GP-Led & LP-Led Secondaries
In practice, how do investment bankers or private equity firms calculate the NAV at the reference date for a single asset or multi-asset continuation fund? For PE secondaries, I believe these companies are all private.
How is this done differently for LP-led deals?
The info online is super high-level - some practical insight would be appreciated!
Cheers.
For LP led deals we usually model out based on the mark up given by the GP and apply some sort of roll forward to each asset in each fund and amalgamate it
GP led we usually start from scratch and use comps / DCF to ascertain a rough value but still rely quite a bit on the GP nav
For LP stakes it really depends how deep you are going. If you are buying 200mm in NAV across 50 funds you aren’t going to model out every asset… diversification will be your play. Within those 50 funds 10-12 assets each there is prob 1/2 per fund that will either make or break the fund. Start there
I may be misunderstanding but to find the 1-2 make or break investments in each funds in your example, do you not have to go into detail on each investment?
Thanks both. What do you do if your NAV differs significantly from the GP NAV provided? Do you go back and forth with the GP to understand how they are arriving at their NAV? Would this result in you requesting a discount to NAV?
GP leds are already offered at some sort of discount to the carrying value in the original fund. If the NAV is significantly different you usually 1) push for a further discount or 2) gain solace in the fact that the GP is putting their entire carried interest from the fund into the continuation vehicle and has an incentive to value the asset at an appropriate value (assuming European Waterfall)
How would this change if you're using an American waterfall?
Because of the nature of American Waterfalls the carry is paid out on a asset by asset basis and by that virtue the amount of carried interest the GP is likely putting into the CV is likely to be lower than the same European Waterfall equivalent. To caveat all waterfalls I've dealt with have been European for CV's (Infrastructure) and can't comment further in detail
Sorry I'm a bit confused by this. Why would Carry being calculated on the asset itself result in the GP rolling over less carry? Aren't GP-leds pretty common for high-performing assets where the GP wants to crystallize a good chunk of carry?
Also, shouldn't the GP's moral hazard should be smaller in American-style carry systems because overvaluing the asset in a CV would result in more crystalized carry but less additional carry but undervaluing it would result in less crystalized carry but more additional carry when the CV finally sells the asset.
I know I'm wrong I'm just trying to learn - thanks
Quia reprehenderit facere quasi assumenda dolorum quam nihil. Fugit vitae minus corporis dolorem.
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...