The Winner-Take-Most World

Did you know that KKR said it collected $1.4 billion in management fees last year?

And that its annual income from management fees has grown by $710m since 2015?

It blows my mind.

Hats off to the team for executing a bold growth strategy.

But … it just seems like a waste of money, doesn’t it?

The firm collected $6.2B in management fees between 2015-20.

The bulk of that likely flowed to individuals with a low marginal propensity to consume. 

(Comp and benefits accounted for ~70% of expenses between 2018-20, according to the latest 10-K).

And it also flowed to a firm with a low marginal propensity to invest. 

(Based on the historical financials accessed via Koyfin, the firm’s MPI [= ΔI / ΔY] was actually negative comparing 2015 to 2020; it averages out to 0.11 between 2016-20).

What boggles the mind is there are allocators at large institutions who have no compunctions about handing a growing amount of pensioners’ savings over to mega-cap firms, largely to pay the latter’s employees to show up to work.

It’s not as if this is hidden knowledge. It’s laid out in public filings. For instance, here’s KKR’s segmented revenues for 2020:

What an amazing business.
 
(Note that the management fees in the chart are provided on a GAAP basis, and the $1.4B figure cited at the top is based on a KKR presentation featuring recast, non-GAAP financials).

* * *

When I see KKR’s $710m increase in annual management fees, I can’t help but think about several clients that are raising funds and could invest that money in wealth- and health-creating companies. 
 
Alas, these firms aren’t on many LPs’ radar screens because their fund sizes are “sub-scale.” Or they require too much legwork. Or they’re so “risky” that it makes more sense to pay a toll to KKR (and / or Apollo / Blackstone / Carlyle, etc.) than to use it as callable capital.
 
Look. This isn’t just about KKR. They’re a premium brand for a reason.
 
But the specific case is useful for what it tells us about private markets and the world more broadly.
 
And that is that we’re in a winner-take-most economy.
 
The inequalities across multiple vectors have been getting worse for a long time.
 
Just look at this chart from Morgan Stanley global strategist Ruchir Sharma (source):

I believe the consolidation of capital in fewer, large-scale managers is leading to less innovation and more sclerosis. And I think the incentive structures at large LPs and GPs are broken, contributing to poisonous outcomes.

It’s all a bit evocative of Matthew Klein and Michael Pettis’s Trade Wars Are Class Wars, which argues that international trade conflicts are a direct result of domestic inequality. Namely, “a conflict between bankers and owners of financial assets on one side and ordinary households on the other.”

It’s unsustainable.

— Mike


The Caesars Palace Coup

Speaking of mega-cap buyouts, I have a summer book recommendation: The Caesars Palace Coup by Max Frumes and Sujeet Indap.

It’s a riveting telling of the rapacious actions of Apollo and TPG, and the combative restructuring of Caesars Entertainment. 

A taste:

Too many people — and often twenty- and thirty-something-year-old men trying too hard to prove themselves as tough guys — private equity and hedge fund alike, were fighting merely out of vanity. Most of these funds took money from identical pensions — Texas Teachers, CalPERS, CalSTRS. These fights to the death just moved money from different pockets of the same investors.


Mobile Money Metrics

GSMA has released its Mobile Money Metrics portal.
 
Given the vital and growing role that mobile financial services play globally, this is a terrific resource not only to glean insights on the scale of mobile money accounts, agents, and transactions by geography, but also the names of services in each country. 
 
It’s awesome. Check it out.


The Abraaj Fiasco

I wanted to experiment with a different format with the Portico Podcast, and decided to revisit my writings on the Abraaj fraud scandal as they were happening in real time a few years ago.

It’s hard to overstate the impact Abraaj’s governance failures had — and continue to have — on EM private markets. Give it a listen and let me know what you think.


Persistence in PE / VC Performance

fresh look at the persistence of PE & VC funds using Burgiss data.


From the Bookshelf

For decades, the U.S. Treasury’s approach to international finance was driven largely by what made sense for major American commercial and investment banks and the owners of financial capital. The interests of everyone else in the economy were largely ignored, if not outright opposed by counterproductive commitments to maintain a strong dollar. This was always justified on the grounds that deregulating capital and increasing its mobility would lead to the best possible outcomes.
 
The resulting increases in wealth, they explained, would inevitably trickle down to all Americans — never mind that international capital flows are far more likely to be driven by speculation, investment fads, capital flight, and reserve accumulation (often for mercantilist purposes) than by sober investment decisions about the best long-term uses of capital …
 
The world’s rich were able to benefit at the expense of the world’s workers and retirees because the interests of American financiers were complementary to the interests of Chinese and German industrialists. Both complemented the interests of the wealthiest throughout the world, even from the poorest countries. The modern surplus countries do not need colonies to absorb their excess production because they can work with bankers, their willing collaborators in the deficit countries.
 
The perverse result is that deepening globalization and rising inequality have reinforced each other.

— Matthew C. Klein and Michael Pettis, Trade Wars Are Class Wars (Yale University Press: 2020)

# # #

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.

The Boring Twenties?

How many times in the last three months have you heard someone say, ‘it’s going to be the Roaring Twenties’?

Dozens?

Scores?

Hundreds?

I’ve lost count.

In all my life, I can’t remember a more ubiquitous sentiment.

Perhaps this is one of those phenomena that humanity wills into existence, but I keep wondering: where were you people living during the last decade? Under a rock?

Like, what if the Roaring decade already happened? And you missed it?!

I’m no historian, but I enjoy reading histories. And I’m no expert, but I’m as capable as Ian Bremmer at spouting spurious nonsense.

Consider a few parallels:

  • Mass communication — the Roaring Twenties had the radio and movies; but the 2010s saw communications technology supercharged at a level people in the 1920s could never imagine. I mean, global mobile and smartphone adoption, Twitter, YouTube, the societal parasite that is Facebook, WhatsApp, TikTok, etc. etc. etc. 
     
  • Consumerism — the 2010s were the era of the “emerging consumer.” According to World Bank data, global household expenditures grew by $10.7 trillion (in real terms) between 2010-2019, with China accounting for 25% of that. Choose most any country of sufficient scale, and you will find an e-commerce platform, on-demand media / delivery, etc.
     
  • Corruption and fraud — “We are in the golden age of fraud.” Corruption and fraud are omnipresent, at a scale humanity has never seen.
     
  • Sexual revolution — I wasn’t around in the 1920s, but I have watched Babylon Berlin, and it’s inconceivable that anything back then could compare to the meat market that is Tinder. 
     
  • Stock market — went totally gangbusters!

Don’t get me wrong — I think there will be an explosion of hedonism and euphoria on the back end of the pandemic.

I, myself, daydream of escaping to Beirut to see a Tala Mortada gig … 
dancing / sweating / in a smoke-filled club / with bass so hard / it hurts.

Or trekking to Central Asia and touring the Silk Road to get as far away as possible from my sons (whom I love more than anything … it’s just been way too long without a breather).

But … most of us know what lies in wait in those deserts.

And I’m not referring to the diarrhea.

I mean the nostalgia for home.

think the surprise is that people will crave genuine connection and intimacy after a decade in the Matrix.

Alas, instead of the Roaring Twenties, I wonder if we’re more likely to see the Boring Twenties.

Less flash. Less sizzle. Deeper, more meaningful relationships, work, and — dare I say — innovation.

And I must confess: given the economic, environmental, (geo)political, and social risks brewing and bubbling beneath the surface of our Botoxed world, a bit of boredom would be positively delightful.

On verra bien.

— Mike


Why Tiger Is Going to Eat VC

Everett Randle @ Founders Fund wrote a thought-provoking essay on Tiger Global and its two structural innovations — maximizing deployment velocity & better / faster / cheaper capital for founders — that are upending growth-stage (ICT) VC investing. (“Playing different games”)


Great Wall of Capital: Part Deux

A few years ago I observed that seven Asia-focused buyout funds were in the market for $34B — a figure that was “on par with the aggregate hauls for EM PE funds in each of the last two years.”

Well.

Fast forward to today, and KKR has announced the close of its $15B Asian Fund IV. 

If the CalPERS & CalSTRS disclosures are anything to go by, the markups on Fund III appear quite good relative to those for Fund II, so the demand makes sense.

But.

If KKR keeps compounding its fund size at 9.9% each year, then they’ll be raising a $38B fund in a decade.

And that honestly doesn’t seem crazy anymore.

Either way, I don’t want to be writing about it.


Jamie Dimon & Fintech

Motive Partners highlighted the following passage from Jamie Dimon’s annual letter

Banks fiercely compete with each other and now face fierce competition from multiple vectors.

Banks already compete against a large and powerful shadow banking system. And they are facing extensive competition from Silicon Valley, both in the form of fintechs and Big Tech companies (Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and now Walmart), that is here to stay. As the importance of cloud, AI and digital platforms grows, this competition will become even more formidable. As a result, banks are playing an increasingly smaller role in the financial system.

Financial services are going to be integrated into everything. Legacy banks face daunting challenges.


The Saving Glut of the Rich

Fascinating paper.


From the Bookshelf

There are two forces: fate and human effort …
Two, since actions succeed neither by fate,
Nor sheer exertion alone, but through their bond.



Activated, human effort succeeds through fate,
And then that action’s fruit falls to the actor.
But even the effort of industrious men,
Working together, is fruitless in the
World devoid of fate.
Because of this, idle and unperceptive men
Despise exertion — the wise know better.
For generally action bears some productive fruit,
While to abstain altogether produces
Nothing but the heavy fruit of suffering.

Two kinds of men are seldom found — those who achieve
Their ends fortuitously, without exertion,
And those who, having acted, still do not succeed.
The industrious man, rejecting idleness,
Is fit to live; it is he, and not the idler,
Who increases happiness — it is he
Who desires the welfare of his fellow beings.
If the industrious man, through taking action,
Does not succeed, he should not be blamed for that —
He still perceives the truth.  

— The Sauptikaparvan of the Mahābhārata (Oxford World’s Classics: 1998)

# # #

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.

Ep. 3: Fintech & Financial Inclusion



In the third episode of The Portico Podcast I speak with Monica Brand Engel — a co-founding Partner at Quona Capital, a venture capital firm focused on fintech for inclusion in emerging markets.

If you’ve looked into EM fintech, you’ve probably come across Quona and their portfolio companies.

For example:

  • Sokowatch in East Africa, a working capital provider and last-mile distributor of fast-moving consumer goods to informal retailers;
  • Coins in the Philippines, a mobile, branchless, blockchain-based platform that provides unbanked and underbanked customers with direct access to basic financial services (and which was acquired by Go-Jek in 2019);
  • Or Konfio, a digital banking and software platform for SMEs in Mexico, which received a $100m investment from Softbank as well as a $100m secured credit facility from Goldman Sachs last year.

I was excited to get Monica on the podcast because she has built a career in two of the most compelling themes around: financial inclusion and financial technology.

Our discussion opens with her walking us through her career trajectory. We then talk about the convergence between philanthropic and commercial investment across emerging markets; the commonalities and idiosyncrasies across the markets in which Quona invests; the quality of fintech entrepreneurship in EM; the prospects for technological and business model innovation to migrate from emerging markets to the United States and Western Europe; and the biggest obstacles fintech startups encounter as they attempt to scale, among other topics.

I hope you enjoy our conversation.


This podcast was recorded in October 2020.