|
????每當一宗大型杠桿收購交易公布時，坊間都會對所產生的債務和相關杠桿條款進行分析。目的是對交易完成后的公司營運狀況有所了解，并判斷買方所承擔的貸款是否已超出合理水平。 ????但正如我們過去幾年所看到的那樣，銀行很少愿意讓企業陷入違約的境地。原因可能是因為銀行不愿因此產生短期損失(即便這會帶來長期增益)，或者是因為它們缺乏內部團隊來管理這樣的資產 (盡管它們可以從大型杠桿收購公司聘請到這樣的團隊)。 ????事實上，常見的情況是“修訂和延期”，銀行將貸款到期日延后，換取杠桿收購公司更優厚的償付條款。 ????我今天之所以提出這個問題，是因為上周有一位私募股權研究者在討論行業風險時所作的點評 (主要圍繞已接近投資期末的2006-2007年基金。她說她研究私募股權已經20年了，只見過一次基金到期但未要求有限合伙人延期情況 (有限合伙人通常都會批準延期，并對費用做出調整)。 ????換言之，我們在一宗交易或募資剛剛完成時所作的最初分析往往隨著時間流逝而變得無足輕重。別忘了私募股權看重的是結果，而不是開頭…… |
????Whenever a major LBO deal is announced, there is analysis of the incurred debt and related leverage terms. The idea is to get a sense of how the company will operate post-transaction, and if the sponsors are loading on more loans than a company can reasonably handle. ????But, as we've learned over the past few years, banks rarely are willing to put companies into default. Maybe it's because they don't want to incur short-term losses (even if it creates long-term gains). Or maybe it's because they don't have in-house teams to manage such assets (even though they could hire such teams from large LBO shops). ????What we got instead was "amend and extend," where banks take a pinch of flesh from LBO firms in exchange for kicking the expiration can down the road. ????I bring this up today because of a comment made last week by a private equity researcher, in discussing industry overhang (which is mostly concentrated in 2006-2007 vintage funds that are nearing the end of their investment periods. She noted that in two decades of covering PE, only once had she seen a fund's lifecycle expire without asking LPs for an extension (which LPs almost always provide, typically with fee modifications). ????In other words, what we originally analyze when a deal gets done or fund gets raised is often rendered irrelevant with the passage of time. Yet another reminder that private equity is about ends, not beginnings… |
?
相關稿件
最新文章