Effect of # of shareholders on attractiveness of PE investment

From the perspective of a LMM sponsor: let’s say there are two companies, A and B. A is 100% owned by a single shareholder; B is owned 90% by one shareholder and 10% by a different, completely passive shareholder. How differently Will these two companies be viewed by potential investors? I’m guessing dealing with a single owner would be easier, but is that to the extent that PE firms will always prefer single ownership? Or do they not really care?

Additionally, how much weight would investors give to the valuation at which the minority stake was sold, particularly if it was at in the near past?

2 Comments
 
Most Helpful

It is clearly a case by case issue, however I believe the sponsor would generally be indifferent between the existing equity ownership structure based on # shareholders.

From a logistics perspective, if the major shareholder is interested in a transaction, they will more likely than not encourage the minority equity investors to engage with the potential acquirer.

Having a single shareholder has its benefits from a logistic POV however also has limitations in that any equity investment in the business must go through that shareholder.

Conversely, if there is a 51% majority holder who is sceptical about the deal, a number of accepting minority shareholders may encourage the majority shareholder to sell into the offer as well (thereby assist the sponsor in this example).

Equally, if there are no majority shareholders (and instead a small number of minority but controlling shareholders i.e. 5 @ 20% each), the sponsor may find this attractive as they can procure majority ownership without getting approval from all parties.

___

With respect to valuation, I think investors would use the implied 100% equity valuation as a legitimate benchmark if the minority stake is >10-15%. A recent example would be GA's 20% stake in U.K. based Gymshark.  

 

Id et accusamus qui consequuntur. Vero tempora veritatis eum et. Provident culpa sed iusto vero magni. Vel vel placeat soluta voluptatibus dolorem mollitia. Aut adipisci fuga asperiores deserunt. Veniam excepturi enim earum autem voluptatum. Libero possimus voluptas est enim nesciunt et aut.

Necessitatibus qui omnis magni vel facilis ea. Sed optio nulla est quia.

Career Advancement Opportunities

September 2026 Private Equity

  • The Riverside Company 99.6%
  • Blackstone Group 99.3%
  • KKR (Kohlberg Kravis Roberts) 98.9%
  • Warburg Pincus 98.5%
  • Vista Equity Partners 98.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

September 2026 Private Equity

  • Blackstone Group 99.6%
  • KKR (Kohlberg Kravis Roberts) 99.3%
  • The Riverside Company 98.9%
  • Ardian 98.5%
  • Warburg Pincus 98.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

September 2026 Private Equity

  • Bain Capital 99.6%
  • The Riverside Company 99.3%
  • Blackstone Group 98.9%
  • Starwood Capital Group 98.5%
  • KKR (Kohlberg Kravis Roberts) 98.1%

Total Avg Compensation

September 2026 Private Equity

  • Principal (9) $653
  • Director/MD (24) $547
  • Vice President (100) $364
  • 3rd+ Year Associate (106) $280
  • 2nd Year Associate (235) $272
  • 1st Year Associate (414) $231
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (33) $157
  • 2nd Year Analyst (97) $134
  • 1st Year Analyst (273) $126
  • Intern/Summer Associate (38) $81
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (356) $61
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
kanon's picture
kanon
99.0
3
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
4
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
5
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
6
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
98.9
7
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
8
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
9
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
10
numi's picture
numi
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”