How Come You Don't See As High Leverage Ratios Anymore?
I'm a bit ignorant on this topic.
Why can't PE firms lever crazily anymore? Like you would hear about how back in the 80s PE firms would lever the ever dog shit out of companies. What regulations were passed that prevent this from happening now?
Is it due to the regulations put against commercial banks' risk departments? In that case, are there not private credit firms that can provide more flexible capital to bypass commercial bank regulations?
Private equity firms don't use the extreme leverage ratios of the 1980s anymore due to a combination of regulatory changes, market dynamics, and risk management practices. Here's a breakdown:
Regulatory Changes:
Commercial Banks' Risk Appetite:
Private Credit Firms:
Market Dynamics:
Alternative Lending Options:
In summary, while private credit firms can provide more flexible capital, the combination of regulatory oversight, market discipline, and a focus on sustainable returns has curbed the use of extreme leverage in private equity deals.
Sources: Private Equity vs Megafund Credit, Private Credit / Direct Lending Comp, Private Equity vs. Private Credit, Credit Hedge Fund opportunities, Evaluating Commercial Banks (part 1 of ??)
I'm sure everything from the bot is correct. I'd also add that multiples for assets are way higher than the 80s. Regardless of whether a lender would ever agree to it, it's nearly impossible to make the math work on funding a business nearly/entirely with debt and (i) cover the check required, (ii) still afford interest payments.
Said differently, it was easier to buy a business with 95% debt when it was 4x EBITDA versus 20x EBITDA.
I think OP is conflating Loan to value and debt / EBITDA. To SaaSChimp's point, when you bought a business for 4x EBITDA back in the day, you did it with 3.75x leverage. 3.75x leverage is pretty modest from a debt / EBITDA perspective these days, but its 95% from an LTV perspective.
Its very common for SaaS businesses to get acquired for 20x+ EBITDA using 6-8x leverage. 6-8x is way more leverage than was used back in the day on an EBITDA basis, but is well below 50% LTV because the deals multiples are higher (and lenders specifically require a certain minimum level of equity / total cap in their term sheets now)
Better stated - thanks.
There was a higher appetite from equity investors in LBOs to accept securities in addition to cash as takeover consideration which pushed the leverage, and complexity, of transactions as well. Preferred stock, PIK bonds, reset notes etc we all forms of "funny money" you could tack on to a bid to boost a takeover price from $50 in cash to $65 total comprised of $50 cash plus $15 in funny money. These securities would typically be bottom of the capital structure behind bank debt and other junk bonds and gave the buyer additional leverage.
Do you mean if PE fund sold their business, they would receive a mix of cash and the additional securities (instead of all cash like usual now)? Essentially retaining some economic interest in the business after losing control?
I have never really heard of that outside of performance incentives and stuff like that- how common was that?
No, I'm saying that PE funds would LBO public companies and reach tip-top valuations by giving shareholders forms of consideration other than cash.
So to your example, it would be like the shareholders would receive for their quity, part reset bonds and part cash? So technically what they are receiving for their shares are a higher pricess, thouhg what they are receiving is not purely liquid.
Yep. You would generally never see the cash component be below some premium to the pre-deal trading price, but the additional securities were ways to edge ahead in auctions. The problem is that the face value of a package of securities might be $10, but when properly discounted maybe they are only worth $5 or less, so a lot of it was performative (but created real obligations).
A few other interesting dynamics here when you consider say 2010 to today—
There are a lot more funds and private capital out there competing for the same deals. For some owners, it’s more compelling if you give more cash cleanly than debt. Additionally, with all the dry powder out there, there are pressures to deploy additional capital, even if returns go down on a % basis, some LPs feel the pressure to have more capital working in that asset if it’s one they truly believe in/ win
Nesciunt ut ut amet et blanditiis odio. Non enim ut architecto excepturi eaque suscipit.
Velit quia quas nostrum repudiandae illum temporibus alias praesentium. Similique illo aperiam numquam esse beatae. Sint fuga non ut.
Repellat officiis eum quam qui numquam error. Et velit ducimus sit qui numquam amet rem. Dolorum eaque et asperiores numquam officia unde. Voluptas modi consectetur dolore quo quaerat vel consequatur. Harum nihil id perferendis laborum et. Enim labore ut nostrum alias. Iure id nam ducimus iure sunt.
Officiis qui in tenetur maxime debitis enim. Illum dolorum ipsum iure expedita dolor saepe veritatis sint.
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...