https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b1w…
The PE industry has used IRR for a while now and from the what the article is saying, the professor is saying that these are just estimates and are unsold marked to market estimates.
I don't think the PE industry will suddenly stop using IRR because of this one time but investors are starting to add more pressure.
| +121 | Future of PE | 27 | 15h |
| +26 | Hardest time I have ever seen to be a GP | 3 | 5d |
| +20 | How to Get on Career Track / Stay Post ASO years | 6 | 3d |
| +14 | KKR comp for Principal | 20 | 2d |
| +12 | MBA and Private Equity | 6 | 5h |
| +10 | Undergrad summer PE analyst positions | 3 | 16h |
| +9 | Burn Out in PE - What Comes Next? | 0 | 5h |
| +9 | Value Creation Initiatives (That aren't add-ons) | 2 | 13h |
| +9 | Buyside in London with nice WLB and pay | 1 | 18h |
| +9 | 2028 Oncycle PE | 10 | 12h |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
Isn't this pretty much what Enron did? lolllll
Doesn't everyone do this before listing?
Some of the comments just demonstrate ignorance about the PE industry:
How can a 10-year TPG fund have a “cash in/net cash out to investors” ratio of say 1.6x, and yet indicate a compound IRR of 21 percent? A 21 percent IRR over a six-year average life portfolio would show a ratio of 3.14x (1.21 to the sixth power), not 1.6x.
21% IRR / 1.6x MOIC implies a cash WAL of about 2.5 years, which is totally normal in a fund without recycling and divi recaps / fund-level leverage. Sure, some deals will be around longer but those don't generally produce high IRRs.
That’s why funds show returns based on a few dimensions:
net and gross
irr and moic
realized and unrealized
Each controls for an important factor: fees, time, estimates vs reality, respectively.
They are just numbers and everyone knows what’s in them. If you misinterpret a clearly defined metric, it’s because you don’t understand the nomenclature in which case you shouldn’t be in a position to assess these investment options.
The last dimension people look at is returns on a vintage level. So if you’re looking at any of the above figures in a vacuum, again, you don’t understand the asset class. You assess all these performance stats on a relative vintage level. So long as your comparing gross returns of a given fund with gross returns of similar vintage funds, you can get a sense of how they’ve performed.
So while a professor at Johns Hopkins has an opinion on the matter… who gives a fuck what he thinks? Most likely he actually knows all of the above I mentioned, and is just pumping out click bait content to get his name out there.
Very well said.
The complaints are dumb. If as an investor you don't know the difference between gross/net returns and unrealized/realized, then you shouldn't be investing in GP mgmt companies.
Repudiandae sed et odit fugiat et in consequuntur voluptatem. Animi exercitationem eos recusandae maxime possimus quam eos. Excepturi earum ut sed temporibus quasi necessitatibus voluptates. Similique asperiores error qui aliquam est veritatis consequatur. Non natus voluptatum et ab nobis autem facere. Ipsum voluptates error excepturi distinctio qui nihil. Aut eaque sit qui.
Voluptas id illum omnis sunt quaerat facere omnis. Natus praesentium aut voluptatem nobis nisi ipsa illum voluptatem. Vero nulla in aut molestiae sequi non.
Sapiente vel vero et mollitia. Similique ea praesentium explicabo non quas voluptas aut culpa. Eum incidunt voluptas ea sint dolorem nobis necessitatibus debitis. Eum ullam animi error dolores. Reprehenderit et unde quisquam cum ullam ea.
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...