GP Led Secondaries Questions
Hi All,
Delving into the world of Secondaries with some upcoming processes and would appreciate some clarifications as its a more niche area where there isn't as much info around. Any info is much appreciated!
-
Rationale for doing a multi-asset vs single-asset deal from GP manager perspective and investor perspective
-
Differences in pricing/discount to NAV for GP led middle-market continuation vehicles vs large-cap CVs
-
Rationale for choosing to invest in a middle-market CV vs a large-cap CV from investor perspective
-
If the GP is buying into the CV from their new flagship fund, does that tell you they're underselling the asset if they're a willing buyer at this price or is that a sign that they're confident the biz will achieve the business plan
-
Differences in European and American PE waterfalls and how that relates to Secondaries buy-side in European vs American context e.g. perhaps in terms of rationale for doing a GP led and crystalizing carry
-
How does pricing in the LP led market affect pricing in GP led market and/or vice versa
There’s a lot there so I’ll try to be concise but want to note there’s always nuances to this so some of the below could be considered generalizations. But happy to dig deeper into any one answer.
1. Rationale: MA CV from a manager perspective the core focus is usually increasing overall fund DPI and/or cleaning up an old fund. For SA CV it’s much more focused on getting more capital and time for a star asset that has a lot of room left to run. In a SA the GP has typically hit concentration limits or time limits in a legacy fund (these same points can apply to MA as well). From an investor’s perspective, in a MA CV you of course get the benefit of greater diversification than a SA CV. But, in both cases, it’s more concentrated than a LP portfolio secondary so there’s higher risk but you have the ability to underwrite individual assets at a deeper level. CVs in general can provide secondary investors with a higher multiple opportunity than a typical LP portfolio would. Usually, these assets are the best from a GP’s fund so you’re getting exposure to really strong assets that a GP is already familiar with. Final point on MA vs. SA, there’s a larger universe of buyers for MA and therefore they can be easier to get done given there’s more capital available to invest in them.
2. Differences in pricing: pricing on a basis of NAV is less tied to the size of the asset / deal and more tied to asset quality, GP quality, and where the GP has the asset marked.
3. Rationale for MM vs. Large Cap: given the return objectives of a secondary fund, CVs can provide greater multiple uplift but they can be a drag on IRR for the overall fund. So path to exit and hitting that timeline is very important. With a MM company, there is a larger universe of potential buyers from strategics to sponsors. If a company is large enough where the most likely exit is an IPO, that just creates exit timeline risk which secondary investors don’t like. That said, with a large-cap company you’ll likely be dealing with an industry leader that has scale and the ability to tac on accretive M&A which is another story that’s easier to underwrite.
4. Flagship fund buying in: majority of CVs are completed within a 10% discount of NAV so they are pretty close to the GP’s existing mark. The GP rolls 100% of their proceeds into the CV so in theory they should be indifferent to price since they are keeping their exposure (there’s a dirty secret to this aspect but won’t get into the details for the sake of this). The flagship fund investing is really a show of confidence and an alignment aspect. Shows the GP believes in the business enough to double down AND keep it on their primary track record.
5. All CVs are European waterfalls. Just means you run distributions through the waterfall on a fund basis vs. asset by asset. So, the GP doesn’t get any carry until the CV returns 100% of LP Capital plus the hurdle rates (usually tiered in a CV).
Legend, thanks, will be super helpful for everyone!
Couple of follow-ups
4. I guess more thinking, with GP leds, there is conflict of interest, the GP is both buyer and seller but if they're buying into it from the main fund, doesn't that show they overall are a buyer and that the existing LPs are getting a weak price
6. Any thoughts on this one, I edited probs while you were typing so maybe didn't see the last point
7. From what I understand we're seeing quite a few CVs particularly Single Asset ones trading at par or above par, is this indicative of anything else other than strong demand for the asset?
8. As a GP, what is my role on an LP led that concerns my fund, just giving consent? Is there anything in it for me?
9. As an investor, beyond concentrated exposure to what I think is a trophy asset, why would I prefer investing in a GP led over an LP led all things being equal and why would I prefer investing in an LP led over a GP led all things being equal
Staus quo options just started being offered last year, and I think are becoming more standard this year
Enim dolorem adipisci omnis iusto eos quo voluptates. Odit et aut dolorem expedita saepe. Iusto deserunt nostrum inventore excepturi consequatur. Nihil qui deserunt necessitatibus quia fugit aut rerum autem. Eaque et sunt sit nam vel eligendi. Voluptates neque eius reiciendis quo itaque. Possimus voluptatem tempora in ut doloribus.
Velit adipisci ut rem. Dolorem veritatis enim in et nobis. Magni possimus qui et consequatur qui et voluptate. Delectus consequuntur iste quisquam suscipit.
Asperiores quia dolore earum quia sit suscipit. Voluptatem voluptatem sunt quam dolores quis veniam voluptatum. Voluptates quasi et culpa eveniet quisquam vero voluptas dolores. Voluptas delectus non qui aut aspernatur numquam repudiandae.
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...