Saturday, March 30, 2013

LP's Taking Control of Their Portfloio

LP's Taking Control of Their Portfolio

According to Reuters, many major LPs are beginning to bypass investment shops in favor of direct investments or co-investments. It appears that the management fees and little say in investment strategy has begun to wear on many investors.


 
Reuters – Tired of the hefty fees charged by private equity firms and wanting more say over what they buy, big investors like pension funds and insurers are taking matters into their own hands.

Some are buying stakes in companies directly or teaming up to invest alongside private equity firms rather than locking money away in those firms’ funds.

That is posing a challenge to the $3 trillion private equity industry, where companies like KKR and Apax spearheaded the model of raising money from investors to put to work on their behalf in exchange for management and performance fees.

For the first time in their history, buyout firms are raising less money from investors, and there are signs that trend could continue.

According to industry tracker Preqin, 43 percent of investors in a survey this year said they planned to increase the money they put into co-investments, in which investors do deals alongside buyout firms but pay no fees.

The proportion of investors that currently co-invest had also risen to 36 percent by the first quarter of this year, up from 33 percent a year earlier, the surveys showed, indicating rising interest in investing outside traditional funds.

“Co-investment is an effective mechanism to get your fee down and it gives you more control over your exposure,” said Simon Moss, Head of Europe at Hermes GPE, an investor with 20 percent of its 6 billion pounds ($9.1 billion) in assets in co-investments.

In a private and opaque market, estimating how much capital bypasses private equity funds is difficult, but there are signs more investors are publicising an alternative approach.
British insurer Legal & General said on Monday it was taking a 46.5 percent stake in UK housebuilder CALA Group alongside Patron Capital, part of a plan to do more direct investments in education, housing, transport and energy.

It follows big investors like The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB), which last year bought a stake in motorcycle grand prix organiser Dorna, and the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Board in doing more deals outside of funds.

The $173 billion-strong CPPIB has now bypassed funds for more than $11 billion of private equity investments, according to its website, against $42 billion committed to funds since 2001. Past direct deals include stakes in jet engine component maker Avio and health and beauty group Alliance Boots.

In expanding co- and direct investing, pension funds and insurers are, in part, mimicking sovereign wealth funds which have long taken it on themselves to scour the world for assets.

FEES
The question of fees often looms largest in choosing how to put money to work. Backers of buyout funds typically face annual management fees of 2 percent and performance fees of 20 percent. But the apparent cost-saving of avoiding fees can be misleading, as investors need in-house expertise and time on the road to examine possible deals. More concentrated exposure also means returns – or losses – are amplified.

Andre Bourbonnais, who leads private equity investments at CPPIB, told delegates at a recent conference in Berlin his fund has a team of 45 people in Hong Kong, London and Toronto “dedicated exclusively to executing on direct transactions.”

These staffing costs make going direct prohibitive for smaller investors, though by teaming up for direct stakes they can glean knowledge to help them decide on future deals.

“Sometimes private equity firms become so focused on securing an investment at the expense of thorough research … With a co-investment model, there is greater scope to objectively evaluate an opportunity,” Hermes GPE’s Moss said.

Heavy writedowns of their private equity fund holdings during the financial crisis has added to investors’ desire for more control over which companies they back. But unlike the activist private equity manager, pension funds often prefer a hands off approach with the companies they own, and do not put their own staff on to boards.

This reluctance to commit extra resources to an investment means a lot will limit themselves to co-investing, where they can piggyback – but are also reliant – on the restructuring changes their buyout partners make to portfolio companies.

Where they do own stakes directly, pension funds often keep assets for longer than buyout houses, reducing the need for quick exits – a problem for private equity funds during the financial market crisis when deals dried up. Walgreen’s purchase of a stake in KKR and CPPIB-owned Alliance Boots last year shows it can be done, however.

TIMING
Desperate for cash as clients cut back, private equity firms have shown themselves willing to team up with investors outside of their funds, even offering prospective clients the chance.

Hermes’ past deals include a stake in law firm Parabis alongside Duke Street, and a stake in Brit Insurance with London-based private equity giant CVC.

Some private equity executives say the rise of co-investment does not threaten their business model – rather, it aids it because investors are more likely to back their funds in future.

Private equity firms that successfully offer co-investments will be the “winners” of the future, Head of Infrastructure at AXA Private Equity Mathias Burghardt said. “The ability to offer co-investments is very important,” he told Reuters. “The investor wants to shape his own portfolio.”

Other executives caution about the rush to team up outside the fund, and say a balance must be struck. While investors want to learn about prospective deals as early as possible, buyout houses say bringing them in at initial stages is a non-starter because they do not want to reveal their hand until they are sure about price, financing and structure.

This leaves pension funds and insurers with a short window to decide whether or not to back a deal. “We tell them you’ve got three weeks. In three weeks you either say yes or no. Sometimes that’s too tight for them,” one industry executive said at a conference in London last week.

About the author Terry Stidham
Terry Stidham is the founder and principal of Target Search Group. He is a B2B Business Development Leader with extensive knowledge of the M&A process, combined with an in-depth understanding of the constantly changing global capital markets environment.  He has served as the head of entrepreneurial organizations as well as Fortune 500 companies.  He specializes with mid-market companies in a diverse array of industry sectors from service and manufacturing to technical and professional firms.
 
Mr. Stidham speaks the language of both the seller and the buyer having vast experience on both sides of the transaction. He has been directly involved in the execution and successful closing of hundreds of investment banking and corporate finance transactions.  Mr. Stidham has been instrumental in aiding thousands of business owners prepare their businesses for eventual sale by teaching them how to maximize efficiencies in operations leading to significant increased cash flow.

Thursday, March 28, 2013

Will Private Equity Transition into Holding Companies


Are Holding Companies the Future of Private Equity?

by Terry Stidham

In a recent Forbes article, Ronald J. Sylvestri, Jr. discussed the waning viability of the traditional private equity fund. As a possible alternative, he suggested holding companies. Private equity now looks to buy operating businesses and run them, and use the subsequent cash flows to buy other businesses.
 
While Sylvestri’s suggestion — much akin to Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway – is certainly worth consideration, there are significant hurdles to a wide-spread adoption of a holding model, especially in the mid-market. Though a few select middle market investors may be able to make the transition, there are several fundamental requirements that many will be unable to meet.

One of the few investors to operate as a middle-market holding company is Markel Ventures, a wholly owned investment subsidiary of Markel Corporation (NYSE: MKL). Similar to Berkshire Hathaway or Teledyne, Markel Ventures is uniquely positioned to reinvest its insurance profits to acquire and help grow non-core businesses. Their model is based on a permanent capital, no debt approach, in which the investment is held for life.

Because of their rare arrangement, Bill Weirich and Andrew Crowley at Markel Ventures, were able to speak to some of the fundamental issues a private equity firm would need to address before even contemplating a holding model.

1) The Need for a Large Permanent Capital Base

According to Weirich and Crowley, the biggest hurdle to establishing a permanent capital fund is finding the right investors. Crowley explained, “If you were to adopt a permanent capital model, you would need a capital base with a long-term outlook to get off the ground.” He continued, “Most LPs prefer good returns in the 5-7 year window, rather than potentially great returns in a 20-25 year window.”

While there may be means to assuage investor concerns — harkening back to the old days of conglomerates paying investors with dividends — Crowley does not believe LPs would be interested. “While it is theoretically possible for a traditional PE shop to adopt the model with dividend payouts, it would be very difficult to find investors who are patient enough.” He continued, “Most other middle market investors operate with a short-term focus, feeling the pressure to take fleeting money and provide their LPs with immediate returns when possible.”

While the immediate returns are appealing, the risks and costs associated with long-term investments can be significant hurdles for any LP to overcome, particularly if they are accustomed to the shorter time frame.
2) Patient and Diligent Investing
Even if an ex-PE shop were able to acquire patient, long-term investors, a behavioral shift would need to accompany the structural shift. To successfully adopt a permanent capital model, it would be necessary to disregard the existing 5-7 year time frame. By opportunistically selling, or trying to cash out too early, you miss out on the compounding of the asset — especially if you cannot immediately find a new investment. Instead, investments must be long-term exercises of patience and discipline.
Crowley explained, “Logistically, one of the biggest challenges to the model is the level of discipline and control required to realize long-term, compounded results.” He continued, “Many folks are tempted by easy returns and try to jump start the engine right away.”

“To realize the greatest benefits, it is important for us to be extremely patient and disciplined with our investments,” said Crowley. “If you are an opportunistic seller, or succumb to the appeals of a leveraged environment, permanent capital is probably not a system you should adopt.”
Markel Venture’s dedication to their model has been tested numerous times. “We will always receive offers for our companies, many of which would yield a remarkable short-term return,” says Weirich. Whether they made the right choice, only time will tell.
3) Avoidance of Fad Industries
If investments are expected to endure for decades, a re-evaluation of investment criteria would be required as well, most notably industries or companies that could have an expiration date.

Crowley explained, “…we avoid investing in industries subject to overnight evolution or fads. For example, Markel’s public company equity portfolio did not participate in the dot com bubble in the late 1990's and today we remain cautious of the technology sector. Such businesses are great investments for buyers with a unique angle and a shorter time horizon, but they do not fit our Markel Ventures long-term model.”

Crowley continued, making mention of health care and other carefully managed industries, “While we are not averse to participating in highly regulated industries, which can also be prone to major changes, we are very careful to participate in safer niches.” He added, “If one stroke of pen from Congress can wipe out our business, we will pass.”

The cautious model leaves some major industry gaps. If there were a shift towards holding companies, which firms would invest in the “fad” industries? Or what if a new business was not short-lived and faddish, but endured? Maybe the venture capital/private equity dynamic would shift along industry lines rather than seed stage.

About the author Terry Stidham
Terry Stidham is the founder and principal of Target Search Group. He is a B2B Business Development Leader with extensive knowledge of the M&A process, combined with an in-depth understanding of the constantly changing global capital markets environment.  He has served as the head of entrepreneurial organizations as well as Fortune 500 companies.  He specializes with mid-market companies in a diverse array of industry sectors from service and manufacturing to technical and professional firms.
Mr. Stidham speaks the language of both the seller and the buyer having vast experience on both sides of the transaction. He has been directly involved in the execution and successful closing of hundreds of investment banking and corporate finance transactions.  Mr. Stidham has been instrumental in aiding thousands of business owners prepare their businesses for eventual sale by teaching them how to maximize efficiencies in operations leading to significant increased cash flow.

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Grow with a Strategic Approach to Cost

Expand Via Strategic Approach to Costs 

by Terry Stidham

Is your company ready for growth? Many companies that I work with today aren't. The way they manage costs and deploy their most strategic resources is preventing the expansion they need. 

Many companies are in better financial shape today than they've been in for a long time. Having implemented cost-cutting and austerity programs during the recession, they have relatively healthy balance sheets and sizable reserves of working capital. They have strengthened their ability to weather downturns and improved their productivity in ways that could potentially last for years. All these restructuring actions were required for survival between 2008 and 2011.

But as focus shifts from the cost side of the ledger to the revenue side, searching for ways to move beyond cost cutting — entering new marketscommercializing innovative products and servicesoffering more compelling customer value propositions —  many companies are not strategically and financially prepared. They have not made the hard choices involved in channeling investments to the capabilities that are needed most, and minimizing or eliminating their other expenses.
3 Question Diagnostic to Tell if Your Company is Ready for Growth? 
  1. Do you have clear priorities, focused on strategic growth, that drive your investments?
  2. Do your costs line up with those priorities? In other words, do you deploy your resources toward them efficiently and effectively?
  3. Is your organization set up to enable you to achieve those priorities?
The easiest way to answer these questions is to imagine the opposite. 
If you do not have clear growth priorities, there are several warning signs. 
  • You have so many initiatives that you can’t name them all. 
  • Your executives go to multiple meetings on unrelated topics every day. Asked to name the most important capabilities your company has (the things it does well) or how they relate to your strategic objectives, different leaders give different answers. 
  • Your best people are working on so many programs and projects, they are burning out. 
  • Meanwhile, you are under-investing in some areas — which might include parts of R&D, market development, sales force effectiveness and customer experience — where you could potentially build a distinctive edge against your competitors.
If your costs are not deployed appropriately, that’s also painfully apparent — especially in the amount you spend on non-essentials.  
  • Staffing levels in different parts of the organization are out of sync; for instance, you might have twice as many finance people counting the money as salespeople bringing it in. 
  • Your highest-priority initiatives falter because their investments do not get sufficient attention, while legacy programs with very little impact continue to be funded. 
  • Every function pursues an agenda of professional excellence, striving to be “best in class,” no matter what the cost. 
  • Each department’s annual budget is calculated as “last year’s, plus 3 percent.” 
  • Every once in a while, in moments of high pressure, you institute across-the-board cost-cutting programs that force the businesses to temporarily reduce overhead, but everyone knows that it won’t make any long-term difference.
If you don't have a well-designed organization, that will become evident.
Multiple layers of management creates a disconnect between top business priorities and the actual work that gets done.
  • You are not nimble enough to move quickly, or aligned enough to work in harmony. 
  • It takes a week to get a sales quote approved, while your competition wins the business. 
  • Information is not readily available to the people who need it. 
  • Managers oversee fewer than four employees, on average, and get far too involved in their subordinates’ work. 
  • Incentives (such as bonuses and rankings) motivate people in ways that actually undermine the behaviors needed to achieve the company’s stated growth priorities — for instance, people put internal reports ahead of customer responsiveness. 
  • You have “shadow” HR, finance, and IT staffs popping up in places outside your shared-services organization. 
Since most suggestions are rejected, people become afraid to take calculated risks — and that derails the most innovative growth- or savings-oriented ideas. 

Increase Flexibility
Taking a balanced, broad-based approach to cost cutting requires business to develop an operating model that is not only cost efficient, but one which can respond quickly to unforeseen changes in the market such as further deterioration or an upward trend. Companies will have no choice but to industrialize their operations in order to combine low costs with high flexibility. Companies should consider outsourcing repetitive, non core functions that do not provide real differentiation to customers.

Build Execution Capabilities
Determining the right changes to make and having the courage to move ahead with these changes in today’s challenging environment certainly will not be easy. However, effective execution is even more difficult. Common challenges in executing cost- reduction strategies include: breaking down silos between business units, changing management culture and attitudes, executing at speed without disrupting business as usual and freeing up sufficient investment capital to tackle structural cost reductions with longer paybacks. Businesses can increase their chances of success by gaining executive buy-in up front, developing clear financial objectives, creating a transparent cost baseline, incorporating cost/benefit reporting into the financial planning process and clearly aligning cost-reduction efforts with existing investment portfolios.

Get Started
Companies that pursued traditional cost-reduction programs achieved cost benefits. In the long run, they will be unable to sustain those cost reductions and will find themselves at a competitive disadvantage. Maintaining a longer-term focus while undergoing cost-cutting efforts is the right path to take—but it requires discipline, commitment and courage. The actions companies take now to optimize their cost base and enhance their capacity to respond quickly and effectively to market change will shape their ability to achieve high performance in the future. 


About the author Terry Stidham

Terry Stidham is the founder and principal of Target Search Group. He is a B2B Business Development Leader with extensive knowledge of the M&A process, combined with an in-depth understanding of the constantly changing global capital markets environment.  He has served as the head of entrepreneurial organizations as well as Fortune 500 companies.  He specializes with mid-market companies in a diverse array of industry sectors from service and manufacturing to technical and professional firms.


Mr. Stidham speaks the language of both the seller and the buyer having vast experience on both sides of the transaction. He has been directly involved in the execution and successful closing of hundreds of investment banking and corporate finance transactions.  Mr. Stidham has been instrumental in aiding thousands of business owners prepare their businesses for eventual sale by teaching them how to maximize efficiencies in operations leading to significant increased cash flow.

Saturday, March 23, 2013

Do Business with an Angel

Angel Investors: For Startups

by Terry Stidham

There are currently between 5-7.2 million people in the United States who are accepted as accredited investors. This group of people, which represents as little as 1% of the U.S. population, is made up of wealthy individuals that make $200,000 or more in base salary every year, or maintain a net worth of over $1,000,000.
A common investing trend where the wealthy commit part of their portfolio in startups is called angel investing. According to the recent Reynolds survey, there are currently 756,000 angel investors in the U.S. who have made an angel investment or participated in a friends and family round of financing.
 
Angel Investors
The term angel investor originally comes from Broadway, where it was used when describing the people that provided financing for theatrical productions.

Angel investors invest their own money, where the typical amount raised ranges from $150,000 to $2,000,000. Since angel investors are very often individuals that have held executive positions at large corporations, they can often provide fantastic advice and introductions to the entrepreneur, in addition to the funds. A Harvard report provided information on how angel funded startups had a higher chance of survival.

Angel investments are high-risk, which is why this strategy normally doesn’t represent over 10% of the investment portfolio of any given individual. What angel investors look for is a great team with a good market that could potentially return 10 times their initial investment in a period of 5 years. The exits, or liquidity events, are for the most part via an initial public offering or an acquisition.

According to the Halo Report, angel investors particularly like startups operating in the following industries: internet (37.4%), healthcare (23.5%), mobile & telecom (10.4%), energy & utilities (4.3%), electronics (4.3%), consumer products & Svcs (3.5%), and other industries (16.5%).

In today’s competitive business world, there are times when a business runs out of capital funds. The easiest and most convenient source of funding during such times, are the angel investors. This however doesn’t mean that they should accept cash from any angel investor. Choosing the right kind of angel investor is an important consideration.

While there are several kinds of angel investors, they can widely be categorized as –
7 Types of Angel Investors
  1. Return on Investment (ROI) Angels - One thing about ROI angels is that, they invest only when the market is doing well. This is because; such investors are mainly concerned with the financial rewards they will be able to reap given the high-risk investments they make. For the ROI angels each investment is like another significant addition to their already diversified portfolio.
  2. Corporate Angels - These angels are most often former business executives who have either been replaced from large corporations downsized or taken voluntary retirement. While these investors seem to be making investments only for the sake of profitability, they are actually looking for a paid & secured position in the company they are investing in.
  3. High -Tech Angels - Though these investors are less in experience, the investments made by them in modern technology is quite significant. These investors value profitability as much as they value the exhilaration of introducing a novel technology in the market.
  4. Entrepreneurial Angels - These are successful investors who have their own brilliant businesses, which provide them with a steady flow of income for making high-risk investments in start-up companies. While they make all efforts to help entrepreneurs launch their start-ups, they do not actively get involved in the operations of the company.
  5. Core Angels - These are investors with extensive business experience, who have accumulated enormous amount of wealth over extended period of time. One important fact about these investors is that, they usually tend to make high-risk investments in spite of their losses, which adds-up to their diversified portfolio. Core Angels not just make capital investments but also useful knowledge investments.
  6. Professional Angels - Being professionally employed as lawyers, physicians, etc, these angels make investments into companies of their fields. At times, they may invest in several companies simultaneously. Professional angels are extremely valuable for initial capital investments.
  7. Micromanagement Angels - These are considered to be the most serious types of investors. While some of them are born with a silver spoon, others acquire their wealth through sheer hard work. These investors usually seek a board position & tend to implicate the business strategies they have incorporated in their own companies into the companies they are investing in.
Angel Investment Returns
Data collected by the Kauffman Foundation shows that the best estimate for angel investor returns is 2.5 times their investment even though the odds of a positive return are less than 50%, which is absolutely competitive with the venture capital returns.

The secret recipe for getting a good ROI is to diversify your investments into multiple startups and hedge your bet. Angel investors should look to position themselves as investors in at least 10 startups in order to play the startup game right. However, carefully selecting your picks and knowing who you are getting into bed with, so to speak, is very important. The due diligence process should be taken very seriously before making any type of decisions.
 
Angel Groups
During the last 15 years, angel investors have joined different angel groups in order to get access to quality deals. According to the Angel Capital Association, there are over 330 groups in the United States and Canada that are active within the startup community.

One disadvantage of joining an angel group is the time commitment of having to go to their events and networking with the group. In addition, most of the angel groups require member attendance to the screening process, which takes hours out of your schedule. Another requirement is that members need to invest a certain amount every year. For example, the New York Angels require every member to invest at least $50,000 during a 12-month period.

Investment Crowdfunding
Times are changing, and the new way to access deals is via investment crowdfunding. With investment crowdfunding, angel investors are able to navigate quality deals from home without any limitations and requirements, being able to invest lower minimums, allowing angels to hedge their bets with more startups.

Angel groups on average review around 80 deals per month. Another positive ingredient that investment crowdfunding platforms provide is the fact that they’ve done most of the due diligence process for you. Typically the venture follows this process:
  • The entrepreneur submits all the business information (business plan, executive summary, financial information, investor presentation, etc.)
  • The application is reviewed and the business analyst team decides whether or not it makes sense to move forward. This step is all about the compelling story, the uniqueness, and the traction that the business has been able to accomplish.
  • The deals that pass the above filters are forwarded to the investment committee comprised of individuals with vast experience in acquisitions. All of them are active angel investors. The main focus during this process is to review the financials, legal structure, and deal terms.
  • If the company passes the investment committee’s due diligence process, then the investment committee would schedule a conference call with the entrepreneur for additional questions and a full walk through of the pitch.
  • If the call and additional background checks are passed the deal is posted on the platform and the interaction with the registered accredited investors begins.
Conclusion
One of the positive factors about investing in startups is not only the potential of getting a return, but also being able to be a part of something great. As opposed to investing in the public markets, investing in startup companies gives the investor the chance to be in communication with the team and opens the opportunity to be part of the growth.

Angel investing is positive all around. Not only because it could provide gains, but also because every single investment contributes to the US economy thanks to the jobs that these ventures create. It is important to note that during the past 17 years, startups were accountable for creating 65% of the net new jobs. Providing them with access to capital is without a doubt something that is needed in this country.

Angel investing is becoming the new venture capital. 50,000 companies were started by seed capital last year while venture capital firms financed only 600.

About the author Terry Stidham

Terry Stidham is the founder and principal of Target Search Group. He is a B2B Business Development Leader with extensive knowledge of the M&A process, combined with an in-depth understanding of the constantly changing global capital markets environment.  He has served as the head of entrepreneurial organizations as well as Fortune 500 companies.  He specializes with mid-market companies in a diverse array of industry sectors from service and manufacturing to technical and professional firms.


Mr. Stidham speaks the language of both the seller and the buyer having vast experience on both sides of the transaction. He has been directly involved in the execution and successful closing of hundreds of investment banking and corporate finance transactions.  Mr. Stidham has been instrumental in aiding thousands of business owners prepare their businesses for eventual sale by teaching them how to maximize efficiencies in operations leading to significant increased cash flow.

Thursday, March 21, 2013

5 Year Overhang for PE

Buyout Firms’ Cash Payouts Hit Record by Terry Stidham

Private equity firms are faced with returning record levels of cash to their investors even though the value of their portfolios are rising faster, swollen by trillions of assets that they are struggling to sell.

Fund managers distributed $318bn to their limited partners as of June last year, and $330bn in 2011, through dividends and asset disposals, according to data compiled by pension fund adviser Hamilton Lane. This exceeded distributions in 2007 – $305bn – the peak of the leveraged buyout boom.

But payouts have shrunk as a percentage of private equity investments as firms have battled to dispose of companies acquired in mega-deals at the peak of the credit boom. Even with these record distributions, investors’ exposure to private equity is actually increasing.

This means investors stay close to their maximum allocation targets and therefore do not need to commit as much new money to reach those targets.  The investors are looking to diversify their investment among new funds.

Source: Preqin Investor Intelligence
The value of all private equity holdings increased to more than $1.8tn last year, up from $1.73tn in 2011 and $938bn in 2007, largely helped by rising public stock markets, which fund managers use to evaluate assets.

As a result, annual distributions as a percentage of total net assets fell from 24 per cent in 2011 to 18 per cent in 2012. They represented 43 per cent of total assets in 2007 and 25 per cent on average since 2003.

The record pile of investments on the ground makes it difficult for private equity firms to raise new funds as investors wait for more distributions before committing fresh money.

Ted Koenig of Monroe Capital LLC, said: “The current overhang is unsustainable, given the nature of private-equity fund structures; firms lose the ability to invest this capital once their investment period runs out. At today’s deal flow pace, it would take around five years to invest the current overhang, which means that private-equity firms must start investing now at a much higher rate if they want to invest their full fund (and collect the fees and carry on those remaining commitments). These private-equity firms will try their hardest to put this capital to use, which should result in a plethora of M&A activity.”

Since the appetite for mega deals has cooled, what do you think they will be looking for? Primarily this: add-on or bolt-on companies to existing platforms. Keep in mind that many of these platform companies were acquired prior to the Great Recession hitting in 2009. As we saw a few days ago, add-ons as a percentage of deals closed grew to just under 50% of all deals equity firms invested in 2011. And according to Pitchbook’s latest data, add-ons broke the 50% barrier of all PE deals closed in 2012 for the first time ever.

Implications for Small to Mid-Size Business Owners
Many private equity groups are seeking to buy something specific that matches their buying criteria.  If you are a business owner and/or major shareholder in a privately held company with cash flow of at least $500,000 annually and any of these following points apply to your situation contact me to discuss:
  • You are considering your exit plan, either now, or over the foreseeable next couple of years
  • Your company needs additional capital to grow
  • Your company could benefit from having the additional resources of highly educated, accomplished, professional management
There is plenty of private equity capital seeking good companies in which to invest.  For many company owners, this translates into the optimal recapitalization and/or exit strategy.

About the author Terry Stidham
Terry Stidham is the founder and principal of Target Search Group. He is a B2B Business Development Leader with extensive knowledge of the M&A process, combined with an in-depth understanding of the constantly changing global capital markets environment.  He has served as the head of entrepreneurial organizations as well as Fortune 500 companies.  He specializes with mid-market companies in a diverse array of industry sectors from service and manufacturing to technical and professional firms.Mr. Stidham speaks the language of both the seller and the buyer having vast experience on both sides of the transaction. He has been directly involved in the execution and successful closing of hundreds of investment banking and corporate finance transactions.  Mr. Stidham has been instrumental in aiding thousands of business owners prepare their businesses for eventual sale by teaching them how to maximize efficiencies in operations leading to significant increased cash flow.

Monday, March 18, 2013

10 Private Equity Sector Challenges

Top PE Challenges

by Terry Stidham

According to the annual report: Ten Challenges Facing the Private Equity Sector by Altius Associates ("Altius"), the US buyout market faces a challenging environment of rising purchase price multiples for high quality companies while in Europe, GPs have innovatively found sources of capital amongst sovereign wealth funds and public fund managers willing to bridge the pre-IPO gap.
The Report also reveals that private equity flow in China, Peru and Colombia is set to boom while private credit strategies have begun to attract the attention of LPs as funds focused on distressed and primary issuance of debt emerge. 
Altius highlights asset pricing and over ambitious fund managers as key challenges facing the infrastructure market. However Altius believes the secondary market, which is on track to challenge the record fundraising year of 2009, should mature and become more efficient in the future.
Altius provides more detail below on each of the ten challenges:
1.     US Buyouts
Altius believes the US buyout market faces a challenging environment of rising purchase price multiples for high quality companies, which over the last year have hovered at around 9.0x earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) and sometimes more.  This is as a result of an increasing number of private equity firms competing for high quality deals, the efficiency of a more intermediated market, and the improvement in accessing debt for leveraged buyouts.
Altius cites improvement in bank financing and capital markets that have allowed debt multiples to increase from an average of 3.0x in 2009 to 5.0x EBITDA thus far.
Brad Young, Executive Director at Altius, said: “Fund managers must be sure their investment thesis is solid as there is less room for mistakes when higher prices are paid.  A good fund manager must be able to make meaningful improvements to portfolio companies and use leverage effectively to balance risk and return. The challenge for limited partners will be identifying those private equity firms that are best poised to outperform in a more expensive and more competitive environment.”
2.     European Buyouts
The challenge for European buyout managers is and will be to find a profitable way to exit the boom year deals.  Altius believes that of the three established exit routes (public markets, trade sales and secondary sales), the IPO market remains largely closed with financing almost certainly not available for financial sponsors to be realistic buyers in a secondary transaction. Indeed a full trade sale of one of these large businesses is theoretically possible but problematic given the current economic environment in Europe and with vendors wanting to receive cash rather than paper.
Charles Magnay, Partner at Altius, commented: “In many cases the clock has reached the five year mark and is very definitely ticking. GPs have been forced to become increasingly innovative in seeking liquidity and, thankfully for the asset class, have been successful in this regard in a number of cases.  They have looked for ready sources of capital and found them amongst sovereign wealth funds and public market fund managers willing to bridge the pre-IPO gap – often corporates from Asia.”
Altius also believes that there are remaining assets which, for a variety of reasons, have either not found the right buyer or are not yet ready to be moved on, perhaps needing more time for further deleveraging.  However the majority of high quality and strategic businesses are saleable even in an environment where the public markets are effectively closed.
Charles Magnay said: “We applaud GPs for their ingenuity in tapping these alternative buyers and believe that, just as the secondary market has improved the exit options for the lower mid-market, so this development will open up a broader range of strategic options at the larger end of the buyout market for years to come.”
3.     Secondary Market
Altius believes the challenge for the secondary market will be to find attractive opportunities in an increasingly transparent and crowded market.  In the first three quarters of 2012, an aggregate of $15.7 billion was raised, which is on track to challenge the record fundraising amount achieved in 2009.  However Altius believes that an inflow of large amounts of capital into a segment can often create issues.
Chason Beggerow, Partner at Altius, said: “The high level of fundraising has been supported by an equally high level of secondary transaction value.  Currently there is a good supply of deals, as European financial institutions have started and are still looking at shedding private assets from their balance sheets due to regulatory concerns and public pension plans are utilizing the secondary market to actively manage their private equity portfolios and exposure.  While the supply has been good, sellers are more strategic and as a result, pricing has remained firm.”
Altius thinks that as the secondary market continues to mature and becomes more efficient, secondary funds/buyers will need to look for ways to differentiate themselves. Indeed these secondary buyers will need to find areas of inefficiency where there is less competition in an effort to generate strong returns consistent with past returns in the secondary market.
4.     Real Assets
Altius cites a number of challenges facing investors today within the infrastructure market. Asset pricing is one issue, especially for core brownfield assets as the asset class is seen as a “safe haven” with the promised yield viewed as an attractive replacement for low-yielding fixed income securities.  As a result, capital is rushing into the space, pushing up asset prices and reducing future returns.
Reyno Norval, Senior Associate at Altius, commented: “Real assets are often exposed to regulatory risk and with lower returns; there is less headroom for maneuvering should there be any adverse regulatory action.”
Another challenge highlighted by Altius is the divergence of returns expectations that core infrastructure will provide to a portfolio.  Altius believes that some managers are unrealistically projecting mid-teen IRRs and yields of 5% or so, while more conservative managers are targeting an 8-10% IRRs with a similar yield.
Reyno Norval concludes: “For investors exploring direct investment into infrastructure assets or projects, a key challenge is acquiring the necessary resources and expertise to properly assess the investment opportunities.  Many investors underestimate the time, cost, and experience required to build the capabilities necessary for successful direct investing.”
5.     Private Credit
Altius believes private credit strategies have attracted the attention of LPs and more broadly, the investor community.
Elvire Perrin, Partner at Altius, said: “Investors are looking at ways to enhance their returns on traditional credit and fixed income portfolios, which have displayed very meager performance over the last couple of years due to the very low interest rate environment in most of Europe and the US.  The market dislocation created by the increasing regulatory pressure on banks has created a space for non-traditional debt providers as well as opportunities for distressed credit sales.  Indeed, the conditions attached to bank rescue packages by the European Competition Entity and the new regulations being implemented are forcing banks to exit or decrease their level of activity in private equity and leveraged lending.”
Altius thinks that with the very uncertain and challenging macro environment, the premium for investing in private credit strategies above public credit strategies is one of the highest in history.
Elvire Perrin continues: “On a segment level, we are seeing the best opportunities in the small and lower-mid market where the issue of refinancing will be the most acute. The market has been quick to spot the opportunity and a plethora of funds focusing on distressed or primary issuance of debt for the private equity industry has emerged.”
Altius thinks that many of these funds focused on distressed or primary issuance of debt have been set up for the first time by ex-investment bankers or hedge fund managers diversifying into private equity type investing or even mezzanine focused funds where risk/return profiles are more attractive than in the traditional mezzanine space.
Elvire Perrin concludes: “Many will not be able to raise the capital they are looking for and therefore will not be viable firms.  When looking into the very specific segment of the market, investors should keep in mind the major risks related to first time funds and adequate experience.”
6.     Emerging Markets
Nearly all emerging markets have a need for healthcare, infrastructure, education and basic technology that facilitate business.  Altius believes that the more attractive regions, such as Southeast Asia, politically stable countries in Latin America such as Peru or Colombia, and the emerging African countries like Kenya or Nigeria have increasingly younger populations with increasing levels of disposable income that will drive consumerism.
Elvire Perrin, Partner at Altius, commented: “Foreign direct investments in emerging markets tend to flow quickly in and out of the regions and it is important for private equity investors to avoid the herd mentality flows of capital.  The one challenge that affects all of these regions, despite the differences in demographics, proximity to developed markets, and an abundance of natural resources, is fundraising.”
Altius believes that the private equity sector benefits from a healthy ecosystem where fundraising is roughly in balance with or less than the opportunity set.  Since fundraising ebbs and flows there will always be regions that are underserved and others that are over capitalized.  In the past few years, Altius thinks that three areas have become over capitalized by private equity: Brazil, Turkey, and Southeast Asia (mainly Indonesia).  In these regions, Altius has seen large funds being raised by global investment firms as well as several regional asset managers and now they are having difficulty deploying this capital.  The funds that raised over USD1.0 billion in Latin America have either been solely dedicated to Brazil or virtually dedicated to Brazil since few other Latin American countries offer large market investment opportunities.
Altius has seen how investors are now turning to countries such as Peru and Colombia, which have been private equity capital starved until the past 12 months, and it appears several funds will be raised at record sizes in those markets in 2012.  Turkey and Indonesia have raised record amounts of capital in the past two years but most of these funds are very young.  On the contrary, countries such as Mexico and virtually all large countries in Africa excluding South Africa have had extreme difficulty raising capital.
7.     Asia Private Equity
Altius believes that as financial markets in China are slowly liberalizing, China has emerged as the largest private equity market in Asia during the last couple of years.  Foreign investors have long had only access to the Chinese market by off-shore constructions, as private equity investment by local investors only became possible in 2005 when new legislation to facilitate this was implemented.
The RMB market includes industries and industry sectors not accessible to foreign investors and offshore funds; conversely for local investors, it is difficult to make commitments to offshore funds.  Private equity has, therefore, become increasingly popular with local fund raisers as well as with local investors, mostly large and cash-rich sovereign funds.
8.     Compliance and Regulation
Compliance with various levels of governmental regulation is an eternal challenge for the industry; but Altius believes that the coming year will be an annus horribilis in this regard with too much regulation happening too fast to be fully digested and absorbed by the industry. Amidst the sea of regulatory proposals facing the industry are: i) Solvency II, a fundamental review of the capital adequacy regime for the European insurance industry; ii) Basel III, a long term package of changes to the original Basel Accord on the strength, soundness and stability of the international banking system; iii) MiFID II, the expected update of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (“MiFID”); iv)  consultation on the EU Pensions Fund Directive (“IORPII”) which could have far reaching consequences for both the funding of pension schemes and the way in which they are managed.
Most significant perhaps is the fact that in July 2013 the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (“AIFMD”), the main new piece of regulation affecting the private equity industry, will become effective even though the European Commission only  published its draft implemention measures just before Christmas, leaving most firms little time to prepare for implementation .
In the UK the timing awkwardly overlaps the transformation of the UK Financial Services Authority into two new authorities on 1st April 2013. Altius thinks that the Directive offers little flexibility for member states but some are proposing to introduce additional measures to those required by the EU. Germany, for example, removed the rule that exempted smaller managers, a move that could harm its venture capital market.  For non EU organizations, the directive will still have implications due to the restrictions on being able to market products in the EU. Outside of Europe, the US is still coming to grips with the significant regulatory changes enacted in 2010: the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act, and the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (“FATCA”) designed to combat tax evasion by US persons holding investments in offshore accounts. The impact on PE firms of these continues to be deep and has added to the regulatory burden on the industry at a difficult time.
9.     Client Services/Reporting
Altius believes there is an increasing need for transparency across GPs and private equity advisors. Standardized capital call and distribution templates, which were released by Institutional Limited Partners Association (ILPA) two years ago, are taking root in the industry and several leading GPs have begun to adopt them.  The level of uptake has been promising so far and has been led by several institutional LPs.  There has been a complementary movement on standardization in fund reporting, with an increasing number of GPs either adopting industry body templates, or moving closer towards more investor-friendly forms of reporting with regards to their fund structures and holdings.
Jenny Fenton, Chief Operating Officer at Altius, said: “Standardization and transparency in the industry have been increasing in momentum since the global financial crisis and we expect the trend to continue as LPs are now more conscious of the risk and compliance considerations in their portfolios.  The increasing demand for transparency affects not only the direct GPs, but also advisory firms and intermediaries.  There is more interest from clients on issues ranging from increased compliance at the investment due diligence stage, to management fees and carried interest charges, to performance attributes, though to risks inherent within their underlying portfolio company holdings as well as ESG.”
10.     Investor Relations
Altius believes that a major shift in GP-LP relations in the private equity world is taking place.  Stung by the abrupt valuation shifts and mark-to-market losses through the financial crisis, LPs now demand more information, with greater transparency and on a more regular basis as the price for continuing to support their GPs.
Eric Warner, Executive Director and Head of Investor Relations at Altius, commented: “Most major GPs are now meeting with significant LPS on a quarterly basis, with full portfolio reviews, including all major changes, cash flow statements and details of drawdowns, distributions and any valuation changes.  As a result of this pressure, most PE firms have had to increase their establishment in IR teams significantly; many have doubled their staffing in the last five years, and this trend is set to continue given the rapid change in compliance and regulatory standards across the globe.”
About the author:
Terry Stidham is the founder and senior principal of 
Target Search Group. He is a B2B Business Development Leader with extensive knowledge of the M&A process, combined with an in-depth understanding of the constantly changing global capital markets environment.  He has served as the head of entrepreneurial organizations as well as Fortune 500 companies.  He specializes with mid-market companies in a diverse array of industry sectors from service and manufacturing to technical and professional firms. 
Mr. Stidham speaks the language of both the seller and the buyer having vast experience on both sides of the transaction. He has been directly involved in the execution and successful closing of hundreds of investment banking and corporate finance transactions.  Mr. Stidham has been instrumental in aiding thousands of business owners prepare their businesses for eventual sale by teaching them how to maximize efficiencies in operations leading to significant increased cash flow.