Search results

This paper aims to review, systematize and map the extant literature on private equity (PE) and study the underlying research agenda for investment selection and value creation in portfolio firms of PE investors. The PE investment process entails the preinvestment stage, where PE investors screen the target firms, and the postinvestment stage, where PE investors monitor the funded firms. With the motive to understand both stages, this review consolidates the findings of existing literature.

This research adopts a systematic literature review approach to study the underlying themes in PE investment literature. To adequately profile the key research areas, the authors have adopted citation classics in addition to keyword search and drawn the most significant papers in this field of research based on citation metrics.

The review presents a heterogeneous set of themes by encapsulating the relevant PE literature and identifies significant and emergent themes within the broad research area of investment and performance. The foundational themes found are selection determinants for PE investments, value creation in PE investments and selection vs value-adding effect of PE investors. While the emergent themes are the relative performance of PE investments; sources of value creation; skill, luck and social capital in PE; and resource dependency vis-à-vis PE. Each theme or subtheme chalks out the underlying research agendas for future researchers.

To build an understanding of the selection determinants and value creation, this review addresses the need to synthesize and align the PE literature concerning pre and post investment stages. PE is a fertile research area that is systematically captured in this review by identifying themes, subthemes and avenues for future research.

This paper aims to deal with the issue of shareholder activism of private equity investors in public companies. The study identifies characteristics of target firms and investors related to the likelihood of private equity activism. The research also examines whether shareholder activism strategy of private equity investors is associated with the better performance in future and value creation of target firms.

The paper applies econometric modeling to hand-collected data on private equity investments in listed companies, in the form of private investment in public equity and open-market share purchases, from eight Continental Europe’s countries for the period 2005–2014.

The findings indicate that the probability of shareholder activism is higher if the target firm’s industry corresponds to the private equity investor’s industry specialization, if the private equity firm is older, if the target is larger and the average ownership share purchased by the investor is higher. Conversely, the probability of shareholder activism is lower where a private equity firm invests in the target for the first time. A target firm with an activist investor has poorer operational performance results one year following the investment compared to a target firm with a passive private equity investor.

Results from the analysis of transactions in Continental Europe countries with French and German legal origin may be not generalizable to other markets with the different legal tradition and institutional environment.

This research provides new empirical evidence on private equity activism in listed companies of Continental Europe. By distinguishing between active and passive investments, testing rarely considered characteristics to provide valuable insights and analyzing the effect of activism on the target firm’s performance, the study contributes variously to the still-limited body of literature on private equity activism in public companies with a governance structure based on concentrated ownership. The findings emphasize the relationship between shareholder activism and both target and investor’s characteristics from perspective of mitigating agency problem and value creation in target firms. By simultaneously investigating investments in public companies from several European markets, the study complements empirical evidence mostly obtained from studies of a single national market.

While Merger & Acquisition (M&A) activity has reached unprecedented levels over recent years, M&A failure rates remain high. Yet, there is growing evidence that private equity funds show high success rates. As little is known about the differences between different types of buyers, and only scant information exists on private equity funds’ operations, we inductively explore the reasons for their outperformance. In this qualitative study, we identify three characteristics (i.e., organizational set-up, private equity investors’ professional identities, and an integrative work approach), which we brought together into a theoretical framework that explains how private equity professionals can enable better M&A performance. Finally, our findings underline the effectiveness of specific incentivization approaches applied in private equity funds.

The purpose of this exploratory study is to gain a better understanding of the motivations behind private equity (PE) activities in Australia.

This paper reports findings arising from face‐to‐face semi‐structured interviews with individuals representing stakeholders in the market for private equity; namely, PE partners and finance professionals. Interviews were conducted in two stages, during the pre‐Global Financial Crisis (GFC) period (2007‐2008) and the post‐GFC period (2012).

In general, the stakeholders interviewed perceive that the motivations behind PE bids are not well understood, and they highlight the need for more education. They state that PE enables a company's management to make decisions more promptly; capture opportunities more effectively; reduce paperwork for executives; provide no accountability to a broad investor base; and most importantly create value for a business, as the ownership is more closely involved with the management in the day‐to‐day operations of the business. According to the interviewees, since the GFC, PE firm reputation and track record are considered to be even more crucial than before the GFC, as debt providers in particular have become more wary when lending.

The findings have implications for the agency relationship model. The principals' role might appear to be more tightly aligned with that of the agent, and so are their motivations, thus reducing monitoring costs, but post‐GFC interview responses indicate that this might not necessarily be the case. Concerns over empire building and gains through transaction costs were raised. The paper concludes by drawing from the insights gained by the authors from the interview data. Although it is only a small part of the economy's Gross Domestic Product, PE activity has helped Australia become a more competitive business economy.

This paper aims to bridge the gap between theoretical dissertations on the demand and supply for equity by Australian small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and the reality of the capital raising markets.

The mixed-methods approach includes questions integrated into a survey of 26,000 SMEs paired with semi-structured interviews with the CEOs or Chairs of the 15 Australian small-scale private equity (SSPE) firms.

Contrary to capital structure theory expectations, 46 per cent of Australian SMEs are interested in equity funding, despite a stated ability to acquire additional debt. The authors reveal a mismatch between supply and demand for SSPE with few SMEs able to meet private equity (PE) firms’ stringent investment criteria.

The population of Australian SSPE firms is small and interviewee responses are qualitative and are not easily replicated.

To improve SSPE market liquidity, SMEs must overcome severe information asymmetry to demonstrate their quality and reduce the cost of due diligence for PE firms. One relatively easy step is for SMEs to voluntarily adopt auditable financial controls on SMEs similar to publicly traded firms.

Few studies focus on small firm equity, which is essential to economic growth and innovation. The authors use a large data set of Australian SMEs and unique informationally rich interview data on the population of Australian firms in SSPE, an industry known for its lack of transparency.

Developing economies that are subject to global influences, such as through exposure to global product, labor and capital markets, may be expected to practice higher standards of corporate governance (CG) than less globalized developing economies. This paper seeks to understand the relationship between CG and firm ownership by private equity investors in India, and to understand whether CG practices in particular national institutional contexts change when the firm is exposed to investors with a background in other countries' institutional contexts. Taking India as a test case, the paper aims to explore how CG standards are affected by private equity investment that originates from developed countries.

A primary survey on Indian firms' CG practices for firms that receive private equity and for comparable firms that do not was used to determine differences in CG. Private equity investors were surveyed to determine their national institutional contexts. The CG practices were then related to the national institutional context that the private equity investors came from.

Private‐equity funded firms display higher standards of corporate governance than firms that do not receive such funding. The difference arises from the application of developed country standards of CG arising from the investors that own the private equity funds. These funds are primarily owned by developed country investors. The strategies through which these occur are: reconstituting the board of directors, influencing senior executive recruitment, and changing the firm's operating and strategic rules.

Developing countries like India usually display low standards of CG. Such standards tend to evolve slowly in line with the country's stage of development. The literature has not hitherto identified ways in which this process can be hastened. This study finds that standards can be raised above the prevailing standards through the governance practices imported into developing countries by private equity funds that are primarily owned by developed country investors. Hence, the findings of this paper contribute to the understanding of how globalization influences CG.

The purpose of this paper is to explore country-specific and firm-specific factors responsible for attracting private equity investment across sectors in India.

The analysis involves three macroeconomic variables (rule of law, net FIIs and interest rate) across six sectors. Also, three firm-specific variables (ROE, DTA and EBITDA margin) for 89 companies with private equity across five sectors. OLS, Prais–Winsten, multinomial logit and probit regression models have been used for analysis.

The findings show that while rising foreign investments drive PE activity in energy and engineering and construction is one sector, strong legal structures and rising interest rates are the drivers of PE activity in the healthcare sector. In firm-specific analysis, though the profitability and leverage effect is invisible in the industrials and healthcare sectors, it is quite significant in IT and telecom is one sector and commodities sector.

Results are subject to limited data on private equity in different sectors. There is a lack of data for comparison on companies belonging to certain sectors like real estate, infrastructure, etc. A limited literature is available for reference purpose. Research findings may serve as preliminary criteria for private equity investors seeking investment in India.

The value of this research is in the identification of most relevant macroeconomic and firm-specific factors for private equity investors seeking investment across sectors in India.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze specific levers of value creation in small and mid-size private equity deals. Private equity firms add value through various types of value creation measures in their portfolio firms to achieve abnormal returns. Established literature has shown that value creation measures differ across portfolio firms due to the different development stages of the firm and different buy-out types. Despite the fact that the majority of deals belongs to the small and mid-size segment, prior studies mostly analyzed large private equity buy-outs or mixed samples.

To explore value generation measures in small and mid-size buy-outs, a single case study format was applied studying the carve-out of QUNDIS from Siemens Building Technologie by CAPCELLENCE as an exceptional successfully private equity deal within this segment.

The analysis shows that operational and governance improvements are common value creation measures in all buy-outs. The results suggest a lower leverage for smaller private equity deals indicating that financial engineering is less important. Furthermore, in small and mid-size deals, the strategic focus is growth contrary to downsizing and refocusing in large buy-outs.

Results of a single case study should be generalized cautiously, as they are perceived as less robust compared to empirical methods or multiple case studies. However, this method is appropriate for explorative studies.

The paper is original in exploring certain value creation measures applied by private equity firms in their portfolio companies in the small and mid-size segment.

The long-term financial stability of hospital systems represents a “grand challenge” in health care. New ownership forms, such as private equity (PE), promise to achieve better financial performance than nonprofit or for-profit systems. In this study, we compare two systems with many similarities, but radically different ownership structures, missions, governance, and merger and acquisition (M&A) strategies. Both were nonprofit, religious systems serving low-income communities – Montefiore Health System and Caritas Christi Health Care.

Montefiore's M&A strategy was to invest in local hospitals and create an integrated regional system, increasing revenues by adding primary doctors and community hospitals as feeders into the system and achieving efficiencies through effective resource allocation across specialized units. Slow and steady timing of acquisitions allowed for organizational learning and balancing of debt and equity. By 2019, it owned 11 hospitals with 40,000 employees and had strong positive financials and low reliance on debt.

By contrast, in 2010, PE firm Cerberus Capital bought out Caritas (renamed Steward Health Care System) and took control of the Board of Directors, who set the system's strategic direction. Cerberus used Steward as a platform for a massive debt-driven acquisition strategy. In 2016, it sold off most of its hospitals’ property for $1.25 billion, leaving hospitals saddled with long-term inflated leases; paid itself almost $500 million in dividends; and used the rest for leveraged buyouts of 27 hospitals in 9 states in 3 years. The rapid, scattershot M&A strategy was designed to create a large corporation that could be sold off in five years for financial gain – not for health care integration. Its debt load exploded, and by 2019, its financials were deeply in the red. Its Massachusetts hospitals were the worst financial performers of any system in the state. Cerberus exited Steward in 2020 in a deal that left its physicians, the new owners, holding the debt.