Dumb Question - ex-consultant vs ex-banker?
If Bain Capital has historically had higher returns than any other comparably-sized PE firm (and charges 3 & 30 on an asset base that is less than 1/3 smaller than competing firms', which charge 2 & 20), why is it generally considered marginally (very marginally) worse than the Big 4 (BX, TPG, KKR, Carlyle)? Is it just the ex-consultant vs. ex-banker stigma, or something more?
Since when is Bain Capital considered "worse"? It has a fantastic reputation. I can't think of a PE firm I'd rather work at (except perhaps H & F -- heard good things about them).
What exactly is the 'ex-consultant' vs. 'ex-banker' stigma?
Follow-up question: Can anyone rank the major PE firms on their return track records? Who's overrated/underrated from a performance standpoint?
In all honesty, if you were to rank large PE funds by their relative returns on recent funds, I think your key differentiating variable would be luck. The most critical asset in PE is human capital, and all of these funds bring in said capital from the same, top-tier labor pool.
Ok fair enough. Maybe I should phrase it this way: as an asset class what are the returns of mega buyout funds? If I'm Pension Fund X, what returns am I expecting from investing 5% of my portfilio into a basket of KKR/TPG/Carlyle/BX?
But here's some data on returns from different classes of PE, from early-stage VC to large buyout funds:
http://www.metrics2.com/blog/2007/01/31/buyout_funds_1_year_performance…
That said, I don't know why you would want to rank PE firms based on returns, at least as an incoming Associate - obviously it matters a great deal more for Partner-level people, but as an Associate you won't be too affected by individual returns in a year... yes sometimes you can get carry but you have to stick around for awhile for that to kick in.
As other people have said, all these funds have top-tier talent... I would suggest ranking them based on which you fit in with the best and which group of people you get along with.
Very interesting data, thanks for posting that link Dosk. It is very entertaining to see that the big guys have the name but the most successful ones are the middle-market guys. Heck, they probably work less too!
Big name = big press = more sharks = higher purchase price = lower IRR
No name = zero press = fewer sharks = lower purchase price = higher IRR
do the math ..nuff said..
Thanks dosk. The interesting thing about the data is it suggests that, on average, buyout firms don't realize their expected returns on investment. The data shows that the returns on the asset class range from 8% to 24% depending on the time period measured. I work in a PE group of a multistrat hedge fund and am not doing large buyouts, but I can't see us doing a deal if we thought our 3-year IRR would be
You need to look at it from the perspective of your limited partners. They have a hurdle they need to get to, as well, and it's all based on benchmarks - mostly public equity based. While the 20-25% IRR hurdle is your generic number for private equity, you have to view private equity as the alternative to public equity. Most fund managers invest in private equity purely to help the average weighted return beat the public benchmarks.
Because of the risk level, LP's usually don't put more than 5% or 10% of the funds value into private equity or alternative investments. They also expect returns to outpace public benchmarks by 10-15%. In a good year, when the S&P is returning 10-12%, it's easy to see why LP's expect 25% IRR's. However, everyone knows that the more money you put to work the harder it is to make larger IRR hurdles. Especially when you are talking about taking large public companies private. If they were performing at 10% in the public markets, it's still a challenge to get them to 25% in the private...if not impossible. BUT if your performance as a private company outpaces it as a private significantly, I think that's a win. And as such, since it's such a large investment, I don't think anyone, LP or GP alike, expects 25% IRR on mega-buyouts.
My point is that LP's know the more money you put to work the worse your IRR's will be. Spread over their entire portfolio, PE's higher returns help counter-weight lower returning investments and bring fund performance up without risking too much capital. LP's tend to invest more dollars per fund into the mega funds (that is, weight them in a larger way) because the probability of them failing completely due to size is much lower than a smaller fund. And they are much willing to take a 17% IRR on 100mm of capital than 17% on 20mm in a middle market fund, simply because that 100mm is counterweighting the rest of their investments that may include public equity.
Quae voluptatem deserunt sunt doloribus. Corporis excepturi qui quis sapiente non consequatur. Quia vero qui laboriosam. Consequatur deleniti deserunt consequuntur nihil nihil voluptas voluptatem. Iste quia minus reprehenderit impedit. Dolorem sed commodi suscipit blanditiis cupiditate.
Temporibus et distinctio vel facere enim ducimus. Cupiditate totam quos vitae sit. Dolorem commodi corporis architecto. Cupiditate autem et voluptatem. Velit alias veniam exercitationem et ut aspernatur et. Quaerat quo non et explicabo et similique quisquam.
Odio mollitia dolor commodi tempore inventore corrupti ut. Autem officiis ea praesentium dicta nulla quasi. Tenetur inventore dolor ut earum. Accusantium maxime aut voluptas cumque omnis delectus.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...