Given a trio of PE, VC and IB players in India, the panel met high expectations. Some facets talked about:
1. Debt market in India
2. Constraints in structuring transactions
3. Regulatory environment and red tape
4. Nature of targets (family driven enterprises), time horizons and deal flow networks
Given these factors, I wondered how the firms managed risks- not just financial risks. I queried the panel about their experience with a deal that did not meet experience.
What do you think?
The VC investor, who had significant experience in investing in India provided an interesting insight, that emphasized the efficiencies that the PE/ VC firms can find across funds and investments/ deals.
The response also threw light on the "transaction costs" that mutual fund like SPAC aggregators would face that would make them replicas of publicly traded PE firms.
The panel echoed some of the points made by Alan Patricof, Managing Director, Greycroft, at a conference keynote, with respect to his experience in Venture Capital in Africa.
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.
Showing posts with label public. Show all posts
Showing posts with label public. Show all posts
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)