header header
Las Vegas Business Press
Monday, February 8, 2010
Congress threatens to blow the froth off private equity

By Ian Mylchreest
March 10, 2007

The kings of private equity are facing a big political challenge, reports the New York Times. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, is threatening that they will have to pay regular income tax, and not capital gains tax, on the fees they pay themselves out of their deals.

The difference is a tax rate of 15 percent versus the 35 percent most of us pay on money we earn. How so the PE boys get away with it? The fees are calculated as capital gains despite the fact that most deals are structured so that the actual dealmaking firms are mostly playing with other people’s money. Even the biggest deals like Harrah’s will get the bulk of the funds from investment banks, not the equity partners.

So, should the fees they charge be considered capital gains or income? If you or I charge for our services, it’s income and that’s what it should be for the private equity people too. Still there’s plenty of angst about all this but the private equity outfits only have themselves to blame.

They think it’s a PR problem but reaping huge rewards, manipulating the tax code and pretending that they’re also doing a public service is too much for even the cleverest public relations expert to sell. It’s that combination that has gotten them into trouble. So the Private Equity Council will be facing a big challenge in Washington: There are Republicans who want to increase their taxes. They must have worked very hard to create that kind of a problem.





3 Responses to “Congress threatens to blow the froth off private equity”

The OPM that the PE firms deal with most of the time is that of the limited partners in their funds. I have never heard of an investment bank investing in a PE fund other than its own. Why invest in a fund when you can run your own and get fees yourself, instead of having to pay them. The bank’s PE funds then often co-invest with other funds but they are equals at the negotiating table, they are not passive limited partners. Investment banks do sometimes LEND to funds via equity bridges which involve the banks agreeing to take an equity stake in the deal, only to sell it of ASAP to someone else who wants to invest in the deal. As An example see the TXU deal, which has announced a 1 billion dollar bridge. No bridge has been announced in the Harrah’s deal as of yet.


Written by Redneck on March 11, 2007 at 7:07 pm

Redneck:

I think we’re on the same page on this one. I’m not saying that banks invest in other funds but the other Wall Street banks will supply a lot of the funds for any deal.
In the HCA deal, three private-equity firms — Bain, Kohlberg Kravis and Merrill Lynch’s buyout unit — and the Frist family only invested $5.5 billion in cash. The rest of the $31 billion was provided by other lenders. And something similar will happen in the Harrah’s deal.
The bridge - temporary financing to get others into the deal - is a new development with the TXU buyout. But that’s just more OPM that’s shifting the risk from the buyers to the bank’s providing the bridge financing.
A federal lawsuit in New York alleges that this debt financing has become a means to stop potential buyers from competing. Once a buyout agreement is in place, investment banks do not try to beat the original bid because they know they will be cut into the deal. We reported on the antitrust suit here:
http://www.lvbusinesspress.com/articles/2006/11/27/news/iq_10911212.txt
As Matt Ward explained it: “The company not involved in the purchase ‘who has not joined the ‘club’ (a so-called “loser”) is often given a piece of the deal in the form of equity in the now private company at a subsequent time by the winning group,’ according to the federal complaint.”


Even if Congress does enact some sort of tax change, PE firms will just re-engineer how they are compensated.



Comments are closed.