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

Corporate Governance. A Global Perspective

Philosophy of the Book Existing textbooks on corporate governance tend to have a strong focus on UK and/or US corporate governance. This focus is somewhat surprising as the UK and US corporate governance systems have features which clearly set them apart from pretty much the rest of the world. Indeed, the typical British and American stock-market listed firm is widely held (held by many shareholders) and control therefore lies with the management rather than the shareholders. In contrast, most stock-exchange listed firms from the rest of the world have a large shareholder whose control is substantial enough to have a significant influence over the firm’s affairs. Given these marked differences in ownership and control, corporate governance issues emerging in non-UK and non-US firms tend to be very different from those that may affect British and American companies. Hence, it is important for a textbook to bear in mind the diversity of ownership and control a

DMGT Plc - Not your typical UK Plc

I haven't posted any of these corporate governance case studies for a while. As the updated version of my corporate governance textbook is about to be published on 11 March 2018, I thought it was a good time to investigate the corporate governance of another interesting company. The company I have chosen is the Daily Mail and General Trust Plc ( DMGT Plc ), a UK company. This is a media company which owns a.o. the tabloid The Daily Mail  and the free newspaper Metro . It also has a holding in Euromoney Institutional Plc and Zoopla . An example of a Daily Mail  front page An example of a Metro  front page I chose DMGT Plc as it is  not  your run-of-the-mill UK stock-market listed Plc. The typical example of a UK exchange-listed corporation would be a Plc with dispersed ownership and weak control (see Section 3.3 of my textbook  International Corporate Governance   or its updated version  Corporate Governance. A Global Perspective ). This is what I call combination A