A Private Equity Blog

A vignette into the aberrant thoughts of a private equiteer

Private equity returns are misleading

pinocchio1Let’s start with a few standard private equity terms:

  • Committed capital: this is money “committed” to the fund, but not necessarily paid. So when you hear about a firm raising a $1b fund, it doesn’t mean they’re in receipt of $1b in cash, it means that investors have contractually promised to invest $1b as (and if) needed. Be aware that management fees take a big bite out of the $1b. At a 2% p.a. fee, you’re looking at a minimum of $100m (equalling 10% of committed capital over the life of the fund) and a maximum of $200m (it would be less than $200m in practice as investors don’t pay fees on distributed capital).
  • Called capital: this is money “called” from investors to fund investments in companies. A fund only calls money from investors when it’s ready to invest that money. It typically takes a fund five years to “call” most of its capital (not including the cash required to pay management fees). This is a primary difference between a mutual fund and a private equity fund. (You commit and invest all capital simultaneously in most mutual funds.)

So, what does this have to do with anything? Well, most sane investors put aside the entire committed amount from day 1, because it would be very risky to commit more capital than you currently have. Why? Because if you default on a “call notice”, you could lose your entire investment without reimbursement, or at best, have it sold at a heavy discount to a secondary buyer.

And, how does this result in misleading returns? Well, private equity funds use the internal rate of return (IRR) on cash inflows and outflows as their return metric. The implication is that the return doesn’t account for you having to hold cash. A fund may not even call a dime until year nine, then return double your money in year 10, and then quote a 100% return for the fund. The fact is, you held that cash for nine years at a negligible rate, and achieved an overall return of only a few percent on the commitment (certainly not 100%).

This issue isn’t so black and white because,

  1. no one is forcing you to hold that money at low rates of return
  2. no one is forcing you to hold the money at all since the fund only needs it when it needs it

However, you really do need to hold the cash if you want to limit your risk to the risk of the investment itself. And you really do need to hold it in a risk free investment, again, if you want to limit your risk to that of the private equity investment. Ipso facto, the return from the risk free investment should be included in the overall return.

So what effect does this have in economic terms? Well, most private equity firms look to return 2x the original cash investment. But remember, 2x cash is a 100% return, not a 200% return. Now, if my math from many years ago serves me well, that’s a ~7% return for a 10 year investment. Of course, that’s too conservative as you receive distributions well before the 10 years is up. So let’s take an average of five and 10 years. That equates to about 10-11% p.a. Certainly not what most private equiteers espouse.

Sure, my methodology and math isn’t going to win any prizes, but I’m sure you get my point.

  • You're right Alex, and in retrospect, I didn't outline my points very clearly.

    I received a lot of emails regarding this omission, so I've made my points a little clearer in a subsequent post. http://www.theprivateequiteer.com/private-equit...

    I'm still not 100% convinced of my own theory; just putting it out there for debate.
  • Alex
    I was under the impression that no pension fund in their right mind would keep the cash ready from day 1. Rather they would have a portfolio of commitments with differing start and end dates so that the redemptions from one PE fund can be used to meet the cash calls from another. So while you can't be certain about any particular PE fund's calls over a particular year you would be much more confident estimating the total across many.

    And also you missed out another reason why returns are misleading - the re-investment rate assumption in IRRs. IE if you exit your investment in year 6 the applicability of the quoted return depends on you being able to instantly find equally profitable investments elsewhere with your money.
  • Hi Gordon, great point re restrictions on investing period. We are expected to invest our fund by year fie as you suggested, so I did embellish a little.

    I guess my main point was, on a like-for-like basis with other investments, it is unfair to measure returns for a private equity fund just for the period the cash is held by the fund.

    Sure many LPs "time" calls to coincide with cash inflows, but that in itself increases the risk of the investment and this additional risk is rarely considered as a risk of the investment itself.

    If you really want an apple vs apple comparison, you need to calculate returns using the full committed amount from the day it's committed, not called.

    Just my opinion and certainly questionable.
  • Gordon
    It is precisely for this reason that LPs ask (and if they don't, then the GP should try to provide) for cash flow plans. GPs space out investments so as to not 'freak'out LPs with a huge capital call. There is also a time frame of 15 days to 20 days to meet a capital call - hence if an LP is stretched, they have time to work out options. Giving an LP visibility may also help with the LP-GP relationship.

    Some contribution agreements also have a clause which state that an LP is not obligated to commit any capital after the 'investing' period which is typically half the fund life. Hence the scenario of making the first call in the 9th year is a little remote.

    While the point is well taken that returns to LPs net of fees is lower than returns to the Fund, the extent depends on the distribution waterfall and on the exit timing. The IRR gap varies if the first deal of the fund is a home run, versus the last deal of the fund being a home run.
blog comments powered by Disqus