HGM Profile picture
Jan 28 11 tweets 2 min read Read on X
Private equity firms claim they create value through "operational excellence."
Better management. Strategic repositioning. Margin enhancement.
Academic research says: 80% of PE returns come from leverage and multiple arbitrage.
Only 20% from actual operations.
Thread🧵
When you strip away the marketing, PE's value creation formula is simple:
40% = financial engineering (leverage)
30% = multiple expansion (buying at 10x, selling at 14x)
10% = riding sector/market beta
20% = genuine operational improvements
That 20% "operational improvement"?
It's usually low-hanging fruit that competent public company management could have implemented anyway:
Cost cutting
Supplier consolidation
Basic ERP systems
Not exactly rocket science.
A 2023 study analyzed 8,000 buyouts over 36 years.
Conclusion: The vast majority of value creation is financial engineering, not operational genius.
When PE does outperform, it's because they bought small, unleveraged companies and added debt.
The uncomfortable truth about PE "operational improvements" + what happens after PE firms exit in my newsletter: []
The data will make you rethink every PE pitch deck you've ever seen.open.substack.com/pub/hacheimsch…
Here's the dirty secret:
Many PE "operational improvements" come at the expense of long-term sustainability.
PE-owned companies systematically underinvest in:
R&D
Maintenance capex
Employee development
They optimize for EBITDA to maximize exit multiples.
What happens after PE exits?
A 2022 study tracked companies 5 years post-exit:
60% underperformed industry benchmarks in revenue growth
45% had declining margins
The value extraction was front-loaded. The deterioration came after the PE firm sold out.
Think about the incentive structure:
PE firms hold companies 4-6 years on average.
Why invest in initiatives with 7-10 year payoffs?
Why maintain equipment that won't break down until after you've exited?
Short-term optimization ≠ long-term value creation.
The best evidence PE isn't creating operational value?
Look at what they pay portfolio company CEOs.
If PE firms were truly adding value through board expertise and strategic guidance, why do they need to pay CEOs 2-3x public company comp to hit targets?
PE's operational value creation story is marketing genius.
It lets them charge 2-and-20 for what's essentially a levered small-cap value strategy.
Next time a GP pitches "operational excellence," ask them to quantify it vs. leverage and multiple expansion.
Watch them squirm.
@threadreaderapp unroll

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with HGM

HGM Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @HacGlobalMedia

Feb 6
I'm going to make a falsifiable prediction that will either make me look brilliant or destroy my credibility:
The traditional 60/40 portfolio will experience a 25%+ drawdown before the end of 2027.
Here's my exact reasoning: 🧵
First, what counts as "traditional 60/40"?
60% U.S. stocks (S&P 500 or similar)
40% U.S. investment-grade bonds (10yr+ duration)
Rebalanced quarterly
This is the benchmark for $18 trillion in assets.
The setup is already in place:
Current environment:
S&P at ~6,000 (elevated valuations)
10-year yields at 4.5%
Stock-bond correlation at +0.33
Inflation running 3%+ (above target)
Fiscal deficits $1T+ annually
We're one catalyst away from crisis.
Read 11 tweets
Feb 5
First, what counts as "traditional 60/40"?
60% U.S. stocks (S&P 500 or similar)
40% U.S. investment-grade bonds (10yr+ duration)
Rebalanced quarterly
This is the benchmark for $18 trillion in assets.
The setup is already in place:
Current environment:
S&P at ~6,000 (elevated valuations)
10-year yields at 4.5%
Stock-bond correlation at +0.33
Inflation running 3%+ (above target)
Fiscal deficits $1T+ annually
We're one catalyst away from crisis.
Catalyst scenario 1: The fiscal crisis
Treasury yields spike above 6% as buyers strike.
Stocks fall 20%+ (valuation compression + growth fears)
Bonds fall 15%+ (yield spike = price collapse)
Total portfolio drawdown: 28%
Probability: 35%
Read 10 tweets
Feb 2
The U.S. government needs to sell $2 trillion in bonds this year.
But here's the problem: the three biggest buyers (Fed, China, Japan) are all SELLING.
This creates a doom loop that will destroy portfolio diversification.
Let me explain: 🧵
Quick history: Who traditionally buys U.S. Treasuries?
Federal Reserve (money printing)
Foreign central banks (China, Japan)
Domestic buyers (banks, pensions, you)
This trio absorbed all government debt for decades.
Then 2022 happened.
The Fed reversed: Went from BUYING $120B/month to SELLING.
They've reduced holdings by $1.7 trillion since 2022.
That's a $2+ trillion annual swing in demand.
Someone else has to fill that gap.
Read 11 tweets
Feb 1
In 2022, I watched $18 trillion in "safe, diversified" portfolios lose 16% in a single year.
The math that promised this couldn't happen?
It was taught in every finance class for 70 years.
And it just stopped working.
Here's what broke: 🧵
Modern Portfolio Theory (1952) proved mathematically that 60% stocks + 40% bonds = optimal diversification.
When stocks fall, bonds rise. Perfect balance.
It worked flawlessly through 2008, 2000, 1987.
Until it didn't.
2022: S&P 500 down 18%
Also 2022: Bonds down 13%
Both crashed together.
Financial advisors called it "a once-in-a-century anomaly."
But I pulled 100 years of data.
This isn't an anomaly. It's a reversion.
Read 11 tweets
Jan 31
I'm making 3 falsifiable predictions about private equity's collapse.
These can be proven right or wrong.
If I'm wrong in 2027, roast me mercilessly.
If I'm right, remember who told you.
Let's go 🧵
PREDICTION #1:
By December 2027, at least 3 PE firms currently in the top 20 by AUM will have STOPPED raising new flagship buyout funds.
Confidence: 75%
They'll pivot to credit or evergreen funds rather than admit their flagship product is obsolete.
Why this will happen:
Poor 2020-2021 vintage performance (invested at peak multiples)
LP allocation reductions (denominator effect normalizing)
Competition from credit/infrastructure
= Impossible fundraising environment for median managers
Read 11 tweets
Jan 30
If you're a pension fund, endowment, or family office with 25%+ in private equity:
You're about to learn an expensive lesson.
But there's still time to fix this.
Here's your playbook for the PE reckoning 🧵
Step 2: Cut bottom-quartile and median managers.
This is a hits-driven business where top-quartile funds capture almost all outperformance.
If you can't consistently access tier-1 managers, you're better off in liquid markets.
The "diversification" argument is debunked.
Step 3: Renegotiate fees or walk away.
2-and-20 made sense when PE delivered 15%+ net returns.
At 6-8% net, it's legalized theft.
Push for:
1-and-10 with higher hurdles
Fees on deployed (not committed) capital
Preferential terms for large commitments
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(