The Economic Effects of Private Equity Buyouts

Steven J. Davis; John  Haltiwanger; Kyle  Handley; Ben  Lipsius; Josh   Lerner; Javier  Miranda

Working Paper | HBS Working Paper Series | 2019

The Economic Effects of Private Equity Buyouts

by Steven J. Davis, John Haltiwanger, Kyle Handley, Ben Lipsius, Josh Lerner and Javier Miranda

Abstract

We examine thousands of U.S. private equity (PE) buyouts from 1980 to 2013, a period that saw huge swings in credit market tightness and GDP growth. Our results show striking, systematic differences in the real-side effects of PE buyouts, depending on buyout type and external conditions. Employment at target firms shrinks 13% over two years in buyouts of publicly listed firms but expands 13% in buyouts of privately held firms, both relative to contemporaneous outcomes at control firms. Labor productivity rises 8% at targets over two years post buyout (again, relative to controls), with large gains for both public-to-private and private-to-private buyouts. Target productivity gains are larger yet for deals executed amidst tight credit conditions. A post-buyout widening of credit spreads or slowdown in GDP growth lowers employment growth at targets and sharply curtails productivity gains in public-to-private and divisional buyouts. Average earnings per worker fall by 1.7% at target firms after buyouts, largely erasing a pre-buyout wage premium relative to controls. Wage effects are also heterogeneous. In these and other respects, the economic effects of private equity vary greatly by buyout type and with external conditions.

Keywords: private equity buyouts; Impact; Private Equity; Economics; Employment; Performance Productivity; Wages;

Language: English

Format: Print

69 pages

SSRN Read Now

Citation:

Davis, Steven J., John Haltiwanger, Kyle Handley, Ben Lipsius, Josh Lerner, and Javier Miranda. "The Economic Effects of Private Equity Buyouts." Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 20-046, October 2019.

Impact investing has grown significantly over the past 15 years. From a niche investing segment with only $25 billion AUM in 2013 (WEF 2013), it experienced double-digit growth and developed into a market with an estimated $502 billion AUM (Mudaliapar and Dithrich 2019). Despite the growth and maturation of impact investing, gathering complete and accurate data on the characteristics of this industry continues to be a challenge. This paper describes the creation of a new dataset on both impact investors and the portfolio companies they fund, comprising 409 impact investors and 13,212 portfolio companies. We code impact investors according to established categories such as legal form, types of investments and return objectives. We then develop measures of the relative importance of social impact for each investor in an effort to add a new analytic categorization. We conclude by describing the distribution of investors and firms across these various categories.

Although late-stage venture capital (VC) activity did not change dramatically in the first two months after the COVID-19 pandemic reached the U.S., early-stage VC activity declined by 38%. The particular sensitivity of early-stage VC investment to market conditions—which we show to be common across recessions spanning four decades from 1976 to 2017—raises questions about the pro-cyclicality of VC and its implications for innovation, especially in light of the common narrative that VC is relatively insulated from public markets. We find that the implications for innovation are not benign: innovation conducted by VC-backed firms in recessions is less highly cited, less original, less general, and less closely related to fundamental science. These effects are more pronounced for startups financed by early-stage venture funds. Given the important role that VC plays in financing breakthrough innovations in the economy, our findings have implications for the broader discussion on the nature of innovation across business cycles.

Article | Journal of Financial Economics | May 2020

The Creation and Evolution of Entrepreneurial Public Markets

Shai Bernstein, Abhishek Dev and Josh Lerner

This paper explores the creation and evolution of new stock exchanges around the world geared towards entrepreneurial companies, known as second-tier exchanges. Using hand-collected novel data, we document the proliferation of these new stock exchanges that were created in a large number of countries, attracted a significant volume of global IPOs, were introduced fairly cyclically, and had lower listing requirements when compared to first-tier stock exchanges. We find that increases in demand for entrepreneurial capital—as proxied for by patenting, IPOs, and stock market valuations—led to a higher likelihood of the introduction of second-tier exchanges. We find no evidence that new second-tier exchanges diverted the existing flow of IPOs from established stock exchanges. Shareholder protection strongly predicted exchange success, even in countries with high levels of venture capital activity, patenting, and financial market development. Second-tier exchanges in countries with better shareholder protection allowed younger, less profitable, but faster-growing companies to raise more capital. These results highlight the importance of institutions in enabling the provision of entrepreneurial capital to young companies.

Keywords: entrepreneurial finance; stock exchanges; Entrepreneurship; Finance; Initial Public Offering; Capital;

Citation:

Bernstein, Shai, Abhishek Dev, and Josh Lerner. "The Creation and Evolution of Entrepreneurial Public Markets." Journal of Financial Economics 136, no. 2 (May 2020): 307–329. View Details

Cite View Details Find at Harvard

Faculty & Research

The Economic Effects of Private Equity Buyouts

Abstract

Citation:

About the Author

More from the Author