Author
Abstract
type="main"> With the remarkable increases in the assets under management of private equity firms, the standard compensation arrangement of a 2% management fee plus 20% carried interest has raised concerns of a misalignment of interests between limited partners (LPs) and general partners (GPs). Using a proprietary data set that includes detailed fund terms of 210 PE buyout funds with vintage years between 1989 and 2012, the authors summarize the findings of their recent study of the evolution of fund terms. The authors report that PE fund terms have been remarkable mainly for their resistance to change, and that the only important force for bringing about reductions in percentage management fees has been the recent increase in fund sizes. But the modest cuts in management fees that have accompanied the increase in fund sizes have done little to address what appears to be a conflict of interest between LPs and GPs over the optimal PE fund size. As one possible solution to this conflict, the authors analyze a recent innovation by Bain Capital that involves considerably smaller management fees (say, 1%) and larger carried interest (as high as 30%). According to the authors, such terms have a good chance of becoming the new industry standard for two reasons: First, LPs have become increasingly “professionalized,” which has led to greater focus on GP compensation and ways of realigning their interests with LPs'. Second, the “signaling” benefits for those GPs willing to distinguish themselves by offering terms like “1 and 30” could encourage more GPs to move in this direction. In the authors' words, “For all but the most reputable and established PE firms, those GPs that do not offer the new terms may well be seen as signaling little confidence in their ability to do what they're being paid to do: namely, produce above-market returns.”
Suggested Citation
Ingo Stoff & Reiner Braun, 2014.
"The Evolution of Private Equity Fund Terms Beyond 2 and 20,"
Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 26(1), pages 65-75, March.
Handle:
RePEc:bla:jacrfn:v:26:y:2014:i:1:p:65-75
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jacrfn:v:26:y:2014:i:1:p:65-75. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1078-1196 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.