability at all levels of our organizations.”
  • The Harvard Business School and Kennedy School connections.
  • The World Economic Forum.
  • Gatekeepers.
  • Auditors.
  • PR firms and the press.
  • Etc.

If there is one lesson from this fiasco, it is that it pays to do your own work.

Also, don’t chase shiny objects.

Fin.

P.S. As we suggested in March, it appears that LPs in the Africa fund are looking for a new GP to manage out the assets.

Small Is Beautiful in CEE

EMPEA recently released a report on private markets in CEE and it’s really quite good. My fundamental takeaway from the report is that the region attracts little capital — between $500m and $1.5B annually between 2009-17 — but this lack of capital is why (a handful of) investors like it.

Consider that, according to the PitchBook data in the study, the median Eastern European buyout multiple between 2006-17 was 5.8x — the lowest multiple globally.

Admittedly, there were few transactions that provided data points for PitchBook, so let’s look at the other end of the spectrum: as of December 2016, EBRD’s portfolio of CEE funds — which is, like, every CEE fund ever — has delivered roughly 7.5% net across all vintages. It’s not an exceptional number, but private equity’s not about investing in an index.

Moreover, it’s not like pension funds — which aren’t pursuing EBRD’s development mandate — are doing much better. According to the American Investment Council’s 2018 Public Pension Study, the median U.S. pension fund’s private equity portfolio delivered a 10-year annualized net return of 8.6%.

Anyway, as I read the briefing, I reflected upon Portico’s thought piece from last December — Does EM PE Scale? — and decided that what’s happening in CEE is a beautiful outcome. The GPs and LPs interviewed for EMPEA’s piece seemed happy with the status quo: most investors have mistaken perceptions of the region’s risks, so they don’t invest in it; and those LPs that do invest in the region have found manager relationships they value across cycles.

Maybe EM PE is an artisanal industry.

Insomnolent in India

Bain & Co. released the 2018 edition of their India Private Equity Report. Lots of charts. Lots of things moving up and to the right.

Bain asked respondents to its survey, “What keeps you awake at night?”

The top three responses:

  • Mismatch in valuation expectations (~75% of respondents)
  • Challenges to maintain high level of returns (~55% of respondents)
  • Lack of attractive deal opportunities (~50% of respondents)

Those seem like … the core elements of running a PE business? No wonder so many Indian GPs are happy to take my calls at 2am IST — they’re not sleeping!

Funnily enough, respondents were least concerned about, “Approaching end of fund life with unliquidated assets” (~3% of respondents).

Now, Bain’s survey had 39 respondents out of a universe of active investors they estimate at 491. But I wonder, would the percentage be much different if the sample size quadrupled?

Zombie4

Turkey: Value Trap?

Last November, we asked if Turkven’s Seymur Tari was precipitating a market turn in Turkey. After seven years of declining business and consumer confidence, was the country on the cusp of a resurgence?

Well. After the latest round of elections, the president’s appointment of his son-in-law as the head of the country’s treasury and finance ministry, and changes to the rules for appointing the central bank governor, one wonders if all those assets trading at a discount might constitute a value trap.

The IMF forecasts gross external financing requirements of ~25% of GDP (equal to ~$200B) each year through 2023.

Turkey’s policymakers confront a delicate dance, indeed.

From the Bookshelf

There is a crime here that goes beyond denunciation. There is a sorrow here that weeping cannot symbolize. There is a failure here that topples all our success. The fertile earth, the straight tree rows, the sturdy trunks, and the ripe fruit. And children dying of pellagra must die because a profit cannot be taken from an orange. And coroners must fill in the certificate — died of malnutrition — because the food must rot, must be forced to rot.

The people come with nets to fish for potatoes in the river, and the guards hold them back; they come in rattling cars to get the dumped oranges, but the kerosene is sprayed. And they stand still and watch the potatoes float by, listen to the screaming pigs being killed in a ditch and covered with quick-lime, watch the mountains of oranges slop down to a putrefying ooze; and in the eyes of the people there is the failure; and in the eyes of the hungry there is a growing wrath. In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage.

— John Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath (Bantam Books: 1970)

# # #

Haven’t signed up for our newsletter yet? Sign up now.

# # #

The information presented in this newsletter is for informational purposes only. Portico Advisers does not undertake to update this material and the opinions and conclusions contained herein may change without notice. Portico Advisers does not make any warranty that the information in this newsletter is error-free, omission-free, complete, accurate, or reliable. Nothing contained in this newsletter should be construed as legal, tax, securities, or investment advice.

Copyright © by Portico Advisers, LLC 2018, all rights reserved.

 

Transparency & Governance

I’ve been meditating on transparency and governance rather frequently of late. Not out of a sense of righteousness, mind you, but largely because they are inescapable in my morning reading of the newspaper: Abraaj, Norway (both discussed below), FacebookMartin SorrellSean Hannity, &c.

The only firm conclusion I’ve reached is that quality governance — corporate or otherwise — is the most underappreciated necessity. A world awash in capital is also a world awash in unaccountable bullshit. People just don’t seem keen to ask — let alone field — questions when the money’s rolling in. Plus ça change …

Say what you will about younger generations, but they’re pretty quick to raise the BS flag and ask uncomfortable questions (so much so that it has become a meme, apparently). I was reminded of this recently while giving a guest lecture at UVA’s McIntire School of Commerce. The students were super sharp, and they asked hard-hitting questions … including one that made me ponder some life choices.

In short, they’re awesome. They rekindled my belief that the future is going to be amazing. Hopefully their incessant questioning will continue as they assume positions of leadership, thus contributing to more transparent and accountable governance. On verra bien …

Speaking of the future, Portico’s first product launch is in the works. We’re making it easier than ever for first- (and second-, and third-, &c.) time funds to produce institutional-quality marketing materials, at a price point that delivers enormous value. Stay tuned!

Finally, I’m really looking forward to IFC’s Global Private Equity Conference next month (hosted in association with EMPEA). It’s the 20th anniversary of the event and it should be a good one. I’m excited to reconnect with friends and make new connections. Drop me a line if you’re planning to attend.

If you haven’t registered, you may learn more about the event at this link. Hope to see you there!

Alla prossima,
Mike

GPEC Banner

Abraaj: Fin?

[This is the third — and final — in a series; see Part I and Part Deux]

“What a mess. I’m left wondering if investors in the firm’s funds will seek (a) new GP(s) to manage out the assets.”

So read the conclusion to my take on the drama at Abraaj in last month’s newsletter.

I don’t know whether the investors drove the process, but Houlihan Lokey was brought in to find a solution to the Abraaj Growth Markets Health Fund debacle, and the FT reports that Abraaj subsequently offered to step down as manager of the fund. An interim manager is reportedly in the cards until a permanent replacement / solution is found.

A few thoughts / observations:

  • Key Person Provisions — More senior departures were reported over the last month, including those of Sev Vettivetpillai and Mustafa Abdel-Wadood, both of whom reportedly attempted to resign late last year but were asked to stay. The Wall Street Journal reports that “the firm now has lost half its managing partners and a third of its partners in the past year.” At this point, given the flood of senior departures, it stands to reason that Key Person termination provisions likely have been triggered across several Abraaj funds. If so, then I imagine investors will be looking for (a) new GP(s) to manage out the assets.
  • Sharks Circling — The firm is reportedly considering a sale of its private equity business to raise cash, and reducing headcount by 15% to cut costs. It is also moving forward with its planned listing of the South African FMCG company Libstar.
    Kenyan sources report that the firm is evaluating a sale of its stake in Nairobi Java House, which it acquired from ECP last year. (I talked about the deal here). The same article reports that sales of Avenue Hospital, Brookside Dairies, and Seven Seas Technologies may be under consideration as well. With all these headlines, management teams and fund managers may be sensing an opportune moment to scoop up shares at a discount from a stressed seller.
  • Exit Closed — In recent years, Abraaj had become an active buyer of PE-backed companies, particularly in Africa (e.g., Java House, Libstar, Mouka). Had its $6 billion mega fund come to market, I imagine Abraaj would have become a sought-after exit channel for GPs. In a way, it could have become to EM private markets what the SoftBank Vision Fund is to venture investors: a deus ex machina of liquidity.
  • &c. — Its portfolio company Stanford Marine has reportedly breached covenants and is seeking to restructure $325 million in debt. Reuters reports that it is seeking repayment of $12.4 million in loans to Nigeria’s C&I Leasing. Deloitte has been called in to look into its governance and control issues. &c.

I’m tired of writing about Abraaj. I don’t plan on including anything about the firm in next month’s newsletter.

The news articles are likely to keep coming, though, and the developments over the last month suggest that it will take a long time to clean up the detritus from this unfortunate turn of events. Here’s hoping that it doesn’t contribute to investors’ exodus from EM private markets altogether.

Norway: Part Deux

In January’s newsletter, we mentioned that Norway’s sovereign wealth fund had submitted a recommendation to the finance ministry that it be allowed to invest in and alongside private equity funds. At the time, we held out a grandiose vision of a world in which the fund might build a genuinely differentiated approach to EM private markets.

Well, the finance ministry has issued its report, and fund managers’ hopes for a veritable tsunami of cash have been put on hold.

Indefinitely.

The preliminary, unofficial translation of the report provided a fairly damning assessment of the asset class’s fees and opacity:

Low costs are characteristic of the GPFG. External equity management costs in the listed market are about 0.5 percent … measured relative to assets under management. In comparison, the annual cost of investing in private equity funds can be estimated at about 6 percent of assets under management …

Transparency is an important prerequisite for broad support for, and confidence in, the management of the GPFG. Many private equity funds disclose little information about their activities …

High prospective returns aren’t a sufficient argument for new money to come into the asset class — especially when its citizens’ savings. We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: the industry will not thrive without trust, transparency, and quality corporate governance.

Bain & Co.

Two findings jumped out at me from Bain & Co.’s Global Private Equity Report 2018:

  1. Entry pricing is … inauspicious.As of year-end 2016, the percentage of deals priced at <7x EBITDA (~10%) was the lowest it had been since at least 2007, while 54% of deals were done for >11x EBITDA (compared to ~35% in 2007). “Our presumption is that we’ll be exiting at smaller multiples,” says Alan Jones of Morgan Stanley Global Private Equity. Agree
  2. Long-hold funds can outperform. Bain ran an analysis comparing a theoretical long-hold fund selling an investment after 24 years against a buyout fund selling four successive companies over the same period. Their finding: “By eliminating transaction fees, deferring capital gains taxation and keeping capital fully invested, the long-hold fund outperforms the short-duration fund by almost two times on an after-tax basis.” [emphasis added]

At Portico, we’re privileged to work with firms that are pursuing non-traditional and longer hold strategies. We think it’s only a matter of time before more investors come to see the benefits of these approaches.

Grab Bag

  • Into Africa—The FT reports that the EBRD is considering an expansion into Sub-Saharan Africa. The politics of getting this approved might be tricky, but EBRD could do a lot of good on the continent. 🤞
  • India — IFC’s Ralph Keitel gives a masterclass on PE in India in this interview.
  • Management Fees— Dave Richards of Capria has an interesting view on how GPs should be determining their management fees. Hint: they should be predictable and budgeted, rather than a percentage of committed / invested capital.
  • Theranos— “It has been pretty obvious for a few years now that Theranos Inc. was a huge fraud.” Matt Levine’s take on the Blood Unicorn, Elasmotherium haimatos. And, its solicitation for cash after its CEO settled fraud charges?

From the Bookshelf

Make friends with those who are good and true, not those who are bad and false.

— Eknath Easwaran (trans.), The Dhammapada (Nilgiri Press: 2007).

# # #

Haven’t signed up for our newsletter yet? Sign up now.

# # #

The information presented in this newsletter is for informational purposes only. Portico Advisers does not undertake to update this material and the opinions and conclusions contained herein may change without notice. Portico Advisers does not make any warranty that the information in this newsletter is error-free, omission-free, complete, accurate, or reliable. Nothing contained in this newsletter should be construed as legal, tax, securities, or investment advice.

Copyright © by Portico Advisers, LLC 2018, all rights reserved.