I decided to check with a Limited Partner (LP) on the questions on deal size and frequency that I had thought about at this conference:
http://randomjunkyramblings.blogspot.com/2008/03/conference-panel-investing-in-india.html
Of course, the context was different, but my take was that the issues encountered were the same. The LP smiled and said they had a great CFO. Going back to the Gary Loveman post below, you can't argue with talent:
http://randomjunkyramblings.blogspot.com/2008/04/conference-panel-portfolio-value.html
A General Partner (GP) at another panel said that an LP had mentioned that a lesser return in the depressed economic environment would still validate their investment/ asset allocation. It would be interesting to get insights into the aggregated decisions made by GPs across PE firms and the outcomes down the line.
The Usual Disclaimer: This is purely a knowledge sharing resource and I have been careful to protect panelist interests. Ethically, context is everything, and I will gladly retract anything that affects the parties mentioned. Call this my mini OpenCourseWare, if you will, where Open signifies life experiences.
Showing posts with label general partner. Show all posts
Showing posts with label general partner. Show all posts
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Conference Panel: Portfolio Value Creation by Improving Business
Gary Loveman, Harrah's Entertainment, was asked about how he would act if slowing economic conditions impact business despite his assertion that economic conditions would not really impact his business.
He said he had the leeway to adjust his planned capital spending (approx. $4BN) to meet debt commitments.
It was interesting to note that he would rather kill/ delay Capex than sell assets to meet commitments.
I did a quick mental check of this insight against his assessment that growth in the industry came from M&A for assets, and that the WACC was currently pretty high within the firm. It fit.
Later, I asked a panel of General Partners (GPs) how frequently, in their substantial experience of dealmaking and investing, did the GPs have such contingency planning (operations risk management, really) conversations with the portfolio company senior management? Did such conversations impact the outcomes of their investments?
The response, as I am beginning to expect from superb panelists, provided insights into GP operations.
On a tangent, a panelist was of the opinion that folks like Gary Loveman operate at a different level. As the one who raised the question, I was inclined to agree. What an insight into talent- all from a simple question put to a CEO!
The Usual Disclaimer: This is purely a knowledge sharing resource and I have been careful to protect panelist interests. Ethically, context is everything, and I will gladly retract anything that affects the parties mentioned. Call this my mini OpenCourseWare, if you will, where Open signifies life experiences.
He said he had the leeway to adjust his planned capital spending (approx. $4BN) to meet debt commitments.
It was interesting to note that he would rather kill/ delay Capex than sell assets to meet commitments.
I did a quick mental check of this insight against his assessment that growth in the industry came from M&A for assets, and that the WACC was currently pretty high within the firm. It fit.
Later, I asked a panel of General Partners (GPs) how frequently, in their substantial experience of dealmaking and investing, did the GPs have such contingency planning (operations risk management, really) conversations with the portfolio company senior management? Did such conversations impact the outcomes of their investments?
The response, as I am beginning to expect from superb panelists, provided insights into GP operations.
On a tangent, a panelist was of the opinion that folks like Gary Loveman operate at a different level. As the one who raised the question, I was inclined to agree. What an insight into talent- all from a simple question put to a CEO!
The Usual Disclaimer: This is purely a knowledge sharing resource and I have been careful to protect panelist interests. Ethically, context is everything, and I will gladly retract anything that affects the parties mentioned. Call this my mini OpenCourseWare, if you will, where Open signifies life experiences.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Conference Panel: Fundraising Darwinism- Evolution of PE fundraising
Bruce Rosenblum, Managing Director, The Carlyle Group, tore into the re-emergence of SPACs (Special Purpose Acquisition Companies) in the context of Private and Public PE companies. He pointed to two advantages PE firms would have over SPACs: diversification and GP incentives.
Given that there are many similarities between VC and PE fundraising, I was inclined to think that there was more to the comparison that what met the eye.
1> Was the PE firm structure an advantage?
2> Were the PE networks an advantage?
3> Were the PE firms able to gain efficiencies across investments that would not be possible in a different setting?
I queried Bruce for a comparison between Public PE firms and hypothetical mutual fund like SPAC aggregators (something I came up with to gain a better insight into his perspective). He had an interesting response.
What do you think?
Also, Francesco Guerrera, Financial Times, highlighted the paradox of PE firms going public. Bruce talked about KKR rasing $5 BN in public equity through Euronext at Amsterdam.
How do you think PE firms would deal with the q-on-q public market pressures?
Given that there are many similarities between VC and PE fundraising, I was inclined to think that there was more to the comparison that what met the eye.
1> Was the PE firm structure an advantage?
2> Were the PE networks an advantage?
3> Were the PE firms able to gain efficiencies across investments that would not be possible in a different setting?
I queried Bruce for a comparison between Public PE firms and hypothetical mutual fund like SPAC aggregators (something I came up with to gain a better insight into his perspective). He had an interesting response.
What do you think?
Also, Francesco Guerrera, Financial Times, highlighted the paradox of PE firms going public. Bruce talked about KKR rasing $5 BN in public equity through Euronext at Amsterdam.
How do you think PE firms would deal with the q-on-q public market pressures?
The Usual Disclaimer: This is purely a knowledge sharing resource. Ethically, context is everything, and I will gladly retract anything that affects the parties mentioned. Call this my mini OpenCourseWare, if you will, where Open signifies life experiences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)