|
I am pleased to be a speaker at the upcoming Emerging Manager Connect West conference being held on Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at the Marines Memorial Club in San Francisco . I will be speaking on the panel "Roadshow 101: Leading Emerging Manager Investors Discuss the Dos and Dont's for Successful LP Meetings." Here's a link to the conference website:
https://partnerconnectevents.com/emcwest2018/index.php
0 Comments
The denominator effect refers to an investor's private equity portfolio value exceeding its target allocation due to the decline in value of other elements in the investor's overall investment portfolio. Conversely, the “reverse denominator effect” refers to private equity value falling below its target allocation due to the increase in value of other elements in the portfolio. In order to understand Denominator Effect and the Reverse Denominator Effect, this post will first review basic portfolio allocation and rebalancing, and then will briefly review fractions. Portfolio Allocations and Rebalancing Most investors will develop a portfolio investment strategy by allocating a portion of the portfolio to different investment classes (called “asset classes”) such as public equities (stocks), fixed income securities (bonds), real estate, cash and private equity. Investors may define asset classes differently and may allocate their portfolio across asset classes differently. Let’s say an investor has $1 billion to invest. After working with their investment advisor, they have decided to create target allocations for their portfolio as follows: 40% to public equities, 40% to fixed income and 20% to private equity. (We’re keeping it simple here; most investors will allocate to more than 3 asset classes). These are target allocations – the actual values may vary from the target value. The target allocation will look like this:  To read more, please click on "Read More" link below.
I am pleased to be a speaker at the upcoming ACG Intergrowth conference being held on Wednesday, May 2 through Friday, May 4, 2018 at the Marriott Marquis San Diego Marina in beautiful San Diego. I will be speaking on the panel "Roadshow Dos and Dont's" as part of the seminar "Inside the LP Mind: A Fundraising Seminar" being held on Wednesday May 2. The panel will discuss best practices for buyout funds hitting the fundraising trail. It should be an interesting panel!
Here's a link to the seminar: http://intergrowth.org/education/inside-the-lp-mind-a-fundraising-seminar-with-buyouts-insider/. Here's a link to the conference: http://intergrowth.org/. If you're at the conference, please say hello. ,This one of a series of posts on fund performance metrics. Other posts in this series include:
We have discussed how to evaluate fund performance, but a common area of confusion is gross returns versus net returns. I briefly introduced this topic in LP Corner: Private Equity Fund Performance - An Overview, and this post expands on that introduction. When talking returns in private equity, it is very important to know what kind of returns you are discussing: gross or net returns. The difference between these two metrics can be meaningful, and so it is important to know what is being discussed. Gross returns, simply stated, are the returns a fund obtains from its investments, without deducting any management fees, fund expenses or carried interest. Net returns are the returns a limited partner (LP) receives from the fund, after deduction of all management fees, fund expenses and carried interest. LPs are about net returns, as net returns are the real returns an LP receives from its investment in a fund. When we talk about gross vs net returns, it can apply to gross vs net IRRs or gross vs net TVPI multiple. The graphic below shows the difference between gross and net returns for a fund. LPs invest in a fund. The fund invests in portfolio companies. Gross Returns are the returns the fund obtains from its investments in portfolio companies. Gross Returns are before deducting management fee, fund expenses and carried interest. Once the fund does deduct the management fee, fund expenses and carried interest, the return the LPs obtain from the fund are the Net Returns.  To read more, please click on "Read More" link below.
This one of a series of posts on fund performance metrics. Other posts in this series include:
We have now discussed the three metrics that are primarily used to evaluate the performance of private equity funds: (1) the multiples TVPI, DPI and RVPI; (2) IRR; and (3) PME. We will now discuss how to use these metrics to evaluate the performance of private equity funds. Overview There are several ways to evaluate the performance of a fund, or a portfolio of funds, with the main methods being:
Absolute Return Absolute return refers to a specific threshold requirement for a fund’s performance. For example, some LPs may say that they expect a 3.0x TVPI and 30% IRR net return from early stage venture capital funds, or a 2.0x and 20% return for buyout funds. If a fund’s return exceeds these metrics, then it “outperforms” the metrics. If a fund’s returns are less than these metrics, then the fund “underperforms.” A note about absolute return. Most funds experience a J-Curve, where performance declines in the first couple of years of a fund when fund expenses and investment losses exceed investment gains, but the fund’s performance improves over the next several years. The J-Curve is more pronounced for early-stage venture capital funds. The J-Curve looks something like this:  For more on the J-Curve, see my post: “LP Corner: The J-Curve.”
The point here is that using absolute returns are really only useful late in a fund’s life or after the fund is liquidated. If one were to apply a 20% absolute return metric to the fund in the J-Curve example above, the fund would underperform all years until the last year in the graph. To read more, please click "Read More" to the right below. This one of a series of posts on fund performance metrics. Other posts in this series include:
We have now discussed two of the three primary metrics uses to evaluate the performance of private equity funds: (1) the multiples TVPI, DPI and RVPI; and (2) IRR. We will now explore the third primary metric: Public Market Equivalent, or PME. Overview Broadly speaking, PME is a return metric that compares the return of a private equity fund (or a portfolio of funds) to the hypothetical return of a chosen public stock market index, such as the S&P 500 or Nasdaq, using the cash flows as the fund as a basis for investment in the stock market index. For example, a fund may have an IRR of 15%, while the PME obtained using the S&P 500 as the index is 10%, suggesting that the fund has outperformed the S&P 500 by 500 basis points (bps). There are several variations of PME, but these are commonly used:
LN PME The LN PME (also known as the Index Comparison Method or ICM) is widely considered the “first” PME approach (and it is often referred to simply as “PME”). The LN PME matches each contribution and distribution of a fund with a hypothetical purchase and sale of a reference public market index, such as the S&P 500. The residual value of the fund is not matched to the LN PME; rather, the LN PME residual value is based on the performance of the hypothetical invested capital in the index. With these cash flows, an LN PME return for the public market index is compared directly against the IRR for the fund. If the fund’s IRR exceeds the LN PME, then the fund has outperformed the public market index. If the LN PME IRR exceeds the fund’s IRR, then the fund has underperformed the public market index. Note that the IRR generated using LN PME isn’t a “real” IRR – it’s an estimation because of the manipulation of the residual value. One nice thing about the LN PME is that it is conceptually straightforward. However, the mechanics of LN PME have some issues. One issue for the LN PME approach is that the residual value for the PME index can be negative. This can occur if the fund has distributions early in the life of the fund, or has a series of large distributions late in the life of the fund. The problem is that a fund can’t have a negative residual value (technically a fund could have a negative residual value, but it would be a very rare case). As a result, LN PME isn’t used very often in private equity. The other forms of PME attempt to address the drawbacks of the LN PME. Let’s look at an example: First consider the fund that we want to evaluate. The fund is presented below:  To read more, please click on "Read More" to the right below.
This one of a series of posts on fund performance metrics. Other posts in this series include:
In this post, we will explore internal rate of return (IRR) as a tool for evaluating fund performance metrics. Recap In my prior post, we discussed the basics of IRR in a fund context. In this post, we build on that to explore what happens year by year for that fund. In Example 1 in the last post, we introduced a fund, where the LP paid $30 million to the fund in a capital call at time = 0 and received $80 million back from the fund (as distributions) at the end of year 5. These simple cash flows yielded an IRR of 22% and a TVPI of 2.67x.  To read more, please click on "Read More" to the right below.
This one of a series of posts on fund performance metrics. Other posts in this series include:
In this post and the next post, we will explore measuring fund performance using internal rate of return or IRR. This post will provide an overview of IRR. If you already have a good grasp of IRR, you can move to part two of this series: LP Corner: Fund Performance Metrics - Internal Rate of Return (IRR) - Part Two. IRR Overview In a basic sense, IRR is the return from a series of cash flows over time. In the Private Equity space, IRR is commonly used to evaluate the performance of private equity (including venture capital, growth equity and buyout) funds. IRR is best calculated using Excel, Google Sheets or another financial spreadsheet program. Simple IRR Examples Let’s assume that an LP commits $30 million to a fund, and that the fund returns $80 million in distributions to the LP. (For a discussion on committed capital, see "LP Corner: On Committed Capital, Called Capital and Uncalled Capital.") On a multiple basis, this equates to a Total Value to Paid-in-Capital (TVPI) of 2.67x ($80M / $30M) – which sounds pretty good. But let’s explore a bit deeper. Note that in these examples, we are looking at cash flows from the perspective of an LP - payments made by the LP and money received by the LP. This is known as a "Net IRR" because it focuses on the cash flows to and from the LP. For a discussion of gross vs net returns, see "LP corner: Private Equity Fund Performance - An Overview." Example 1: Assume that when the fund has its closing (which is time 0 for purposes of calculating the IRR in Excel), it calls all capital from the LP (in reality, this doesn’t happen, but humor me as this is an example). In five years, the fund distributes $80 to the LP. This looks like this:  To read more, please click on "Read More" to the right below. This one of a series of posts on fund performance metrics. Other posts in this series include:
In this post, we will explore using multiples as a tool to evaluate fund performance. The multiples are:
Here’s some important terminology that will help explain the multiples:
 To better understand the above terminology, let’s look at the terms graphically:  To read more, please click "Read More" to the right below.
I am pleased to have been invited to speak at the SuperReturn US West conference being held on February 12-14 at the Four Seasons Hotel in San Francisco. Here's a link to the conference website: https://finance.knect365.com/superreturn-us-west/
I will be speaking on two panels. The first is an Emerging Managers Workshop, where we will discuss best practices for raising a fund. This workshop will be held on Monday, February 12 at 4:00 pm. The second panel will be on Emerging LPs in Venture and Tech, where we will discuss the LP environment for venture capital, tech and crowdfunding. This panel will be held on Tuesday, February 13 at 4:45 pm. I hope to see you there! This one of a series of posts on fund performance metrics. Other posts in this series include:
Introduction How do LPs measure performance of a private equity fund? It’s not a simple as one would think. This post introduces a number of concepts, each of which will be discussed in more detail in future posts. The following are the basic metrics used to evaluate fund performance:
Each of the above performance metrics have positives and negatives. To read more, please click on "Read More" to the right below. Stockholm-based music streaming service Spotify has confidentially filed a registration statement with the US Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") to undertake a direct listing of its shares on the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE"). This is very intriguing to me, as when I was an investment banker I worked on traditional firm-commitment initial public offerings. I never worked on a direct listing of shares (probably because they are very rare and is there was little to no money to be made by the investment bankers.
Spotify is eschewing the traditional IPO approach where the company typically raises money by hiring an investment banking syndicate to sell shares in an IPO. In traditional IPOs, the investment bankers usually receive a fee of 7% of the price of the shares that are sold in the IPO. As a direct listing, Spotify is not raising capital - it is simply registering its securities that will trade on the NYSE. The trade-off here is that by not raising capital in an IPO, Spotify won't have to pay the standard 7% underwriter fee (note that this 7% commission is typically lower in very large IPOs). To read more, please click "Read More" to the right below. I have been intrigued by Softbank's $97 billion Vision Fund, the largest corporate venture fund in history. The Vision Fund is making waves across the venture capital spectrum, with investments made or planned in companies such as Uber, WeWork, Roivant, Fanatics, Slack and Plenty. The article by Hazel Sheffiled for Institutional Investor titled "The $100 Billioon Venture Capital Bomb" is a very interesting exploration of the motivations for the fund by its founder, Softbank's Masayoshi Son. It's an interesting article, and worth a read.
Link: https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b15ywfxthq1f16/the-$100-billion-venture-capital-bomb Softbank has completed its purchase of Fortress Investment Group, it was announced yesterday. The deal was originally announced in February 2017 at a price of $3.3 billion. Fortress went public in 2007 at $18.50 per Class A Share, and its shares declined dramatically during the financial crisis and never really recovered, selling to Softbank at $8.08 per share.
I'm looking forward to seeing what Softbank has in store for Fortress, and how it fits into Softbank's overall strategy. Link to Softbank press release: https://www.softbank.jp/en/corp/news/press/sb/2017/20171228_01/ Consulting firm NEPC, LLC has announced the results of its Q3 2017 NEPC Endowment and Foundation Poll, and the results contain the following findings:
My take-aways from this are that as overall portfolio returns fall, endowments and foundations are considering increasing their exposure to private equity, as this asset class has outperformed other traditional asset classes. They are doing this even with the expectation that PE returns will fall over time. Link to NEPC press release: http://www.nepc.com/insights/nepc-survey-endowments-and-foundations-increase-private-equity-exposure-despite-expecting-lower-returns There's an interesting opinion piece on TechCrunch by Jon Evans called "After the end of the startup era." In this piece, Mr. Evans argues that the golden age of the startup may be over, and in its place is a new world where big companies rule. He asserts that many of the developing technologies (AI, hardware, self-driving cars, AR/VR and cryptocurrencies) favor large companies with talent, data and money available to develop these expensive and complex technologies. It's an interesting piece.
Link: https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/22/ask-not-for-whom-the-deadpool-tolls/ In the Reuters article "SoftBank's big checks are stalling tech IPOs," author Heather Somerville explores the impact of deep-pocketed investors on the IPO market. As deep pools of capital are available to companies, it delays a traditional reason for companies to go public. SoftBank, which closed a $93 billion investment fund in May, has made some significant investments in companies such as WeWork, which provide these companies with capital so they don't have to go public. In addition, along with the big checks comes big valuations, and there is some concern that these companies would not achieve the same valuation in the public markets.
Link: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-wsjd-conference-softbank-group/softbanks-big-checks-are-stalling-tech-ipos-idUSKBN1CO3BXwww.reuters.com/article/us-wsjd-conference-softbank-group/softbanks-big-checks-are-stalling-tech-ipos-idUSKBN1CO3BX I'm pleased to be speaking on two panels at the upcoming PartnerConnect West 2017 conference in Half Moon Bay, CA on October 10 and 11, 2017. The first panel is "The LP View On The VC Cycle -- Where Are We In It, And Should LPs Be Allocating More to VC Today?" and the second panel is "Growth Equity Shark Tank: LPs Review a Live Growth Equity Pitch." The conference link is here: https://partnerconnectevents.com/pcwest2017/agenda
Bloomberg yesterday (8/2/2017) posted a fascinating piece on the Bell Canada Enterprises (BCE) leveraged buyout that fell apart during the financial crisis. The article is "How the World's Biggest Buyout Deal Crashed and Burned" and it's worth a read.
Link: https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2017-bce-oral-history/ The Wall Street Journal reported today in the article "From $2 Billion to Zero: A Private-Equity Fund Goes Bust in the Oil Patch" that EnerVest Ltd.'s 2013 energy-focused private equity fund is "now worth essentially nothing." According to the article, the $2 billion fund "borrowed heavily to buy oil and gas wells before energy prices plunged" and "is now worth essentially nothing." Investors in the fund included leading pension plans, foundations and other institutional investors.
It's rare for a private equity fund to become almost worthless. The article states that only seven private equity funds larger than $1 billion have ever lost money for investors, according to Cambridge Associates LLC, a leading investment adviser. It's more common for early-stage venture capital funds to suffer losses, and I know of a few funds of the 1999 to 2000 vintage years that lost a significant portion of their value. This is a good reminder that investing in private equity, growth equity and venture capital funds is risky, and includes the risk that the fund may become worthless and the investor may lose their entire investments. Link to article: https://www.wsj.com/articles/from-2-billion-to-zero-a-private-equity-fund-goes-bust-in-the-oil-patch-1500210002 First time investors in private equity funds are sometimes alarmed / confused / surprised to learn that their fund investment has a negative return in the early years of the fund’s life. Then, to their relief, as the fund ages, the fund’s return increases. This is known as the ”J-Curve” and it is a common phenomenon in private equity, particularly early-stage venture capital. A simplified hypothetical representation is of the J-Curve is below:  To read more, please click on "Read More" to the right below.
I believe that pension reform is a critical issue that states must address. The Investor's Business Daily article "As Illinois Goes Bankrupt, Michigan Embraces Bold Pension Reforms" discusses some of the steps Michigan has taken to address its pension funding gap. In a nutshell, Michigan has shifted public school teachers to a defined contribution plan, but allows teachers to opt for a more traditional defined benefit pension, but one that splits the costs 50/50 between workers and the state. It's an interesting article and worth a read.
Link: http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/michigan-just-prevented-a-fiscal-crisis-are-other-states-paying-attention/ For investors that are new to investing in private equity funds (venture capital funds, growth equity funds and buyout funds), one area of confusion is often around how the fund cash flows work from the investor perspective. This blog post attempts to explain this.
As an initial matter, it is important to understand that private equity funds are very different from mutual funds. When an investor invests in a mutual fund, the investor will write a check on day 1 and at some point later in time will withdraw money from the fund. Private equity funds operate on a very different basis - known as a "called capital" basis. Let me explain. To read more, please click on "Read More" to the lower right. Investing in private equity funds is a long-term process. Private equity funds have finite lives, unlike mutual funds. Most private equity funds come to market with a 10 year term with up to two one-year extensions at the discretion of the manager. This suggests a fund term of 10-12 years. However, most funds exist for much longer than 12 years from the initial call of capital to final liquidation. I view the life of a private equity fund as having four phases:
The four phases of a fund’s life can be viewed graphically:  To read more, please click on "Read More" to the lower right.
The private equity world has a lot of terminology. In a prior post, I discussed the structure of a private equity fund, and introduced the terms "limited partners" (or "LPs"), the "general partner" ( or "GP") and the "management company." In this post, we'll explore fund "sizes" and a little bit of how investments in private equity funds work.
The "size" of a private equity fund is based on the total amount of money all investors commit to invest in the fund - known as "committed capital." Because a private equity fund invests capital over time, the fund does not need all of the investors' money at the inception of the fund, and so the fund "calls" capital over time. Private equity funds typically have initial terms of 10 years, but most of the new investing occurs during the first several years (usually 3-5 years) of the fund, known as the "investment period." As a result, the fund calls the bulk of capital from the investors during this investment period. Let's use an example. To read more, please click "Read More" to the lower right. |
About this Blog
This Blog is a collection of thoughts on a variety of topics of interest to me, including: Find me on LinkedIn Find me on Twitter 
Copyright Notice:
All original works on this site are © 2011-2018 Allen J. Latta. All rights reserved. Neither this website nor any portion thereof may be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express prior written permission of Allen J. Latta. Categories
All
Archives
April 2018
|
