notices - See details
Notices
Enterprising Investor Default Hero Image
3 December 2018 Enterprising Investor Blog

Private Equity: The Emperor Has No Clothes

Enterprising Investor Blogs logo thumbnail

From Bust to Boom

The private equity industry had an abysmal outlook in 2008 and many portfolio companies were at the brink of collapse. Carlyle Capital, a listed affiliate of the US buyout giant The Carlyle Group, defaulted on its debt.

Fast-forward to 2018 and such global financial crisis–related difficulties seem almost forgotten and private equity is flourishing. Indeed, alternative investment firms have $1.8 trillion in "dry powder" waiting in reserve and more than half of that is held by private equity funds.

Subscribe Button

The fondness for private equity among institutional investors is easy to explain: It comes down to high returns, low volatility, and a lack of correlation to traditional asset classes. Of course, such attributes also evoke some skepticism: Don't they sound just too good to be true?

To explore that question, we set out to replicate private equity returns with public stocks.

Private Equity Returns vs. The S&P 500

Private equity returns in the United States have outperformed various equity and bond benchmarks over the long term, according to data from Cambridge Associates. Private equity returns are compiled from 1,481 US private equity funds and are available net of fees on a quarterly basis.

Using this data, we construct a US Private Equity Index that has outperformed the S&P 500 by a significant margin since 2000.


US Private Equity Returns vs. The S&P 500

US Private Equity Returns vs. The S&P 500

Source: Cambridge Associates, FactorResearch. Private equity returns are only available as IRRs and not CAGRs, so should be viewed as an approximation when comparing to public equity returns.


Not only has it outperformed, the US Private Equity Index also has much lower volatility than the S&P 500. This no doubt has an appeal for institutional investors. Unfortunately, it is more illusion than reality. After all, private equity portfolio companies are typically valued on a quarterly basis so lack a daily time series. In addition, most portfolio company valuations are smoothed as they are conducted by external appraisers using business plans from the private equity firms.

If private equity firms valued their portfolio companies on a daily basis using public market multiples, volatility would be much higher and more reminiscent of the S&P 500.

Explaining Private Equity Returns

Bryan Burrough and John Helyar immortalized the private equity industry in Barbarians at the Gates, their account of the 1988 buyout of RJR Nabisco. The deal, which involved many prominent Wall Street characters, was valued at a then-unprecedented $25 billion.

Although private equity today is renowned for enormous buyouts, take-over targets historically were much smaller simply because private equity funds held much less capital. The average transaction size was much more in line with small-cap equities.

Based on this data point, we create an index of the 30% of the smallest US public companies with market capitalizations over $500 million. As it turns out, the small-cap equity index and the US Private Equity Index have almost identical returns. The performance profiles also demonstrate that private equity returns are not as uncorrelated to public equities as institutional investors might like them to be.


Replicating Private Equity with Small-Cap Stocks

Replicating Private Equity with Small-Cap Stocks

Source: Cambridge Associates, FactorResearch


Maybe the US Private Equity Index only represents average returns and not those of the top-performing funds. But ample academic research shows that fund selection is challenging across all asset classes. Choosing the funds with the best historical returns is rarely a winning strategy. Therefore, average returns are likely reflective of the actual returns that investors should expect from private equity allocations.

Liquid Private Equity Alternatives

In addition to their smaller size, private equity target companies have also tended to share other characteristics, among them lower valuation multiples and the ability to carry debt.

Companies trading at lower valuations often have temporary or structural issues that private equity firms see as opportunities. By swooping in and addressing them, the private equity firm can unlock value.

Although much less leverage is applied in private transactions today than when the sector got rolling in the 1980s, recouping the initial equity investment quickly through a dividend recap financed by additional debt remains a popular strategy. Companies with proven cash flows and the ability to take on debt are still popular targets.

So we create two portfolios: one with small and cheap stocks and another with small, cheap, and levered US stocks. Cheap stocks have low EV-to-EBITDA multiples and levered stocks high debt-to-EBITDA multiples.

What did we find? From 1988 to 2018, the liquid private equity alternatives portfolios outperformed the US Private Equity Index. They provide daily liquidity and require minimal initial due diligence and ongoing monitoring. They can also be rebalanced quarterly and managed internally or outsourced to any asset manager for a few basis points.


Liquid Private Equity Alternatives

Liquid Private Equity Alternatives

Source: Cambridge Associates, FactorResearch


Further Thoughts

Exposure to small caps likely explains private equity returns. Liquid alternatives to private equity can be created simply by buying small, cheap, and levered stocks.

Some have reached similar conclusions and proposed that the nature of locked-up capital is what makes private equity so advantageous. It keeps investors from redeeming their funds at market lows and helps private equity firms weather storms like the global financial crisis. But the same fund structure can be replicated through public equities at a fraction of private equity fees.

Furthermore, with $1.8 trillion sitting on the sidelines, too much money may end up chasing too few deals, creating high acquisition multiples that don't augur well for expected returns.

Of course, high valuations are now the rule in both private and public markets. And corporate debt levels are at all-time highs.


Small, Cheap, and Levered Stocks: Valuation and Debt Multiples

Small, Cheap, and Levered Stocks: Valuation and Debt Multiples

Source: FactorResearch


Neither of these developments bode well for expected returns. So investors might be wise to reconsider direct private equity allocations and their liquid alternatives altogether.

For more insights from Nicolas Rabener and the Factor Research team, sign up for their email newsletter.

If you liked this post, don’t forget to subscribe to the Enterprising Investor.


All posts are the opinion of the author. As such, they should not be construed as investment advice, nor do the opinions expressed necessarily reflect the views of CFA Institute or the author’s employer.

Image credit: Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1975


Professional Learning for CFA Institute Members

CFA Institute members are empowered to self-determine and self-report professional learning (PL) credits earned, including content on Enterprising Investor. Members can record credits easily using their online PL tracker.

If you liked this post, don’t forget to subscribe to the Enterprising Investor.


All posts are the opinion of the author. As such, they should not be construed as investment advice, nor do the opinions expressed necessarily reflect the views of CFA Institute or the author’s employer. Image credit: ©Getty Images / Ascent / PKS Media Inc. 


Professional Learning for CFA Institute Members

CFA Institute members are empowered to self-determine and self-report professional learning (PL) credits earned, including content on Enterprising Investor. Members can record credits easily using their online PL tracker.

 

32 Comments

NR
Nicolas Rabener (not verified)
26th July 2019 | 11:06am

Hey Nicolas! Great article. Very interesting are their any ETFs which currently pursue this strategy? Looks like VISVX would have underperformed the PE funds.

Also, what was the vol in the fund you created versus the S&P500?

-Phillip Ng, CFA

NR
Nicolas Rabener (not verified)
6th August 2019 | 3:23pm

Hi Phillip, thanks for your comments. I'm not aware of any ETF that is specifically designed to replicate PE returns, although there are mutual funds that precisely do that. However, given the immense interest in this area, I would suspect that there are ETFs in the pipeline.

The volatility of the S&P 500 was 14.67% vs 16.59% for the PE replication index over the last 30 years.

N
Norbert (not verified)
31st August 2019 | 12:21pm

Judging from the rather high number of comments, this article about a rather ineffective approach for improving risk-adjusted returns, seems to excite much interest. However, the recent article (https://blogs.stage.cfainstitute.org/investor/2018/04/24/raphael-douady…) about a much more effective approach proven for decades, using Managed Futures/CTAs with Crisis Alpha excited much less interest. Why so?

NR
Nicolas Rabener (not verified)
2nd September 2019 | 2:10am

Hi Norbert, I believe it's partially explained by performance chasing and envy. PE has delivered attractive returns since the GFC and is in high demand by institutional investors. Mutual fund managers, who have been consistently losing market share to ETFs, would be delighted to capture part of that market as there is very little magic in PE from an equities perspective.

In contrast, managed futures/CTAs have been basically flat since the GFC and AUM has stalled at $300bn. Although I do believe that an allocation to CTAs make sense, most investors struggle with assets that might provide occassional attractive diversification benefits, especially when central banks seem to be directly supporting equity markets.

JG
John Gilligan (not verified)
14th November 2019 | 6:14am

It is worth making some methodological and presentational observations:
Firstly graphs are appealing ways to attract the reader's attention but need care. Yours are log graphs, which flatten the trends to be more linear - that's sort of the point of log linear graphs.
Second reported IRRs are poor measures indeed, DPI or TVPI are almost always needed to make sense of the data. It is worth saying that in even the most comprehensive data sets, over 25% of the data is missing.
Third you don't deal with fund leverage, a massive issue when looking at IRR/DPI/TVPI trends in PE these days. Apple & Pears and all that.
Fourth you only look at LPs returns in funds, not in co-invest or secondary trades. low cost direct investing and portfolio balancing are more available these days, and.;
Finally, you note that the results are net of fees, but do not take the logical step of pointing out that PE is a high fee business that still at least matches a risky small cap portfolio after costs. Therefore the investment strategy is out performing the market, but most of the out performance within a traditional fund is being paid to the GP. That is a pricing problem, not a performance one.

The data has been crawled over many, may times. It always says the same thing: Gross performance is, on average, better than quoted comparable companies (or indeed unquoted comparable companies). Net performance is about the same or a bit better. This just shows that the fund manager captures most of the value they seem to create.

N
Nicolas (not verified)
15th November 2019 | 8:19am

Dear John, thanks for your suggestions on how to improve the analysis. We agree that the analysis can be enhanced, which is largely a data issue. We used CA for PE data and they only provide IRRs on a quarterly basis, DPI and TVPI only annually, which is less attractive. If you have better data sources, please get in touch via [email protected]. We would be interested in exploring this further. It seems overall that you agree that there is not much magic in PE returns, at least on a net basis. Best regards, Nicolas

DB
Diego Bergheim (not verified)
17th November 2019 | 11:29am

Thank you for sharing your results. The conclusion is in line with that of other studies. Unfortunately, the current PE-hype is likely to overshadow any objective data. Not only that but funds like Softbank's Vision Fund represent a trend towards even riskier PE investments.

J
Jason (not verified)
9th December 2019 | 3:39pm

Are you aware of other studies/papers that have tried to reproduce this type of analysis?

YP
Young Polish M&A Analyst (not verified)
20th October 2020 | 2:28pm

Incredibly interesting, thank you so much for this. Very impactful (for sure on my view and investing decisions).