巴菲特：收購亨氏并非“私募股權(quán)”交易
|
????就在伯克希爾-哈撒韋公司（Berkshire Hathaway）宣布以280億美元收購亨氏集團(tuán)（H.J. Heinz Co.）（HNZ）不久之后，我曾認(rèn)為，沃倫?巴菲特對私募股權(quán)的成見必然是有所減輕了。畢竟，伯克希爾（BRKA）此次交易的合作方便是一家名為3G Capital的私募股權(quán)公司。 ????就這一問題，巴菲特在參加CNBC的Squawk Box節(jié)目時(shí)回答如下： ????“（與3G Capital收購亨氏）是合伙關(guān)系，而且是永久性的。我們不會出售我們的權(quán)益，因此這與私募股權(quán)那幫人先買后賣的做法是完全不同的。我們不先買后賣，這就不同于私募股權(quán)。而且我們并未對任何人收取任何費(fèi)用，沒有2%，沒有20%，一分錢費(fèi)用都沒有。我們也沒有從任何人的投資當(dāng)中提成。3G公司大部分的資金是其自有資金。該公司的運(yùn)營目標(biāo)也不是利用其他人的資金來賺錢，而是利用他們自己的資金。了解喬治?保羅?雷曼（Jorge Paulo Lemann）的人都知道，他有很多錢用于注資。因此這是一個(gè)合伙關(guān)系。我們注入了180億美元的股權(quán)，然后有120億美元是債務(wù)融資。并不像其他私募股權(quán)公司那樣需要籌集基金，最終退出或收取2%-20%的管理費(fèi)。試想一下，假若我們每年向這120億美元支付2%的管理費(fèi)，那么我們每年就會白白浪費(fèi)2.4億美元。我們不會這樣做。我們自己擁有資金。并沒有利用其他任何人的錢。無論從哪種形式來看，這都不是私募股權(quán)交易?！?/p> ????此次亨氏收購案并不是一個(gè)傳統(tǒng)的杠桿式收購，就這一點(diǎn)來說，巴菲特是對的。而且在此交易中，首要投資人（伯克希爾）計(jì)劃無限期地持有公司股份，而且也不會向投資者征收類似于私募股權(quán)投資的費(fèi)用。但是在3G公司問題上，他依然在遮掩，而且該公司的的確確是一個(gè)私募股權(quán)公司。 ????3G向美國證券交易委員會（SEC）提交的文件顯示，它不會對外界投資者收取2%的管理費(fèi)和20%的附股權(quán)益費(fèi)。不過該公司也有確鑿的退出投資史。例如，3G于2010年收購了漢堡王（Burger King Worldwide），然后在兩年后通過反向合并讓其重新上市，該交易為3G和其投資者帶來了14億美元的現(xiàn)金。3G公司在漢堡王的控股比例也從100%降至70%左右。 ????巴菲特似乎對所有這些避而不談，因?yàn)?，用他的話來說，3G的大部分資本金來自于其內(nèi)部高管（包括喬治?雷曼）。但是，這只是意味著，對比一般的私募股權(quán)基金（普通合伙人的注資比率從1%到10%不等），這家私募股權(quán)公司擁有更好的利益聯(lián)盟。然而合伙人注資率達(dá)10%的基金是否要比注資率為1%的公司少一些私募股權(quán)的性質(zhì)呢？當(dāng)然不是。 ????此外，為什么巴菲特認(rèn)為用于收購亨氏集團(tuán)的債務(wù)融資不屬于“私募股權(quán)”范疇呢？這一點(diǎn)我并不是很清楚。根據(jù)委托聲明書，該交易將涉及來自于伯克希爾和3G公司162.4億美元的股權(quán)收購，以及通過各種杠桿方式獲得的126億美元。如果刨除亨氏現(xiàn)有的50億美元負(fù)債，那么股權(quán)出資比例將達(dá)到70%左右。這幾乎是大型私募股權(quán)交易中典型股權(quán)出資規(guī)模的兩倍，但也并非沒有先例。實(shí)際上，有一些私募股權(quán)公司——例如New Mountain Capital——會在一些交易中徹底摒棄債務(wù)融資的手段。 ????最終，對于亨氏收購案“是否是某種形式的私募股權(quán)交易”，巴菲特的認(rèn)可與否并不重要，人們不應(yīng)忽視的是客觀事實(shí)。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)） |
????Shortly after Berkshire Hathaway announced plans to buy H.J. Heinz Co. (HNZ) for $28 billion, I suggested that Warren Buffett's well-documented disdain for private equity must have softened. After all, Berkshire (BRKA) was partnering on the deal with a private equity firm called 3G Capital. ????So yesterday the question was put to Buffett, during an appearance on CNBC's Squawk Box. Here was his reply: ????"It is a partnership. It's a permanent partnership. We will not sell our interest, so it has no connection with the private equity people that essentially buy and then resell businesses. So we are not in the buying and reselling of businesses which private equity is. We are not charging anybody a fee of any kind. There's no 2%, there's no 20%, there's no nothing. We are getting no cut on anybody else's investment. The people at 3G, most of that money is probably their own money. It is not primarily designed to get a return on other people's money, it's designed as a place to put their own money and if you know Jorge Paulo Lemann, he has plenty of money to put in. So it is a partnership. We put $18 billion of equity in and there's $12 billion of debt basically. It has no relationship to the kind of enterprises where people take funds, have to get the money out or getting two and 20. Imagine if we were getting 2% on our $12 billion. You know, we're investing $240 million a year just for staring at ketchup bottles. That is not what we're doing. We've got our own money up. We're getting no carry on anybody else's money. It is not a private equity deal in any way shape or form." ????Buffett is certainly correct that Heinz is not a traditional leveraged buyout, in that the lead investor (Berkshire) plans to hold the company indefinitely and doesn't charge private equity-type fees to its investors. But he's also obfuscating when it comes to 3G, which most certainly is a private equity firm. ????3G does charge its outside investors both a 2% management fee and 20% carried interest, according to documents filed with the SEC. It also has a demonstrated history of exiting investments. For example, 3G purchased Burger King Worldwide (BKW) in 2010 and then returned it to the public markets just two years later via a reverse merger that netted $1.4 billion in cash for 3G and its investors. The deal also reduced 3G's ownership stake in Burger King Worldwide from 100% to just around 70%. ????Buffett seems to brush all of this aside because, as he says, the majority of 3G's capital comes from its own managers (including Jorge Lemann). But that just means that its a private equity firm with a better alignment of interests than the typical PE fund, where GP contributions range from 1% to 10%. Are the 10% funds less "private equity" than the 1% funds? Of course not. ????Moreover, I'm not quite sure why Buffett thinks the debt being used to buy Heinz falls below "private equity" thresholds. According to a proxy statement, the deal will include $16.24 billion in equity from Berkshire and 3G, plus another $12.6 billion in various forms of leverage. If you pull out Heinz's existing $5 billion debt-load, you're talking about around a 70% equity contribution. That's nearly double the typical equity contribution for large-cap PE deal, but it's not unheard of. In fact, there are certain private equity firms -- such as New Mountain Capital -- that avoid debt entirely on some of their deals. ????Ultimately, it doesn't really matter whether or not Buffett believes Heinz is "a private equity deal in any way shape or form." But the objective reality of the situation should be noted for the record. |
最新文章