is an investment and financial services company specialising in Investment Banking, Corporate Advisory and Share Trading services for Australian corporate and private clients, and overseas corporate clients.

  • Address: Level 11, Plaza Building Australia Square, 95 Pitt Street, Sydney, NSW 2000 Australia
  • Phone: +61 2 9375 0100
  • Email: Contact Us

News and discussions from Novus Capital


Seven Ways to tell whether a Private Equity backed IPO should be avoided

Gavan Farley - Thursday, September 01, 2016
Mark Humphery-Jenner, UNSW Australia

Private equity-backed IPOs (Initial Public Offerings) have come under significant scrutiny following several high-profile failures: but are these representative or merely anomalous blights on an otherwise well-performing sector?

Last week, the proposed private-equity backed listing of Guvera music was blocked by the ASX following concerns raised by the Australian Shareholders Association over its business model and valuation based on earnings.

Guvera were looking to raise $100 million in an IPO that valued the business at more than $1.3 billion, despite the fact that it lost $81 million last financial year on revenue of just $1.2 million. The move by the ASX follows Guvera re-issuing its prospectus after scrutiny from the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC).

Another notorious PE-backed IPO was the 2012 float of Dick Smith, backed by Anchorage Capital. It ended in significant losses for initial investors and was dubbed by Forager Funds Management analyst Matt Ryan as “one of the great heists of all time”.

The high-profile the IPO of Myer, backed by TPG Capital, also performed poorly: Myer listed at $4.10 per share, fell to $3.75 per share on the first day of trade, and fell to $1.20 per share by the end of 2015.

However, several other PE-backed IPOs have performed strongly between 2013 and 2015, including Aconex, Ooh! Media and Mantra group. This raises the question of whether the average PE-backed IPO underperformance and what factors might investors look out for.

Do PE-backed IPOs necessarily underperform?

So should investors make a rule to avoid PE-backed IPOs in general? In fact, there is little evidence that PE-backed or VC-backed IPOs underperform for investors. In Australia, from 1994 to 2005, the difference between VC/PE backed IPOs and other IPOs is not statistically significant.

The Australian Venture Capital Association Limited (AVCAL) in conjunction with Rothschild reports that while non-PE backed IPOs did perform better in 2015 than did PE backed ones, PE-backed IPOs outperformed from 2013-2015. AVCAL argues that “PE-backed IPOs strongly outperform non-PE backed IPOs after the first year of listing”, with PE-backed IPOs outperforming non-PE backed IPOs by 23% during that one year after listing.

Similarly, Deloitte argues that “the performance of private equity backed listings suggests results are far more positive than market sentiment reflects” and that $1 invested in each PE-backed IPO since the beginning of 2013 would yield an average return of 48% by the end of 2015.

Using the set of ASX listings for at least A$100 million reported by AVCAL (and their classification of whether a firm is PE-backed), we can look at the average value of $1 invested in each of the PE-backed IPOs versus $1 invested in each of the non-PE backed IPOs.

When doing so, to avoid the possibility of outlying PE-backed firms experiencing super-positive returns and this biasing the results, the daily return is winsorized (limiting of extreme values) and any return over 100% is excluded (this adjustment actually biases in favor of the non-PE backed IPOs).

The below graph, which is consistent with that produced in the AVCAL report, demonstrates that PE-backed IPOs outperform their non-PE backed counterparts. A similar trend appears over longer two-year and three-year time horizons (though, more recent IPOs will not yet have had the opportunity to accrue such a lengthy return history).

Average value of $1 invested after an IPO in PE-backed and non-PE backed companies in the sample.

The findings its wrong to suggest PE-backed IPOs do not underperform on average - while there are some instances of underperformance, the average PE-backed IPO actually performs strongly.

Seven factors investors should consider

This suggests that PE-backed IPOs do not necessarily underperform. But clearly, not all PE-backed IPOs will outperform either. So here are seven factors associated with post-IPO performance investors should look for:

  1. Length of investment. The length of the PE-fund’s involvement with the company will help to indicate if the PE fund actually contributed to the company. In several poorly performing PE-backed IPOs (such as Myer and Dick Smith) the PE fund had invested for only one to two years. When at least part of that time is also spent preparing the company for listing, this would likely be insufficient time to fully transform the company. Clearly, the time required to improve the company will depend on its complexity, but a typical situation would often call for several years of PE-investment prior to IPO.

  2. Prior litigations. Companies backed by VC and PE funds that have been sued recently (or for whom their portfolio companies have been sued) warrant further scrutiny. Funds that have been sued have difficulty attracting future funding and if investors are reticent to invest in the fund itself, it could imply beliefs about how the fund might manage companies it lists on the market.

  3. The backer’s portfolio size. VC and PE funds that are larger and invest in more portfolio companies tend to perform worse because they spread themselves too thinly across portfolio companies, suggesting that their portfolio companies my perform worse.

  4. Distance between the company and its backers. The geographic distance between the PE (or VC) fund and the portfolio company could be a concern. For example, an overseas based fund might face greater barriers to a successful outcome.

  5. Number of backers. A company with more interested pre-IPO investors is likely to have greater growth prospects and has more scope for the disparate investors to pool their expertise to aid the company. However, there are diminishing returns to having more backers, with each additional supporter likely to have less scope to incrementally benefit the company.

  6. Geographic diversification of the backers. To an extent, a backer who has supported more companies in multiple industries and multiple regions can have gained a breadth of experience and connections with which to impart the portfolio company. There are limits, with excess diversification potentially causing the fund to spread its attention too widely. The fund’s record would help to indicate whether such diversification has benefited the fund’s investments previously.

  7. PE fund’s continued involvement in the company. It is generally a positive signal if the PE fund that continues involvement in the form of board positions or ownership stakes (exceeding the minimum time, or amount, legally required).

Essentially, while investors should always examine each IPO on its merits, there is no reason to avoid PE-backed IPOs per se.

The Conversation

Mark Humphery-Jenner, Associate Professor of Finance, UNSW Australia

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.


IPO Report 2016

Gavan Farley - Friday, June 17, 2016


In spite of a shaky start to 2016 for Australian and global markets, local IPOs are generally bucking the trend. 2015 saw:

  • 97 ASX IPO listings (up 33% over 2014), with a market capitalisation of $17.6 billion and capital raised in excess of $8.6 billion;
  • Technology and financial services were the dominant sectors and will continue to drive IPO activity over the next 12-18 months;
  • IPO performance continues to beat market expectation with average gains of 18% weighted by market capitalisation; and
  • Extended gains for 2014 listings, which closed the year 37% above their 2014 listing price.

Buoyed by a year of record IPOs and solid performance in 2014, the ASX finished 2015 with IPO performance firmly in positive territory, although the index itself was weighed down by energy and resources stocks. Weighted performance for the year's listings averaged 18.2% at the end of 2015 through the 97 new entrants to the ASX, with total market capitalisation of $17.6bn.



Asia Pacific Equity Offerings Outpace Prior Year

Gavan Farley - Wednesday, August 12, 2015

Asia-Pacific equity offerings in H1 outpace prior-year period

The amount raised from both common and preferred equity offerings from Asia-Pacific banks increased in the first half compared to the first half of 2014.

In the first half, common equity offerings from SNL-covered Asia-Pacific banks generated US$16.05 billion, an increase of nearly 26.5% from 2014's first-half total common equity raised of US$12.70 billion.

The region's banks raised US$14.20 billion via preferred equity issuances in the first half, compared to US$347.1 million during the 2014 first half. It should be noted, however, that China, which has dominated preferred equity offerings so far in 2015, has only allowed for the issuance of preferred shares since April 2014. In total for 2014, Asia-Pacific banks raised US$29.53 billion through preferred equity issuances.

Banks headquartered in India saw the most common equity offerings in the first half with 15 offerings, followed by Australia and Taiwan with five and four offerings, respectively. Two countries saw banks issue common equity amounting to over 30% of total common equity offerings in the region. Australia led the way with banks issuing US$5.20 billion, or 32.42% of total common equity offerings, while China came in right behind with US$5.10 billion, accounting for 31.78% of all common equity offerings.

China-based CITIC Securities Co. Ltd.'s US$3.50 billion follow-on offering, which was completed June 23, was the largest common equity offering in the first half. The bank said proceeds from the offering will be used to supplement the capital base of the company to help develop its flow-based and cross-border business, build its platform and replenish working capital.

National Australia Bank Ltd.'s rights offering announced May 7, which was broken up into a retail component and a institutional investor component, came in as the second- and third-largest common equity offerings in the first half, respectively. The institutional component raised US$2.12 billion and was completed May 11. The retail component, which completed June 1, raised US$2.17 billion. The bank said proceeds from the offerings will be used to support the demerger of its U.K. banking units.