Skip to main content

IS PRIVATE EQUITY ALL GOOD OR BAD?

Ed Miliband thinks that all private equity investors are bad, "stripping assets for a quick buck ... [and that] they aren't the values of British business". So is he right or wrong?

Similar to most other politicians, Ed Miliband is right and wrong. In what follows, I shall focus on the effects of private equity acquisitions on employees as there is an existing body of academic research studying that particular link. This research suggests that, on the whole, private equity acquisitions are good for employees, resulting in increases in employee numbers as well as improvements in employment practices and employee voice. However, most of this research does not distinguish between the different types of private equity investors.

Nevertheless, I first want to define what I mean by private equity. Private equity involves the acquisition of a public firm or at least the facilitation of that acquisition. The firm is taken private in a so called public-to-private (PTP) transaction. Importantly, there is a change in management or at least a change in management style.

The three main types of private equity acquisitions are:
  1. management buy-outs (MBOs),
  2. management buy-ins (MBIs), and
  3. institutional buy-outs (IBOs).
MBOs are carried out by the existing management and the role of the private equity investor is typically limited to the financing of the acquisition. As there is no change in management the effects of MBOs on the employees are likely to be neutral or positive. In contrast, MBIs are undertaken by a new, outside management team that takes the firm private. As there is a complete change in management the effects for the employees are likely to be negative. The main reason for this is that so called implicit contracts, that is unwritten, verbal contracts that the existing management had with the workforce are more likely to be broken. Finally, IBOs are undertaken by private equity houses and other specialist investors. They involve the complete replacement of the management and, as in the case of MBIs, it is likely that the effects on employees will be detrimental.

Existing research has typically looked at samples of private equity acquisitions including MBOs as well as MBIs, and maybe also IBOs, but has not clearly distinguished between these three types. This may explain why the observed overall effects on employment is mostly positive, both in terms of employment growth and in terms of a wide range of human resource policies. I have conducted some research with Prof. Noel O'Sullivan at Loughborough University and Prof. Geoff Wood at Warwick Business School. We focused on IBOs rather than on MBOs/MBIs. We found that, after correcting for differences in productivity and differences in wage costs, there is a significant drop in employee numbers in IBOs. An equivalent drop is not observed in other non-acquired firms that operate in the same industry. The results of this study have been published in Corporate Governance: An International Review. A pre-publication version is available from SSRN. This paper won the Standard Life prize of the best working paper in finance in the paper series of the European Corporate Governance Institute in 2012.

A follow-up study on a larger sample, which also includes evidence from interviews and regression analysis, has been published in the 2014 April issue of the Human Resource Management Journal. This is the study which the British Venture Capital Association (BVCA) criticised in a press release. See also our response to the BVCA as well as a letter by Alex Barr from Aberdeen Private Equity fund in the Financial Times and our response to his letter.

Legal disclaimer: This blog reflects my personal opinion and not necessarily that of my employer. Any links to external websites are provided for information only and I am neither responsible nor do I endorse any of the information provided by these websites.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The private equity deals that fail to justify 'fast buck' strategiesBy Marc Goergen, Cardiff University; Geoffrey Wood, University of Warwick, and Noel O'Sullivan, Loughborough UniversityThere is an ongoing and very heated debate between the unconditional supporters of private equity and their opponents. It’s not hard to see why. On the surface, these investors can often buy fragile companies, load on debt to fund strategic change and sack workers in a bid for efficiency. It can look ruthless, but the industry claims it simply works.The British Private Equity & Venture Capital Association (BVCA), preach what they deem to be the undeniable benefits of private equity. For example, the trade lobby group wrote in 2010 that:Private equity investment has been demonstrated to contribute significantly to companies’ growth. Private equity backed companies outperform leading UK businesses.In contrast, Ed Miliband in his speech at the 2011 annual Labour Party conference accused p…

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE – MODULE OUTLINE

This module is intended for advanced undergraduates in business and management, accounting, finance, or economics, and Master students. The module is delivered over a total of 24 hours of lectures with a flexible format including traditional lectures, class discussions of the end-of-chapter questions in Goergen (2018) and the multiple choice questions (see below).  AIMS OF THE MODULE This module aims to introduce you to recent developments in the theory and practice of corporate governance. The module adopts an international perspective by comparing the main corporate governance systems across the world.  LEARNING OUTCOMES OF THE MODULE On completion of the module you should be able to: Evaluate the current state of corporate governance in an international context; describe differences in corporate control and managerial power across the world; assess the potential conflicts of interests that may arise in various corporate governance environments; critically evaluate the effectivene…

Too Much of a Good Thing Is Not Necessarily Better

Starting with the 1992 Cadbury Report in the UK, the emphasis of most codes of best practice has been on ensuring a sufficient number of independent directors on corporate boards. Successive codes of best practice have then attempted to increase the number of independent directors even further. It is then no surprise that Spain's Iberdrola has won successive prizes for its corporate governance. Indeed, nine of Iberdrola's 14 members of its board of directors are independent directors with another three being external directors and the remaining two being executives.


So does having more independent directors on a board always mean better corporate governance? Well, not necessarily. First, the academic literature on the value consequences of board independence – with board independence typically measured by the percentage of independent directors on the board – has found little or no evidence of an effect of board independence on firm performance and value. Still, this literature…