Allen Latta's Thoughts on Private Equity, Etc.
  • Allen's Blog
  • Blog Post Categories
  • Glossary of Private Equity Terms
  • Resources
  • About
  • Contact

LP Corner: Fund Performance Metrics – Public Market Equivalent (PME)

2/26/2018

1 Comment

 
​This one of a series of posts on fund performance metrics.  Other posts in this series include:
  • LP Corner: Private Equity Fund Performance – An Overview
  • LP Corner: Fund Performance Metrics – Multiples TVPI, DPI and RVPI
  • LP Corner: Fund Performance Metrics – Internal Rate of Return (IRR) – Part One
  • LP Corner: Fund Performance Metrics – Internal Rate of Return (IRR) – Part Two
  • LP Corner: Fund Performance Metrics – Public Market Equivalent (PME) - This blog post.
  • LP Corner: Fund Performance Metrics - Private Equity Fund Performance
  • LP Corner: Gross vs Net Returns
 
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, developed by Austin Long and Craig Nickels in 1996
  • PME+, developed by Capital Dynamics in 2003
  • KS PME, developed by Steve Kaplan and Antoinette Schoar in 2005
  • mPME, developed by Cambridge Associates and introduced in 2013
  • Direct Alpha, developed by Oleg Gredil, Barry Griffiths and Rüdiger Stucke in 2014
 
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:
Picture
To read more, please click on "Read More" to the right below.
The fund has a TVPI of 2.0x and a 15.3% IRR.  Recall capital calls are presented as negative numbers to show they are a cash outflow for the LPs.  Distributions are positive as they are cash inflows to the LP.  The fund NAV is shaded for each year other than the final evaluation year, as we are focusing on the residual value remaining in the fund at 12/31/2017.
 
Now consider the S&P 500 over this period of time.  The S&P closing prices are indexed, with the initial value equal to 100.
Picture
Here are the LN PME calculations:
Picture
I have uploaded the spreadsheet as a Google Doc.  The link is:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Dj1cKYU5ic9_BeKr9op226zfQWVPGTfKI49fgx0dfKE/edit?usp=sharing.  Please let me know if you find any errors, or a better way to do any of the calculations.
 
As the above table shows, the LN PME arrives at a negative number for the residual value of the fund.  Note that the interim NAVs are shaded as they are not used for the cash flow calculation.  Only the calls, distributions and the residual value are used for the cash flow (and IRR) calculation.  On a comparison basis, the LN PME IRR is 12.6% compared to the fund’s IRR of 15.3%, suggesting that the fund outperformed the S&P 500 by 2.6%.
 
PME+
PME+, also known as Capital Dynamics PME+, attempts to address the issue with LN PME by obtaining a residual value for the PME+ index that is equal to the fund’s residual value.  To do this, a scaling factor is applied to the fund’s distributions.  PME+ generates a PME+ IRR for the index, which can be compared directly to the fund’s IRR.  As before, if the fund’s IRR exceeds the PME+ IRR, the fund has outperformed the index.  If the PME+ IRR exceeds the fund’s IRR, the fund has under-performed compared to the index.  But as before, due to the scaling factor, this approach is also heuristic in nature.
 
Let’s calculate PME+ for our example:
Picture
The first step for the PME+ calculations is to calculate the scaling factor.  Once this scaling factor is computed, then it is applied to the distributions to obtain the scaled distributions.  The IRR for the PME+ Index is then calculated.  Here the PME+ IRR is 12.6%, compared to the fund’s IRR of 15.3%, suggesting that the fund outperformed the S&P 500 by 2.7%.
 
KS PME
KS PME takes a different approach to compare a fund’ performance to that of an index.  In effect, the fund’s individual calls and distributions are revalued to their future value at the time of the evaluation.  The nice thing about this is that the fund’s residual value stays the same, as it is already expressed in the future value.  These values are then totaled to provide a future value for all of the calls, and a future value for all of the distributions plus the residual value.  These figures are used to calculate the KS PME metric.
 
The KS PME provides a multiple, such as 1.7.  If the KS MPE multiple exceeds 1.0, then the fund has outperformed the index.  If the KS MPE multiple is less than 1.0, then the fund has under-performed the index.
 
One issue with the KS PME is that it does not take into account the timing of the cash flows.  However, it does provide a multiple of outperformance, which is helpful.
 
Example:
Picture
​As shown above, the future values of the calls and distributions are calculated, using the index performance for the calculation.  Once that is complete, the KS PME is calculated.  Here, the KS PME is 1.12, which indicates that the fund has outperformed the S&P 500.  However, the KS PME does not provide a percentage return, so one cannot compare the KS PME metric directly to the IRR of the fund.
 
mPME
Cambridge Associates developed the mPME to address some of the issues of the LN PME method.  In the mPME method, fund distributions and the interim fund net asset values are scaled proportionately to the changing value of the fund’s net asset values.  In this manner, a mPME IRR can be calculated.  As before, if the fund’s IRR exceeds the mPME, the fund has outperformed the index.  If the mPME IRR exceeds the fund’s IRR, the fund has under-performed compared the index.  But as before, due to the changes to distributions and the net asset values, the mPME approach is also heuristic in nature.
 
Let’s look at the example:
Picture
​As can be seen from the table above, the mPME IRR is 12.8%, compared to the 15.3% for the fund.  This suggests that the fund outperformed the S&P 500 by 2.5%.
 
Direct Alpha
Direct Alpha was developed in 2014 in an attempt to address limitations of other PME methodologies.  In the Direct Alpha approach, the fund’s calls and distributions are converted to their future values as of the evaluation date, using the index as the basis for the calculation.  An IRR is calculated based on these future values for the calls and distributions and the residual value.  The residual value isn’t recalculated as it is already at the future value, since it is the value as of the evaluation date.  The resulting Direct Alpha value is the excess (or negative) return provided by the fund over the stock market index.
 
Applying this to the example:
Picture
As can be seen from the table above, the fund’s Direct Alpha is 2.4%.  As the fund’s IRR was 15.3%, this means the S&P 500 returned 12.9%.  The nice thing about Direct Alpha is there's no scaling going on.  It's a direct way of measuring alpha.
 
Observations and notes:
  • In this example, each PME method found that the fund outperformed the S&P 500 index for the referenced period.  The outperformance ranged from 2.4% to 2.7%.
  • The KS PME and the Direct Alpha methodologies don’t involve any “scaling” to the calls, distributions or residual value, and so provide more direct ways of calculating alpha.
  • The LN PME, PME+ and mPME methodologies do involve scaling of one or more of calls, distributions and/or residual value, and as such are estimates of the comparative performance of the fund to the public market index.
  • One the PME is calculated and a fund has outperformed, the question is then whether this outperformance is sufficient to offset the risk and illiquid nature of the private equity fund.
 
Resources:
I have uploaded the spreadsheet with the examples as a Google Doc.  The link is:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Dj1cKYU5ic9_BeKr9op226zfQWVPGTfKI49fgx0dfKE/edit?usp=sharing
 
The original paper on PME by Long and Nickels can be found here:
http://alignmentcapital.com/pdfs/research/icm_aimr_benchmark_1996.pdf
 
The original paper on Direct Alpha can be found here:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2403521
This paper also has a good comparison of the different methodologies.
 
The British Private Equity & Venture Capital Association has published a useful guide “Private Equity Performance Measurement” (2015), which can be found here:
https://www.bvca.co.uk/Portals/0/library/documents/BVCA%20Perspective%20Series/Private%20Equity%20Performance%20Measurement.pdf?ver=2015-04-09-105554-523
 

1 Comment
OWALL
6/2/2020 10:41:13 am

Thanks so much for posting such a complete review of these calcs. It is helpful to see what the manual processes look like instead of just relying on software and the famous "inside private equity" book!

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    About this Blog

    This Blog is a collection of thoughts on a variety of topics of interest to me, including:
    • Private Equity
    • Buyouts
    • Growth Equity
    • Venture Capital
    • Corporate Finance
    • Investment Banking
    • IPOs
    • M&A
    • Technology
    • Economics
    • Law
    I hope you find this blog of interest.
    View my profile on LinkedIn

    Categories

    All
    Anti-Dilution
    Berlin
    Board Of Directors
    Brazil
    Buyouts
    California
    China
    Cleantech
    Corporate Finance
    Corporate Venture Capital
    Crowdfunding
    Dilution
    Dividend Recap
    Economics
    Emerging Managers
    Endowments
    Entrepreneurship
    Europe
    Fund Terms
    General
    Growth Equity
    Healthcare
    India
    Innovation
    Investment Banking
    Ipo
    Israel
    Law
    Legal
    Libor
    Life Sciences
    Listed Private Equity
    London
    Los Angeles
    LP Corner
    M&A
    Mexico
    New York
    Pensions
    Politics
    Private Equity
    Public Stocks
    San Francisco
    Secondaries
    Secondary Exchanges
    Silicon Valley
    South America
    Speaking
    Stock Market
    Tax
    Technology
    Travel
    United Kingdom
    Valuation
    Venture Capital
    Venture Capital Deal Terms
    Webinars


    Archives

    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    February 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    November 2015
    October 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011


    Copyright Notice:

    ​All original works on this site are 
    © 2011-2020 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.

    LP Corner® is a registered trademark of Campton Private Equity Advisors.  Used with permission.

    DISCLAIMER:  Readers of this Blog are not to construe it as investment, legal, accounting or tax advice, and it is not intended to provide the basis for the evaluation of any investment.  Readers should consult with their own investment, legal, accounting, tax and other advisors to the determine the benefits and risks of any investment.

    Private equity investments involve significant risks, including the loss of the entire investment.

    This Blog does not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any security.

Copyright © Allen J. Latta.  All rights reserved.
Securities offered through LightPath Capital, Inc., Member FINRA/SIPC.
LightPath Capital, Inc., ​1560 E. Southlake Blvd, Suite 100, Southlake, TX 76092.  Phone: 214-481-7641