[tweetmeme source=”mattcg” service=”bit.ly” only_single=”false”]
I’ll provide some commentary when I get a chance to read it thoroughly. At first glance it looks very nicely laid out and is quite inviting for the reader, even if the corporate black and red is a little reminiscent of a casino table.
Leafing through it brings to mind the hilarious knockabout farce that was BCG and IESE’s 2008 offering The Advantage of Persistence: How the Best Private Equity Firms “Beat the Fade”, which you can read here.
It’s full of chioce tidbits that will leave you with aching sides and coffee on your monitor screen. AND it was co-authored by Heiko Meerkat.
But for those of you with a shorter attention span, how abut a quick look back to what McKinsey had to say about the buyout boom in 2007:
The recent tightening of credit markets has complicated the financing of some buyout deals and may dampen the flow of investor money into private equity firms. Skeptics on both sides of the Atlantic have been quick to proclaim that the private equity boom is over. But don’t expect private equity to suddenly fade to the background, as did the leveraged buyout boom of the 1980s. Even if growth slows in the short term, pension funds and other institutional investors will remain interested in private equity. McKinsey projects the industry’s assets under management may double by 2012, to $1.4 trillion.
Wow. AND “wow” again.
You can Bank on it:
Delist at that price? You’ll get
Apax Partners (full disclosure – my team is owned by one of their portfolio companies…I like to think it’s Apax’s favourite one :)) is trying to buy Bankrate. And some share holders are not too happy at the purchase price. Apax is paying a premium, of course, but some shareholders are not convinced the premium is fair.
Rather than the concerns of the conflict of interests that may develop between a private equity owner and an incumbent management team (particularly if that management team intends to stick around after the PE house exits), it is the management team itself that may be questioned in this instance. Has the share price been artificially deflated (don’t say sabotaged!) in order to present a more attractive purchase price for the buyout house and the management team/the team’s equity in the new deal?