Citrin Cooperman Annual Report on Independent Sponsors Reveals a Growing Industry Becoming Ever More Sophisticated

/in ,

 

When we launched the first Citrin Cooperman Independent Sponsor Report last year, our goal was to shed a light on the largely unchartered landscape of the independent sponsor world, the “Wild West” of private equity, as one of last year’s esteemed contributors Bruce Lipian aptly described it. Last year’s Report was the first of its kind, reaching a large number of independent sponsors (245 to be exact) on a
wide variety of topics – firm evolution, deal flow, capital raising, economics and liquidity events, among others.

This year, we wanted to capitalize on the success of last year’s Report and to dig deeper. We continue to explore the themes covered last year, but we have also expanded our analysis of economic terms, in response to feedback from many of you. In a sector where one broken deal can be financially
devastating and one successful liquidity event can set you up for life, the stakes have never been higher. And so this year, based upon responses from over 200 independent sponsors, we have identified typical” terms and calculations while also finding considerable variation in economic structures. By sharing these data points, both the typical and atypical, it is our hope that independent sponsors and their capital providers will have a greater understanding as to what the market will bear.

When we started our independent sponsor survey effort last year, there was no playbook for the sector. This year, we hope to create the beginnings of one so that all independent sponsors – novice and experienced alike – may benefit from the findings shared. We are indebted to our survey respondents and our esteemed group of external contributors, both independent sponsors and capital providers, for sharing their insights with us and for making this year’s Report possible. We hope that you enjoy the Report, and we look forward to discussing our findings with you.

Sincerely,
Sylvie Gadant, Partner, Citrin Cooperman

 

THE RESEARCH

This is Citrin Cooperman’s second Independent Sponsor Report. This year’s Report incorporates results from an online survey and interviews with leading independent sponsors and capital providers. Some statistics used throughout the Report may reflect rounding.

_____________________________________________________________________

This year, 208 professionals in the independent sponsor space shared their views on industry outlook and operational issues such as deal flow and mechanics, capital sources, deal economics, relationships with portfolio companies and liquidity events. The survey was conducted in April and May 2018, and interviews with leading independent sponsors and capital providers were conducted in July 2018. One hundred and seventy five respondents identified themselves as independent sponsors. Like last year, the majority of these independent sponsors are at firms that have been in existence more than five
years. Most firms (60 percent) have two or three principals, and 27 percent have only one principal. The majority have one non-professional staff member. All major regions of the United States are represented by our respondent population.

Not surprisingly, many of the younger firms (80 percent of them) represented firms (80 percent of them) represented in our study (defined as those in existence less than five years) have not had a liquidity event. Among older firms (those in existence more than five years), 25 percent of them have had four or more liquidity events. Of those firms that have had liquidity events, 12 percent have returned an average realized equity multiple of greater than 5x.

The independent sponsor space has experienced a significant evolution over the past two decades. In
the early days of the model (back when independent sponsors were still known as “fundless”
sponsors), former private equity and investment banking professionals dominated the space. But now,
as our research shows, professionals from other backgrounds – company management/ operations
and consulting, among others – are seeing it as a viable career path. They, like many, are embracing
the risk inherent in the model, realizing it allows them greater control over their investments and holds
the lure of outsize returns.

“The model makes good economic sense both from a GP and LP perspective: you have the benefits of
not dealing with the dollar cost averaging of multiple investments and fund management issues
associated with committed capital,” explained David Acharya, Partner, AGI Partners LLC. “In addition, the model has strong limited partner alignment on issues such as fees, carried interest and discretion to review each investment opportunity.” Like the independent sponsor sector itself, the firms represented by our respondents have also meaningfully evolved over the years.
Once our respondents gained a track record, they found that capital flows more freely. Several
noted that they are now seen as a legitimate alternative to funded groups, whereas early on, that was not the case. Many respondents described how their network of capital sources expanded and changed over the years. For some firms, capital partners have become more institutional. Other firms partner with family offices. Repeat funding relationships have become an option, especially for those with decent track records.

Deal sourcing strategies have also changed for our respondents through the years. When many independent sponsors were just starting out, broker referrals and auctions were the dominant sources of deal flow. Once independent sponsors developed a track record with a few deals under their belt, inbounds and proprietary deal sourcing became more popular.

In addition, many of our respondents have become more selective in which deals they pursue. Some avoid auctions entirely. Others have changed their focus, for example, moving up-market to focus on control buyouts or companies with higher EBITDA. However, all independent sponsors face a uniquely tough situation – the need to balance myriad demands – sourcing, portfolio management, capital partner relationships and general operations to name a few – with limited resources. In response, many of our respondents have added personnel, both principals and junior staff, which enable them to  respond quicker to inbound opportunities, source more deals, allocate resources more efficiently and manage investments more effectively. Streamlining processes is also essential to scaling an independent sponsor firm. Recognizing this, our respondents have employed various strategies: implementing CRM systems to manage investor and contact relationships, creating investor portals, establishing protocols
for investigating deal leads, managing due diligence and streamlining portfolio management. “Replication of returns comes from replication of processes,” advised John Fruehwirth.

_______________________________________________________________________

THE CAPITAL PROVIDERS’ PERSPECTIVE: EVOLUTION OF THE INDEPENDENT SPONSOR SECTOR

As the independent sponsor model has grown in popularity over the past two decades, it now has more credibility and traction with capital sources. “In the 90’s, independent sponsor deals were typically referred to us,” said Evan Gallinson, Managing Director, Merit Capital. “But we soon realized we were getting good deals from this source, then called fundless sponsors, and they were adding great value
post-close.” Merit Capital launched a specific outreach effort and created its first fundless sponsor conference in 2005. “Now, we are the ones actively seeking independent sponsors and proactively trying to build relationships,” he added. “These relationships have also developed into more of a two-way street, and we sometimes are referring out deals to independent sponsors when the deal isn’t right for us.” Gretchen Perkins of Huron Capital agreed. “We are in active outreach mode to independent sponsors. We want to maintain visibility with this crowd and be there for them when they find an opportunity and need capital to complete an acquisition.” Capital sources available to independent sponsors have also expanded significantly. “Even in the past five years we have seen a radical change,” said John Fruehwirth, Managing Partner, Rotunda Capital. “Endowments, families, and institutions recognize there is good talent in the independent sponsor field, and they are trying to harness it
through one-off or repeat relationships………FULL REPORT HERE 

 

Pitch Book Named Best Research Provider

/in ,
SEATTLE, March 20, 2019 /PRNewswire/ — PitchBook, the premier data provider for the private and public equity markets, announced today it has been named the Best Research Provider by Private Equity Wire, as part of its 2019 Private Equity Wire Awards. Private Equity Wire is a leading publication serving institutional investors, wealth managers, investment managers and advisers across all asset classes. The Private Equity Wire Awards are based on a ‘peer review system’ whereby Private Equity Wire’s readers elect a ‘best in class’ in a series of categories via an online survey. Categories include, best private equity managers, investors, consultants, advisers and service providers. Audiences recognized the value of the PitchBook platform to fundraise faster, build custom benchmarks, source investments targets, conduct smarter due diligence, plot exits and ultimately drive value for portfolio companies.
“At PitchBook, our mission is to deliver a better way for our clients to do their job,” said John Gabbert, CEO and founder of PitchBook. “Winning the Private Equity Wire award for Best Research Provider based on client and peer voting is a tremendous honor and validates our dedication to providing the highest quality data and unparalleled customer service.”
Since launching in 2007, PitchBook has become the go-to resource for data and research on the private financial markets, including private equity, venture capital, and mergers and acquisitions. The PitchBook Platform, mobile app, API and analyst research empowers users to make informed investment and business decisions by surfacing hard-to-find financial data on companies, investors, funds, LPs and service providers. PitchBook is one of the fastest growing financial information companies in the world, having seen a 65% increase in customer base in 2018 alone and nearly doubling global headcount since 2016. For PE firms in particular, the PitchBook Platform has informed some of the most influential deals in the space with its mission-critical intelligence and real-time private- and public-market data that allow PE firms attract and retain the best investors, identify and vet investments and generate market-beating returns.

Candidate Assessment Traps>> Killer Product or Sales Skills?

/in ,
The age old question always asked when hiring a capital raiser. Is the candidate’s track record a function of deep investor relationships and their sales ability, or is it the market demand for the fund they are selling? We have studied that very question since conducting our first hedge fund search in 1990. Here, we will try to provide clarity around the best practices used in assessing fund raising talent. This is part of an ongoing series that will cover the full range of functions in the industry. Our purpose is to inform our audience about assessment methods currently employed that are the best predictors of candidate success in the investment space.
Since 1990, our firm has worked on several mandates every year to recruit a capital raising professional for one of our investment management clients. Every search is unique, each client different in culture and size. That said, when hiring a marketer, they all need an individual who has deep relationships and a proven track record of raising capital. Our firm’s task is to determine which candidate’s fund raising prowess provides our client with the best probability of securing allocations for the fund. To that end, we have used a process that employees our network of managers and allocators that we have cultivated over a period of 30 plus years, to answer that very question.
 Our assessment process begins with an overview of the funds the candidate has marketed over the course of their career. We rate the funds on a scale that measures how easy or difficult it was to raise capital for that fund at the time the candidate was marketing it. It is scored using our own quantitative and qualitative process that assigns a value to this first component of our assessment, which is to what degree did the fund effect the candidates capital raising track record.
We then move to the second component of our assessment process and map the allocator universe for the various funds the candidate has sold, and compare that universe to the number of relationships the candidate has in that universe. That provides us with the second value, which is to what degree does the candidate have relationships he/she can monetize.
Lastly we interview the candidate to determine cultural fit. We use a work history behavioral analysis that gauges how well this individual will fit in to our client’s work culture.
Over the decades this process has evolved as each engagement we take on provides us another data point to test the accuracy of our methods, and observe if our assessment model proves itself in a real world fund environment. That is, we track the performance of the people we recruit and continue to update our process on what we learn. As with any endeavor to predict human performance, it needs to be a continual agile process of improvement.