I come from a debt background (project finance) and I always get a variation of the question: “how do you think about debt va equity risks?”. I end up talking about driving value and growth in equity vs driving repayment and covenants in debt. Curious if anyone has a good response for this / a good framework for how to think about it across industries. Thanks!
Trending Content - Private Equity Forum
| +60 | Working on Juneteenth | 35 | 1d |
| +25 | Hardest time I have ever seen to be a GP | 3 | 2d |
| +20 | How to Get on Career Track / Stay Post ASO years | 6 | 16h |
| +19 | Weighing exit from LMM PC/PE | 4 | 16h |
| +15 | Healthcare PE | 6 | 2d |
| +14 | KKR comp for Principal | 15 | 5h |
| +12 | LMM groups within larger platforms? | 1 | 6d |
| +11 | Reality of the move from LMM to MM | 2 | 5d |
| +9 | MBA and Private Equity | 3 | 1d |
| +9 | Free LBO calculator: value bridge, sensitivities, formula-linked Excel export | 0 | 6d |
Career Resources
I try to think about risk/reward up and down the capital structure. To be in the first loss position, I need to be compensated with a greater yield than the credit senior to me. That means find the high yield bonds’ YTW and see if I can get a similar return story on the equity. Then: what growth drivers will be necessary to back out that level of return? Recall that while debt just needs capital preservation (no further cash burn / maintaining status quo is often sufficient to lead to recovery to par), for equity, you need explicit upside on either operational top-line or financial/cost structure engineering. And then also because you have no covenants in place: how much debt can be further stacked on top of your equity? What happens in a set of bad outcomes (how deep is my loss)?
I think analyzing equity in terms of a credit investor’s perspective first before doing any growth modeling is the most logical way to do this.
Would that work in an interview though? Feel like they’d chuck you aside as someone that’s all credit with no “equity mindset”, even though it’s a very logical approach.
Thanks! This is helpful and I like starting on the debt side and working down the cap structure... feels intuitive given my background.
For more background, I work in infrastructure and energy and always get stuck on the low growth nature of the industry. I find myself finding the equity and debt risks very similar (I.e. long term contracts, “easy” to operate assets, little room for growth etc.) and maybe it’s because I am a debt investor, but it feels like with stable cash flow businesses with low growth there’s little upside to equity unless management can deliver (i) growth or accretive acquisitions, (ii) renegotiate more favorable revenue/om contracts or recontract better terms at expiry, or (iii) financially engineer higher returns through more leverage or structured trades.
That’s how I have been thinking about this answer and curious about others thoughts on my framework / if I am missing something.
Thanks again for your help.
Et eaque eum modi nisi quia ipsam explicabo. Quae quae voluptatem corrupti doloremque voluptas rerum doloribus. A quis id laudantium rem optio consectetur repellat. Voluptates et iusto eos officia eligendi adipisci.
Ullam maxime quod nostrum. Fugiat saepe adipisci qui explicabo aperiam quidem. Quod iste non rem qui sint. Velit odit similique blanditiis quae ut rerum. Libero illum occaecati similique corporis fugit eum qui. Qui eaque consequuntur quasi voluptas ipsam dolor aut.
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...