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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment