IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Determinanten des Ein- und Ausstiegs von Private-Equity-Häusern in Europa

Listed author(s):
  • Nataliya Barasinska
  • Dorothea Schäfer

Private equity (PE) investors tend to invest in well-established companies, pay attention to high risk and shy away from small and opaque companies. They avoid companies with ownership structures that offer little opportunity for exercising influence, since, for example, there is already another dominant owner present or another financial investor holds a stake. Banks as shareholders, however, increase the likelihood of PE entry. The likelihood of PE investors leaving the firm is also lower if a bank owner is present. If PE investors retreat, the former target companies are on average not worse capitalized than companies with ongoing PE investment. The previous targets are better capitalized compared to firms that had never a PE investor during the period of observation. These are the key findings of a DIW study analysing the determinants of entry and exit of private equity houses in European companies. Financiers of PE deals are mainly institutional investors and in case of buy-outs, also lending banks. Loan losses on a broad front are not to be expected. Securitized loans from PE deals are incomparable with securitized subprime mortgage loans and therefore similar destabilizing effects are not to be expected either. The still ongoing financial crisis has shown that access to equity capital is of ultimate importance for companies. With equal treatment of equity and debt in the corporate tax code law makers could crowd out the obvious pre-crisis trend towards increased debt financing of PE transactions. Private-Equity(PE)-Investoren verhalten sich wie normale Anleger und steigen lieber in etablierte Unternehmen ein, achten auf hohe Risiken und schrecken vor kleinen, als intransparent geltenden Firmen eher zurück. Auch scheuen Private-Equity-Investoren tendenziell Unternehmen, deren Eigentümerstruktur wenig Möglichkeiten zur Einflussnahme verheißt, zum Beispiel weil bereits ein anderer dominanter Eigentümer vorhanden ist oder ein anderer Finanzinvestor bereits eine Beteiligung hält. Banken als Anteilseigner erhöhen jedoch die Wahrscheinlichkeit des Einstiegs. Aus Unternehmen mit Bankbeteiligung steigen PE-Investoren im Durchschnitt auch weniger aus. Wenn sich PE-Investorem zurückziehen, sind die vormaligen Zielunternehmen im Durchschnitt nicht schlechter kapitalisiert als Firmen, an denen PE noch beteiligt ist. Im Vergleich zu Firmen, die im Beobachtungszeitraum keinen Private-Equity-Investor hatten, sind die früheren Zielfirmen besser kapitalisiert. Das sind die wesentlichen Befunde einer DIW Studie zum Ein- und Ausstieg von Private-Equity-Häusern bei europäischen Firmen. Die Finanziers von Private-Equity Deals - vor allem institutionelle Anleger und bei Buy-Outs auch Banken - müssen daher keine Kreditausfälle auf breiter Front erwarten. Verbriefte Private-Equity-Übernahmekredite sind nicht mit verbrieften Subprime-Hypothekarkrediten vergleichbar und ähnlich destabilisierende Wirkungen auch nicht zu befürchten. Die noch nicht überwundene Finanzkrise hat die Wichtigkeit des Eigenkapitalzugangs für Unternehmen nachdrücklich gezeigt. Mit der steuerlichen Gleichstellung von Eigenkapital und Fremdkapital könnte man die vor der Krise unübersehbare Tendenz zur verstärkten Kreditfinanzierung von PE-Geschäften zurückdrängen.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://ejournals.duncker-humblot.de/DH/doi/pdf/10.3790/vjh.79.4.39
Download Restriction: no

Article provided by DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research in its journal Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung.

Volume (Year): 79 (2010)
Issue (Month): 4 ()
Pages: 39-58

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:diw:diwvjh:79-4-4
Contact details of provider: Postal:
Mohrenstraße 58, D-10117 Berlin

Phone: xx49-30-89789-0
Fax: xx49-30-89789-200
Web page: http://www.diw.de/en
Email:


More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as
in new window


  1. Black, Bernard S. & Gilson, Ronald J., 1998. "Venture capital and the structure of capital markets: banks versus stock markets," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 243-277, March.
  2. Heitor Almeida & Murillo Campello & Michael S. Weisbach, 2004. "The Cash Flow Sensitivity of Cash," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 59(4), pages 1777-1804, 08.
  3. Dorothea Schäfer & Alexander Fisher, 2008. "Angst vor Finanzinvestoren unbegründet," DIW Wochenbericht, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 75(11), pages 125-131.
  4. Achleitner, Ann-Kristin & Andres, Christian & Betzer, André & Weir, Charlie, 2008. "Economic consequences of private equity investments on the German stock market," CEFS Working Paper Series 2008-05, Technische Universität München (TUM), Center for Entrepreneurial and Financial Studies (CEFS).
  5. Bester, Helmut, 1985. "Screening vs. Rationing in Credit Markets with Imperfect Information," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(4), pages 850-855, September.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:diw:diwvjh:79-4-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Bibliothek)

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.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.