私募股权与杠杆神话

IF 0.4 Q4 BUSINESS, FINANCE Journal of Alternative Investments Pub Date : 2020-02-11 DOI:10.2139/ssrn.3540545
M. Czasonis, W. Kinlaw, M. Kritzman, D. Turkington
{"title":"私募股权与杠杆神话","authors":"M. Czasonis, W. Kinlaw, M. Kritzman, D. Turkington","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3540545","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Investors have traditionally relied on mean–variance analysis to determine a portfolio’s optimal asset mix, but they have struggled to incorporate private equity into this framework because they do not know how to estimate its risk. The observed volatility of private equity returns is unrealistically low because the recorded returns of private equity are based on appraised values, which are serially linked to each other. These linked appraisals, therefore, significantly dampen the observed volatility. As an alternative to observed volatility, some investors have argued that private equity volatility should be estimated as leveraged public equity volatility, because private equity companies are more highly levered than publicly traded companies. However, this approach yields unrealistically high values for private equity volatility, which invites the following question: Why isn’t the appropriately leveraged volatility of public companies a reasonable approximation of private equity volatility? This article offers an answer to this puzzle. TOPICS: Private equity, volatility measures Key Findings ▪ Why isn’t the appropriately leveraged volatility of public companies a reasonable approximation of private equity volatility? The authors look for clues in the public markets where they find no association between volatility and leverage, counter to what financial theory would suggest. ▪ The evidence suggests that the relationship between leverage and volatility is hopelessly obscured by a variety of confounding effects in both public and private markets. ▪ This article arrives at the counterintuitive conclusion that private equity volatility is similar to public equity volatility despite its higher leverage. The likely explanation is that privately held companies are inherently less risky and thus able to bear greater leverage.","PeriodicalId":45142,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Alternative Investments","volume":"23 1","pages":"21 - 31"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Private Equity and the Leverage Myth\",\"authors\":\"M. Czasonis, W. Kinlaw, M. Kritzman, D. Turkington\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3540545\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Investors have traditionally relied on mean–variance analysis to determine a portfolio’s optimal asset mix, but they have struggled to incorporate private equity into this framework because they do not know how to estimate its risk. The observed volatility of private equity returns is unrealistically low because the recorded returns of private equity are based on appraised values, which are serially linked to each other. These linked appraisals, therefore, significantly dampen the observed volatility. As an alternative to observed volatility, some investors have argued that private equity volatility should be estimated as leveraged public equity volatility, because private equity companies are more highly levered than publicly traded companies. However, this approach yields unrealistically high values for private equity volatility, which invites the following question: Why isn’t the appropriately leveraged volatility of public companies a reasonable approximation of private equity volatility? This article offers an answer to this puzzle. TOPICS: Private equity, volatility measures Key Findings ▪ Why isn’t the appropriately leveraged volatility of public companies a reasonable approximation of private equity volatility? The authors look for clues in the public markets where they find no association between volatility and leverage, counter to what financial theory would suggest. ▪ The evidence suggests that the relationship between leverage and volatility is hopelessly obscured by a variety of confounding effects in both public and private markets. ▪ This article arrives at the counterintuitive conclusion that private equity volatility is similar to public equity volatility despite its higher leverage. The likely explanation is that privately held companies are inherently less risky and thus able to bear greater leverage.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45142,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Alternative Investments\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"21 - 31\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-02-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Alternative Investments\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3540545\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Alternative Investments","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3540545","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

投资者传统上依靠均值-方差分析来确定投资组合的最佳资产组合,但他们很难将私募股权纳入这一框架,因为他们不知道如何估计其风险。观察到的私募股权回报的波动性低得不切实际,因为私募股权的记录回报是基于相互串联的评估价值。因此,这些关联评估显著抑制了观察到的波动性。作为观察到的波动性的替代方案,一些投资者认为,私募股权的波动性应该估计为杠杆式的公共股权波动性,因为私募股权公司比上市公司的杠杆率更高。然而,这种方法为私募股权波动率带来了不切实际的高值,这引发了以下问题:为什么上市公司的适当杠杆波动率不是私募股权波动性的合理近似值?这篇文章为这个难题提供了答案。主题:私募股权、波动性指标关键发现▪ 为什么上市公司的适当杠杆波动率不是私募股权波动率的合理近似值?作者在公开市场中寻找线索,在那里他们发现波动性和杠杆率之间没有关联,这与金融理论的建议相反。▪ 有证据表明,杠杆和波动之间的关系被公共和私人市场中的各种混淆效应所掩盖。▪ 这篇文章得出了一个违反直觉的结论,即尽管私募股权的杠杆率较高,但其波动性与公共股权的波动性相似。可能的解释是,私营公司本质上风险较小,因此能够承担更大的杠杆。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Private Equity and the Leverage Myth
Investors have traditionally relied on mean–variance analysis to determine a portfolio’s optimal asset mix, but they have struggled to incorporate private equity into this framework because they do not know how to estimate its risk. The observed volatility of private equity returns is unrealistically low because the recorded returns of private equity are based on appraised values, which are serially linked to each other. These linked appraisals, therefore, significantly dampen the observed volatility. As an alternative to observed volatility, some investors have argued that private equity volatility should be estimated as leveraged public equity volatility, because private equity companies are more highly levered than publicly traded companies. However, this approach yields unrealistically high values for private equity volatility, which invites the following question: Why isn’t the appropriately leveraged volatility of public companies a reasonable approximation of private equity volatility? This article offers an answer to this puzzle. TOPICS: Private equity, volatility measures Key Findings ▪ Why isn’t the appropriately leveraged volatility of public companies a reasonable approximation of private equity volatility? The authors look for clues in the public markets where they find no association between volatility and leverage, counter to what financial theory would suggest. ▪ The evidence suggests that the relationship between leverage and volatility is hopelessly obscured by a variety of confounding effects in both public and private markets. ▪ This article arrives at the counterintuitive conclusion that private equity volatility is similar to public equity volatility despite its higher leverage. The likely explanation is that privately held companies are inherently less risky and thus able to bear greater leverage.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: The Journal of Alternative Investments (JAI) provides you with cutting-edge research and expert analysis on managing investments in hedge funds, private equity, distressed debt, commodities and futures, energy, funds of funds, and other nontraditional assets. JAI is the official publication of the Chartered Alternative Investment Analyst Association (CAIA®). JAI provides you with challenging ideas and practical tools to: •Profit from the growth of hedge funds and alternatives •Determine the optimal mix of traditional and alternative investments •Measure and track portfolio performance •Manage your alternative investment portfolio with proven risk management practices
期刊最新文献
Commodity Futures and Trend Inflation Inflation Hedging Potential of Infrastructure Sector and Sub-Sector Returns—Evidence from Emerging Markets Listed Real Estate in a Multi-Asset World: Does It Add Value? Too Much of A Good Thing? Drawbacks of Stressing Measurement of Impact Investing Editor’s Letter
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1