學門類別
哈佛
- General Management
- Marketing
- Entrepreneurship
- International Business
- Accounting
- Finance
- Operations Management
- Strategy
- Human Resource Management
- Social Enterprise
- Business Ethics
- Organizational Behavior
- Information Technology
- Negotiation
- Business & Government Relations
- Service Management
- Sales
- Economics
- Teaching & the Case Method
最新個案
- A practical guide to SEC ï¬nancial reporting and disclosures for successful regulatory crowdfunding
- Quality shareholders versus transient investors: The alarming case of product recalls
- The Health Equity Accelerator at Boston Medical Center
- Monosha Biotech: Growth Challenges of a Social Enterprise Brand
- Assessing the Value of Unifying and De-duplicating Customer Data, Spreadsheet Supplement
- Building an AI First Snack Company: A Hands-on Generative AI Exercise, Data Supplement
- Building an AI First Snack Company: A Hands-on Generative AI Exercise
- Board Director Dilemmas: The Tradeoffs of Board Selection
- Barbie: Reviving a Cultural Icon at Mattel (Abridged)
- Happiness Capital: A Hundred-Year-Old Family Business's Quest to Create Happiness
Partners Group: Ain't No Mountain High Enough
內容大綱
Partners Group ("PG"), a Swiss based PE manager, initiated a series of strategic shifts and evolved from a predominately fund-of-funds manager into a large, multi-asset class PE firm focused on direct investments. PG was the first PE firm to go public in 2006. A number of large US based private equity firms followed to create a new category of firms; public private equity firms (PPEs). PG's results were superlative (565% since inception total return and 22% annual compounded growth) versus the US based PPEs performance over the same time of (76%) to 18%. PG's multiple was 22x versus their PPE peer group of 8x. PG had the lowest value of AUM yet had the second largest market capitalization behind Blackstone. Why? PG had differing management practices: (i) compensation practices; (ii) corporate governance structure; (iii) accounting policies; and (iv) source of revenues. PG historically had a low percentage of its revenues derived from carried interest payments (less than 10%) while the US PPEs had a significantly higher percentage (on average 50%). Should PG do more direct investments and have more of its revenues come from carried interests? This could conceivably jeopardize their trading multiple and their stock price. Should PG risk changing their business model or proceed with confidence?