BENCHMARKING - PitchBookfiles.pitchbook.com/pdf/PitchBook_4Q_2015_PE_VC_Benchmarking... · RR Donnelley is the sponsor of the PitchBook 4Q 2015 Global PE & VC Benchmarking & Fund

ww

RECEN T VC V IN TAGE S SEE CON T INUED P O T EN T IAL

GL OBAL PE CASH F L OWS REMAIN MAS SIVE

VC I T INVE S T MEN T:PME CASE S T UDY

6

11

13

SPONSORED BY

BENCHMARKING+ F UND P ERF ORM A NCE

4Q 2015 REPORT

http://www.rrdonnelley.com/venue/

http://www.rrdonnelley.com/

http://www.rrdonnelley.com/venue/

CONTENTSIntroduction

PE & VC KS PME Benchmarks

KS PME Case Study: IT

Global IRR by Fund Type

Global Quartiles & Benchmarks

Global PE IRRs

Global PE Fund Return Multiples

Global PE Fund Cash Flows

Global VC IRRs

Global VC Fund Return Multiples

Global VC Fund Cash Flows

Select Top Funds by IRR

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15 COPYRIGHT © 2015 by PitchBook Data, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means—graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, and information storage and retrieval systems—without the express written permission of PitchBook Data, Inc. Contents are based on information from sources believed to be reliable, but accuracy and completeness cannot be guaranteed. Nothing herein should be construed as any past, current or future recommendation to buy or sell any security or an offer to sell, or a solicitation of an offer to buy any security. This material does not purport to contain all of the information that a prospective investor may wish to consider and is not to be relied upon as such or used in substitution for the exercise of independent judgment.

CREDITS & CONTACTPitchBook Data, Inc.

JOHN GABBERT Founder, CEO

ADLEY BOWDEN Vice President, Market

Development & Analysis

Content, Design, Editing & DataGARRETT BLACK Editor

ANDY WHITE Analysis Manager

DANIEL COOK Senior Data Analyst

NIZAR TARHUNI Analyst

BRIAN LEE Data Analyst

JENNIFER SAM Senior Graphic Designer

JESS CHAIDEZ Graphic Designer

Contact PitchBookwww.pitchbook.com

RESEARCH

[email protected]

EDITORIAL

[email protected]

SALES

[email protected]

3 PITCHBOOK 4Q 2015 GLOBAL PE & VC

BENCHMARKING & FUND PERFORMANCE REPORT

http://pitchbook.com/

mailto:[email protected]



RR Donnelley is the world’s largest integrated communications company. The company works collaboratively with more than 60,000 customers worldwide to develop custom communications solutions that reduce costs, drive top-line growth, enhance ROI and increase compliance. Drawing on a range of proprietary and commercially available digital and conventional technologies deployed across four continents, the company employs a suite

of leading Internet based capabilities and other resources to provide pre-media, printing, logistics and business process outsourcing services to clients in virtually every private and public sector. Our Corporate Responsibility Report is available at www.rrdonnelley.com.

Our Venue® secure online workspace provides a powerful feature-set and an intuitive design that allows you to easily organize, manage, share and track all of your sensitive information. Venue® data rooms provide complete control, allowing you to manage who has access to your data room, which documents they see, and how they can interact with those documents.

Venue® data rooms are backed by RR Donnelley, a $10.5 billion corporation with more than 500 locations and nearly 60,000 employees worldwide. RR Donnelley’s total revenues are larger than all other virtual data room providers combined. Whether you’re conducting due diligence for a merger, raising capital, or developing a document repository, a Venue® virtual data room is the ideal virtual workspace for managing critical information.

RR Donnelley is the sponsor of the PitchBook 4Q 2015 Global PE & VC Benchmarking & Fund Performance Report. All information contained in this publication is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal, accounting, tax, or other professional advice of any kind, on any subject matter. RR Donnelley expressly disclaims all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any or all the content herein.

IntroductionAssessing the performance of private equity and venture capital funds is crucial and challenging

in equal measure. The timeline of performance reporting is just one of the key considerations; as fund performance data trails overall investment activity statistics by a matter of months, accurately analyzing those separate datasets to produce a comprehensive overview of how fund results have shaped and will continue to shape investors’ actions can be difficult. But not overly difficult, and, furthermore, armed with not only broad dealmaking numbers but also fund performance figures, clearer and more comprehensive insights into the current private investment landscape are achievable. As an illustration, the primary storyline of the past few months has been a growing incidence of investor caution in both private and public markets, with PE fund managers dialing back activity somewhat in light of persistently high valuations and competition for quality targets. For venture investors, the existence of a true tech bubble remains uncertain, but at the very least, it’s

clear that quite a few vaunted valuations garnered by late-stage startups may have been overly exuberant. Yet, looking at the most recent influx of PE and VC fund performance data, it’s clear that limited partners still have plenty of reasons to recommit to their investors. Last year saw venture fund managers worldwide return no less than $57 billion to their backers, while 1Q 2015 posted an immense $19.7 billion. Global PE cash flows

were comparably mammoth, with a staggering $467.8 billion distributed back to LPs in 2014 and $168.2 billion through the end of March. The M&A boom and surging public markets that helped produce those massive sums may have shifted since, but in light of such success, PE and VC firms that have demonstrated success will likely

continue to enjoy commitments on the part of their LPs, at least for some time. We hope the information contained in this report proves insightful and acts as a starting point in your efforts to benchmark the performance of PE, VC and other asset classes. If you have any questions, comments or suggestions, please contact us at [email protected].

Strong cash flows for now signal continued LP

investment, even as caution grows.




http://www.rrdonnelley.com/

IRR and cash multiples have been the gold standard of benchmarking for decades, but one of their main drawbacks is that they cannot be directly compared to indices that are used in mainstream asset classes. Public-market equivalent benchmarks (PMEs) effectively address this problem, making it possible to directly compare alternative asset fund performance to the performance of indexed asset classes by using fund-level cash flows.

As there are multiple ways to calculate a PME, PitchBook has employed the Kaplan-Schoar PME method.

Kaplan-Schoar (KS) Method:

A white paper detailing the calculations and methodology behind the PME benchmarks can be found at pitchbook.com. PitchBook News & Analysis also contains several articles with PME benchmarks and analysis. These can be read here.

To find out how the PME benchmarks can be utilized to gauge performance of a specific fund or your fund portfolio, please contact us at [email protected].

KS PME Benchmarks

PE KS PME BENCHMARK BY VINTAGE

VC KS PME BENCHMARK BY VINTAGE

Source: PitchBook

The KS PME charts on this page show the relative performance for a particular vintage of PE or VC funds against the specified index since the funds’ inception. Pre-2006 vintage PE funds outperformed the public markets consistently between 2002 and 2005, while VC funds across most vintages show overall underperformance. The stock market’s surge over the last couple of years has definitely cut into PME values for more recent vintages on the PE side in particular; though, in the event of a market downturn, it’s possible recent PE and VC fund vintages will begin to swing up if they generate returns better than stocks.

When using a KS PME, a value greater than 1.0 indicates outperformance of the public index (net of all fees). For example, the 1.12 value for 2005 vintage PE funds means investors in a typical vehicle from that year are 12% better off having invested in PE than if they had invested in public equities over the same period.

PME calculated using Russell 3000® Index

PME calculated using Russell 2000® Growth Index

When using a KS PME, a value less than 1.0 indicates underperformance of the public index (net of all fees). For example, the 0.85 value for 2006 vintage VC funds means the value of an individual’s investments in a typical vehicle from that year would be 85% the value of what it would be if it were instead invested in the public markets. Note: The axes on both charts above are scaled differently, with the area below 1.0 much larger on the VC chart than the PE chart.

PMEKS—TVPI, T =S t=0

distribution

I t

T tNAVTIT

( )+

AN INTRODUCTION TO PME BENCHMARKS

Source: PitchBook

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

S t=0T contribution

I t

t( )




http://pitchbook.com/news/search?tags=public-market-equivalents

mailto:research%40pitchbook.com?subject=PME%20Benchmarks

Source: PitchBook

Source: PitchBook

KS PME Case Study: ITGLOBAL IT-FOCUSED VC FUND KS PME BENCHMARK BY VINTAGE

GLOBAL AVERAGE IT-FOCUSED VC FUND RETURN MULTIPLES BY VINTAGE

PME calculated using Russell 2000 Growth® Index

Given the current heightened valuations of many VC-backed

technology companies, we decided to focus on the IT space for this report’s KS PME case study. Our KS PME benchmark formula allows us to directly compare alternative asset fund performance to the broader public market using fund-level cash flows. Older vintage IT-focused vehicles have consistently underperformed the Russell 2000® Growth Index before shifting gears in 2008. We witnessed the most significant underperformance in 2004 vintage pools, which have underperformed by nearly 60% relative to public equivalents. Prior to the financial crisis, public equities had moved considerably higher in the years following 2004. With this steady rise in values, VC investors may have acquired many stakes in companies unable to weather the recession, and thus the fund returns at that vintage have severely underperformed their benchmark.

While 2007 saw flat performance between IT-focused VC returns and their public equivalents, 2008 vintages have experienced success, outperforming their benchmark by 22%, only second to the near-25% outperformance 2010 vintages displayed. As 2008 came directly in the midst of the last global recession, assets were acquired during distressed states, allowing for significant upside gains as the economy and markets subsequently recovered. Further, in 2010, many VCs were able to fund companies such as Palantir Technologies or Twitter (NYSE: TWTR) that were able to achieve considerable growth amid that recovery following financings at more reasonable valuations, as opposed to today’s environment.

Russell Investments is the source and owner of the Russell Index data contained or reflected in this material and all trademarks and copyrights related thereto. Russell Investments is not responsible for the formatting or configuration of this

material or for any inaccuracy in PitchBook Data, Inc.’s presentation thereof. For more information on Russell Investments and Russell Indexes, visit www.russell.com.

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120.

97x

0.81

x

0.43

x

0.54

x

0.51

x

0.66

x

0.41

x

0.24

x

0.45

x

0.11

x

0.32

x

0.68

x 0.91

x

0.85

x 1.05

x

1.26

x

1.23

x

1.57

x

1.23

x

1.31

x1.08x 1.13x1.11x

1.45x 1.36x

1.71x 1.67x1.47x

2.03x

1.30x1.37x

0.0x

0.5x

1.0x

1.5x

2.0x

2.5x

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Average of DPI Average of RVPI Average of TVPI



http://russell.com/

IRR by Fund TypeGLOBAL MEDIAN IRR BY FUND TYPE AND VINTAGE YEAR

GLOBAL HORIZON IRR BY FUND TYPE

Source: PitchBook

Source: PitchBook

Vintage Year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

PE 21.5% 14.8% 14.1% 11.6% 7.9% 7.3% 9.3% 10.8% 13.0% 9.1% 11.7% 9.8%

VC 3.1% 3.8% 3.2% 0.3% 4.8% 5.3% 7.5% 10.9% 12.1% 21.1% 9.5% 10.1%

Debt 10.4% 17.9% 6.8% 10.6% 5.7% 5.0% 8.2% 12.2% 12.4% 10.2% 11.7% 12.0%

FoF 9.6% 9.0% 10.1% 7.9% 7.6% 7.4% 8.1% 10.4% 11.0% 9.5% 10.6% 8.3%

Looking back to 2001, PE and debt funds have continued to

display the most consistent performance in terms of median IRRs, with older vintages in both outperforming noticeably. Across relatively recent vintages, VC funds have displayed improvement, peaking at the 21.1% median IRR seen thus far by 2010 vintages. That outperformance was likely driven by early stakes acquired prior to the subsequent, rapid rise in valuations. With regard to other asset classes, one-year horizon IRRs for funds-of-funds have been driven by the discrimination managers have been able to exercise in placing capital, especially with the recent volatility in public markets, and modest trepidation in dealmaking.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

PE Funds VC Funds Debt Funds Funds-of-Funds

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

1-Year 3-Year 5-Year 10-Year

PE Funds VC Funds Debt Funds Funds-of-Funds



Quartiles & BenchmarksGLOBAL PE IRR QUARTILES BY VINTAGE YEAR

GLOBAL VC IRR QUARTILES BY VINTAGE YEAR

With LPs chasing high returns in alternative assets more and more over the past decade, PE

funds have been able to raise considerable amounts of capital. Yet as this has happened across the board, outperforming returns have become more difficult to achieve as competition for quality assets has ramped up. Moving into more recent years, this competition has contributed to rather noticeable tightening in the spread between top quartile, bottom quartile and median fund IRRs. 2001 vintages witnessed a spread of over 14.5% between top-quartile and median IRRs, along with a spread of just under 25% between top-quartile and bottom-quartile pools. Looking at the most recent data for 2012 vintages, we’ve seen these respective spreads narrow to just 9.5% and 14.2%.

IRRs for VC funds with vintages between 2009 and 2012 have been strong, peaking in 2010 with

a median IRR of 21.1% and a top-quartile IRR hurdle of 36.8%. However, the landscape appears to be changing and VCs will face considerable headwinds in attempting to maintain these returns. Valuations have reached frothy levels across most asset classes, and as recent volatility in public comparables has increased the uncertainty regarding the values of many VC-backed companies, we may see a lack of liquidity that can increase hold periods and suppress future returns. Exits are down noticeably thus far in 2015, and secondary transactions are also becoming increasingly difficult to complete. Taking the above into account, recent vintages may well see their numbers slide by an appreciable amount sooner rather than later.

Vintage Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Top Quartile IRR Hurdle 27.7% 26.5% 18.5% 12.0% 11.1% 15.4% 15.2% 20.4% 16.3% 18.0% 19.2%

Median IRR 14.8% 14.1% 11.6% 7.9% 7.3% 9.3% 10.8% 13.0% 9.1% 11.7% 9.8%

Bottom Quartile IRR Hurdle 8.9% 8.0% 5.8% 2.8% 3.2% 5.4% 6.6% 8.7% 5.7% 3.2% 5.0%

Source: PitchBook

Source: PitchBook

Vintage Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Top Quartile IRR Hurdle 8.3% 7.2% 4.8% 10.0% 10.6% 16.5% 17.3% 22.5% 36.8% 19.0% 21.0%

Median IRR 3.8% 3.2% 0.3% 4.8% 5.3% 7.5% 10.9% 12.1% 21.1% 9.5% 10.1%

Bottom Quartile IRR Hurdle (3.5%) (4.8%) (8.0%) (0.8%) (4.4%) 2.5% 2.3% 4.8% 11.7% (0.3%) 5.2%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 201225th Percentile Median 75th Percentile

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 201225th Percentile Median 75th Percentile



Private Equity IRRsPE horizon IRRs recorded through the first quarter of

this year have remained consistent with recently seen trends. Funds sized over $1 billion have outperformed across three-year to 10-year horizons, while vehicles sized between $250 million and $1 billion have fared better across one-year to three-year horizons. Scanning these fund size buckets and their respective horizons, the only 10-year horizon IRR uptick we saw relative to its last recording occurred in $1 billion+ pools, which generated an 18.2% return as of 1Q 2015, compared to 17.4% in 4Q 2014. Such outperformance only further reinforces what seems to be an ever-more significant trend for the PE industry: larger PE vehicles performing better and consequently attracting a disproportionate share of LP interest.

Comparing all traditional PE funds relative to other private fund types including secondaries, VC and fund-of-funds, PE IRRs fare better than all other fund types across three-year to 10-year timeframes, yet funds-of-funds and secondaries lead the way in the short run. As expensive valuations are forcing GPs to potentially overpay to win deals, LPs have been able to utilize funds-of-funds and secondaries to generate returns while downplaying risk to some extent. Those invested in the former are able to take advantage of managers handpicking GPs that they deem most suitable for the client’s needs. Those investing in secondaries are able to achieve heightened visibility into the portfolio companies in a fund, thus providing additional transparency for the buyer to gauge the investment’s risk profile, helping prop short-term horizon IRRs.

GLOBAL PE HORIZON IRR BY SIZE BUCKET

PE HORIZON IRR BY REGION

Outperformance at the long term among larger vehicles indicates LPs may continue favoring them disproportionately.

Source: PitchBook

Source: PitchBook

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%


Under $250M $250M-$1B $1B+

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%


U.S. PE Funds European PE Funds



PE Fund Return Multiples

Source: PitchBook

Source: PitchBook

GLOBAL AVERAGE PE FUND RETURN MULTIPLES BY VINTAGE

GLOBAL AVERAGE PE DPI MULTIPLES OVER TIME BY VINTAGE

Fund return multiples have noticeably improved since the

last edition of this report, driven by a continued push to exit portfolio companies before a potential softening in the market. Distributions have remained healthy, even in newer vintages, with figures from 2012 including an average DPI of 0.18x, among a TVPI figure that jumped higher to 1.17x from the 1.12x recorded in the prior edition of this report. Looking at slightly older vehicles, the average DPI of 2005 vintages jumped significantly to 1.10x, compared to just 0.72x recorded in 4Q 2014. As firms continuously look to exit assets ready to get to market, distributions may remain strong. That being said, GPs continue to hold high levels of dry powder, and thus, newer vintages could see multiples stagnate over the next 12 to 24 months, as fund managers begin calling down capital to deploy into distressed energy plays or distressed debt and lending opportunities, among other areas.

Distributions look set to remain healthy, although multiples could plateau in the next 12 to 24 months.

1.51

x

1.54

x

1.46

x

1.10

x

0.85

x

0.78

x

0.70

x

0.69

x

0.38

x

0.22

x

0.18

x

0.18

x

0.21

x

0.26

x

0.40

x

0.49

x

0.64

x

0.69

x

0.78

x

0.88

x

1.03

x

1.00

x

1.70x 1.76x 1.72x

1.50x1.34x 1.42x 1.39x

1.48x

1.26x 1.25x 1.17x

0.0x

0.2x

0.4x

0.6x

0.8x

1.0x

1.2x

1.4x

1.6x

1.8x

2.0x

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


0.0x

0.2x

0.4x

0.6x

0.8x

1.0x

1.2x

1.4x

1.6x

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Years since inception

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010



Global PE Fund Cash FlowsGLOBAL PE FUNDS ANNUALIZED CASH FLOW BY YEAR

YearDistributions

($B)Contributions

($B)Net Cash Flow

($B)

2001 $26.0 ($53.7) ($27.7)

2002 $32.8 ($77.9) ($45.0)

2003 $57.0 ($79.5) ($22.4)

2004 $142.7 ($106.7) $36.1

2005 $152.5 ($134.9) $17.6

2006 $177.2 ($228.2) ($50.9)

2007 $208.6 ($304.4) ($95.7)

2008 $122.1 ($317.9) ($195.9)

2009 $62.0 ($168.5) ($106.5)

2010 $169.6 ($254.1) ($84.5)

2011 $261.5 ($258.7) $2.8

2012 $326.8 ($269.9) $56.9

2013 $394.8 ($227.6) $167.2

2014 $467.8 ($300.8) $167.0

2015* $168.2 ($114.3) $53.9

LPs continued to experience positive net cash flows out of

global PE funds through the first quarter of 2015. Total distributions during the period have amounted to approximately $168.2 billion, offset by $114.3 billion in total contributions. The quality of assets currently coming to market isn’t up to par with what we saw in 2014, and thus, what attractive deals remaining are being bid up to levels many PE shops are simply unwilling to pay. Although fundraising has remained strong and there is plentiful capital to close deals, funds are weary of overpaying at a period where we may be nearing the end of a fairly robust buyout cycle, leaving them with expensive portfolio companies and the risk of not being able to generate a substantial return. As additional data comes in, we expect similar results. Pockets of quality exist, yet with so much competition for those assets, some GPs may have to simply return capital to LPs, if they cannot adequately put it to work at reasonable values.

Source: PitchBook

-$400

-$300

-$200

-$100

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015*

Total Contributions ($B) Total Distributions ($B) Net Cash Flow ($B)

*As of 3/31/2015

Source: PitchBook*As of 3/31/2015



Venture Capital IRRsThe dip in overall performance—as measured

by median IRR—among venture funds on the larger side at the 10-year horizon is likely partially due to funds of that size experiencing a greater statistical disparity given the number of investments they make. That said, the fact the median trends that low in the long term underlines the risk inherent in the venture industry, which, in light of recent fears surrounding overpriced valuations, is likely to be overemphasized if anything. Investor sentiment in both public and private markets tends to overcorrect somewhat—accordingly, even the decent numbers seen in short-term IRRs may become overshadowed by a few high-profile disappointments. What’s a bit more interesting is the surge in long-term median IRRs in funds sized between $100 million and $250 million. Perhaps funds in that range achieve better returns on an overall basis given the typical size and subsequent number of the checks they cut. As must be said of all IRRs, however, their heavily time-dependent nature means that as an overall metric they must be taken with a grain of salt. That much is clear when assessing venture horizon IRRs by region, which decline in both the U.S. and the rest of the world as time goes on. That bump in the mid-term horizon IRRs for the rest of the world may be attributable to relatively shorter holding periods for startups based abroad that achieve sufficient growth to attract acquirers’ interest and, consequently, liquidity.

GLOBAL VC HORIZON IRR BY SIZE BUCKET

VC HORIZON IRR BY REGION

The long-term outperformance of midsized venture funds may be more due to their size economics than anything else.

Source: PitchBook

Source: PitchBook

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%


Under $100M $100M-$250M $250M-$500M $500M+

0%

5%

10%

15%


U.S. VC Funds Rest of World VC Funds



VC Fund Return Multiples GLOBAL AVERAGE VC FUND RETURN MULTIPLES BY VINTAGE

GLOBAL AVERAGE VC DPI MULTIPLES OVER TIME BY VINTAGE

TVPI multiples across recent venture vintages have continued

to climb quarter on quarter. 2010 vintage funds, for instance, saw their average TVPI multiple jump from 1.36x in 4Q 2014 to 1.62x in 1Q 2015. However, nearly 80% of that value has yet to be realized by investors. As venture capitalists invest in late-stage deals with lofty valuations, the risk of a correction threatens to erase some of that unrealized value when a liquidity event rolls around. It is worth noting, for example, that investors in Square’s Series E round invested at a 28% premium to where the shares are currently priced in the public market. Those investors will break even thanks to the protections they negotiated in that financing, but the temporary drop has caused some concern. Fears may not be well founded, however, as short-term performance in public markets does not dictate overall VC fund results, as investors will likely sell off their stock at a more opportune time. When and if that time will occur is unknown, but both points should be noted.

Source: PitchBook

Source: PitchBook

TVPI multiples for recent VC funds hint at future potential, but realizing significant value remains an uncertain prospect.

0.83

x

0.83

x

0.43

x

0.63

x

0.48

x

0.48

x

0.40

x

0.33

x

0.34

x

0.09

x

0.04

x

0.27

x

0.29

x

0.61

x 0.62

x

0.85

x

0.85

x

1.03

x

1.11

x

1.28

x

1.20

x

1.21

x

1.10x 1.12x 1.04x

1.25x1.33x 1.33x

1.42x 1.44x1.62x

1.29x 1.26x

0.0x

0.2x

0.4x

0.6x

0.8x

1.0x

1.2x

1.4x

1.6x

1.8x

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


0.0x

0.2x

0.4x

0.6x

0.8x

1.0x

1.2x

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Years since inception

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010



Global VC Fund Cash FlowsGLOBAL VC FUNDS ANNUALIZED CASH FLOW BY YEAR

YearDistributions

($B)Contributions

($B)Net Cash Flow

($B)

2001 $13.1 ($30.7) ($17.6)

2002 $12.3 ($26.8) ($14.5)

2003 $33.3 ($26.0) $7.3

2004 $8.3 ($29.2) ($20.9)

2005 $13.9 ($31.1) ($17.2)

2006 $26.9 ($41.0) ($14.1)

2007 $32.5 ($44.3) ($11.8)

2008 $13.7 ($43.9) ($30.2)

2009 $14.4 ($32.8) ($18.4)

2010 $27.3 ($38.6) ($11.3)

2011 $33.3 ($46.6) ($13.2)

2012 $38.1 ($43.2) ($5.1)

2013 $41.0 ($42.3) ($1.4)

2014 $57.0 ($33.1) $23.9

2015* $19.7 ($18.7) $1.0

After 2014 saw a whopping $57.0 billion distributed back

to LPs worldwide, leading to a huge positive spike in net cash flow, 2015 has started off in a much less dramatic if still positive fashion, at $1.0 billion globally in net VC cash flow. More noteworthy, however, is the sheer volume of cash that has been called by fund managers already this year. Through the end of March, VC investors have called close to $19 billion from their backers—more than half of the 2014 total. With exits dipping in the second and third quarters of 2015, net cash flows could turn negative as 2015 data continues to roll in. Depending on how long and how much the seller’s market may continue to slide, future realization of the recent, heavy spate in venture financings could be postponed for some time. LPs will likely remain content for a while with such recent strong numbers, but they will need more capital as well as justification to recommit at some point.

-$60

-$40

-$20

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015*

Total Contributions ($B) Total Distributions ($B) Net Cash Flow ($B)





Select Top Funds by IRR

Fund Name Vintage IRR % DPI

Odyssey Investment Partners Fund IV

2009 30.9% 1.69x

Vista Equity Partners Fund III 2007 29.0% 2.04x

Charlesbank Equity Fund VII 2009 27.7% 0.54x

Apollo Investment Fund VII 2008 25.9% 1.68x

Clayton Dubilier & Rice Fund VIII

2009 25.6% 1.10x

Great Hill Equity Partners IV 2009 25.0% 0.71x


Carlyle Strategic Partners 2004 35.7% 2.54x

PIMCO Distressed Mortgage Fund II

2008 34.4% 2.94x

Carlyle High Yield Partners 2008-1 Partners

2008 32.0% 2.05x

American Securities Opportunities Fund I

2008 31.7% 1.36x

Fortress Credit Opportunities Fund

2008 24.6% 1.14x


Sponsor Fund II 2003 59.9% 3.00x

Inflexion 2003 Buyout Fund 2003 42.6% 2.68x

Clessidra Capital Partners Fund

2004 36.3% 0.94x

Bowmark Capital Partners III 2004 29.4% 2.33x

3i Eurofund IV 2003 27.0% 1.92x

Permira Europe III 2003 25.9% 1.49x


Maveron Equity Partners IV 2008 67.5% 0.85x

Union Square Ventures 2004 2005 67.1% 12.7x

True Ventures II 2008 58.0% 0.66x

Avalon Ventures VIII 2007 56.5% 2.05x

Spark Capital II 2008 53.2% 3.61x

Emergence Capital Partners Fund II

2007 52.2% 1.97x


Vista Foundation Fund I 2009 38.9% 1.67x

Marlin Equity Partners II 2007 38.3% 0.83x

CIVC Partners Fund IV 2010 36.5% 1.11x

Excellere Capital Fund 2007 33.3% 1.86x

Industrial Growth Partners III 2007 29.5% 2.21x

MSouth Equity Partners 2009 28.4% 1.89x


OCM/GFI Power Opportunities Fund II

2004 58.3% 3.05x

KPS Special Situations Fund II 2004 54.7% 3.99x

Carlyle/Riverstone Global Energy & Power Fund II

2003 52.0% 1.72x

EnCap Energy Capital Fund V 2004 43.4% 1.74x

Energy Trust Partners 2002 38.0% 2.11x

’03-’07 VINTAGE EUROPE BUYOUT

‘04-’08 VINTAGE U.S. VC

’02-’06 VINTAGE ENERGY

’06-’10 VINTAGE U.S. BUYOUT $250M-$500M

’04-’08 VINTAGE DEBT’06-’10 VINTAGE BUYOUT $1B+

All returns data is net of fees through March 31, 2015. IRR medians are calculated based on the median value of all IRR values for each fund as reported to PitchBook

by LPs.

Source: PitchBook Source: PitchBook

Source: PitchBook

Source: PitchBook

Source: PitchBook

Source: PitchBook



MethodologyPitchBook currently tracks more than 31,500

funds around the world and has returns data

on over 10,500 vehicles. In the quarterly

Benchmarking Reports, PitchBook examines

data from close to 6,600 funds and 24,000

distinct LP commitments. We are constantly

adding historical performance data as it

becomes available; this explains many apparent

discrepancies that may appear between reports.

All returns data in this report is net of fees through 1Q 2015, as reported by LPs.

DEFINITIONSPE Fund: Unless otherwise noted, PE fund

data includes buyout, growth, co-investment,

mezzanine, restructuring and energy funds.

Debt Fund: For this report, the debt fund

classification includes general debt, mezzanine

and distressed debt.

Vintage Year: The vintage year as reported by

the fund GP and LPs, or the year in which a fund

holds its final close.

Internal Rate of Return (IRR): IRR represents the

rate at which a series of positive and negative

cash flows are discounted so that the net present

value of cash flows equals zero.

Horizon IRR: Horizon IRR shows the IRR from a

certain point in time. For example, the one-year

horizon IRR figures in this report show the IRR

performance for the one-year period from 1Q

2014 to 1Q 2015, while the three-year horizon IRR

is for the period from 1Q 2012 to 1Q 2015.

DPI (Distributions to Paid-In): A measurement

of the capital that has been distributed back

to LPs as a proportion of the total paid-in, or

contributed, capital. DPI is also known as the

cash-on-cash multiple or the realization multiple.

RVPI (Remaining Value to Paid-In): A

measurement of the unrealized return of a

fund as a proportion of the total paid-in, or

contributed, capital.

TVPI (Total Value to Paid-In): A measurement

of both the realized and unrealized value of

a fund as a proportion of the total paid-in,

or contributed, capital. Also known as the

investment multiple, TVPI can be found by

adding together the DPI and RVPI of a fund.



WANT TO KNOW HOW YOUR FUNDS STACK UP?

Let us calculate your PME

Contact us for a complimentary analysis of your funds

using the new industry standard:

PitchBook’s PME Indices & Benchmarks

available in the 4Q 2015 PE & VC Benchmarking Report

[email protected]

+1 206.623.1986

pitchbook.com

PME=



BENCHMARKING - PitchBookfiles.pitchbook.com/pdf/PitchBook_4Q_2015_PE_VC_Benchmarking... · RR Donnelley is the sponsor of the PitchBook 4Q 2015 Global PE & VC Benchmarking & Fund

Documents