Posts Tagged ‘Rhone Group’

The 2015 HEC-DowJones Private Equity Performance Ranking

The 2015 HEC-DowJones Private Equity Performance Ranking

Executive Summary

The 2015 HEC-DowJones Private Equity Performance Ranking lists the world’s Top PE firms in terms of aggregate performance based on all buyout funds raised between 2002 and 2011. This ranking answers the question: “Which firm(s) generated the best performance for their investors over the past years?” The ranking draws on a comprehensive set of data on PE fund performance provided by DowJones and directly from PE Firms and uses a unique methodology to calculate the aggregate performance of a PE firm based on difference performance measures for all the funds managed by this firm. The method is able to aggregate performance across vintage years and considers relative and absolute returns. In total, we analyzed performance data from 309 PE firms and the 554 funds they raised between 2002 and 2011 with an aggregate equity volume of $1015bn.

The Ranking: Top 30 out of over 300 PE Firms



Performance Score


Vista Equity Partners



Odyssey Investment Partners



Waterland Private Equity Investments B.V.



Endeavour Capital



Advent International



Clayton Dubilier & Rice



Platinum Equity



Berkshire Partners LLC



ABRY Partners LLC



Astorg Partners



Rhone Capital LLC



Apollo Investment Corp.



Littlejohn & Co. LLC



American Securities LLC



BLUM Capital Partners



Trilantic Capital Partners






Leonard Green & Partners LP



Baring Private Equity Asia



Centerbridge Partners LP



Water Street Healthcare Partners LLC









Hellman & Friedman LLC



Oaktree Capital Management LP






Charlesbank Capital Partners LLC






Lindsay Goldberg LLC



Silver Lake Management LLC



The Private Equity industry is notorious for being opaque and access to any data is chronically difficult. In particular, little is known about the performance and competitive behaviour of the key PE Firms. While performance rankings exists for many other areas (the best ‘business school’, the best ‘place to work’, the best ‘stock market analyst’ etc), nothing worth that name exists in PE.  Until recently, the only available rankings for Private Equity were based on size

alone, which has very limited meaning. Since 2009, HEC Paris and DowJones have joined forces to publish regular rankings of PE Firms based on their historic performance and expected future competitiveness respectively.

Simply Speaking, what does the performance ranking mean?

This ranking answers the question: “Which firm(s) generated the best performance for their investors over the past years?” It draws on performance information from all buyout funds managed by a given PE Firm and aggregates their performance based on a novel and proprietary methodology (see below) into one overall performance score.

What are the data sources behind the rankings?

To obtain a most accurate picture of the universe of PE Firms and their investments, we drew on a variety of available databases and performed a number of cross-checks of the information used in this study. We used the DJX DowJones database as the primary database for fund performance information, in addition to an increasing amount of information directly provided by PE Firms to HEC for the purpose of these rankings.

While HEC has access to additional proprietary information on the activity and performance of

PE Firms (HEC Buyout Database), this data is anonymous and cannot be used for this study.

How have the evaluated PE Firms been selected?

We  gathered  data,  as  of  October  2015,  on  the  universe  of  PE  firms  worldwide  on  which DowJones provides performance data or which provided data directly to HEC for the purpose of the performance rankings. This results in a sample of 309 PE firms and the 554 funds they raised between 2002 and 20011 with an aggregate equity volume of $1015. From this starting sample, we selected all those PE firms that met the following objective criteria:

  • At least 2 funds which raised over the 2002 to 2011 period for which full performance information is available;
  • At least $1000m raised during this time;
  • At least 10 observation years (i.e. the sum of the ‘age’ of all funds as of today);

Why these selection criteria?

It is our intention to limit the analysis to PE Firms that are of relevant scale in terms of their activities. (i.e. minimum capital under management). Also, we want to make sure that we do not

report any ‘one-hit-wonders’, hence the requirement to have at least 2 funds with full performance information and 10 ‘observation years’. We do not consider funds raised after 2010, as their performance is still too unreliable to be judged at this point.

How large and representative is your sample of PE Firms?

The 86 firms that passed the criteria raised 276 funds between 2002 and 2011 with total equity of over $782bn. This corresponds to over 70% of the starting sample in terms of equity.

How has the aggregate past performance been assessed?

Private Equity is an asset class that makes it particularly challenging to assess the aggregate performance of a given PE Firm. Performance is typically recorded at the fund-level (and not for the entire PE Firm). Furthermore, three factors make the aggregation of performance to the firm- level challenging:

  1. Alternative, complementary performance measures are used to assess performance (e.g.

IRR vs. Return Multiple), so that it is not trivial to know what measure to look at.

  1. People disagree whether firms should be assessed according to their absolute performance or based on the performance relative to a performance benchmark.
  2. Private Equity Firms typically manage a number of limited-life funds raised at different vintage years simultaneously and the so-called J-Curve phenomenon makes it difficult to say, whether a 4-year-old fund with a 15% IRR is better or worse than a 7-year-old fund with a 20% IRR.

In a project sponsored by advisory firm Peracs Due Diligence Services, Prof. Oliver Gottschalg from HEC School of Management, has developed a proprietary methodology1 that makes it possible to comprehensively assess the aggregate performance of all funds managed by a Private Equity Firm. The basis for this assessment is the performance of each fund, measured in terms of three complementary performance measures: IRR, DPI (cash-only return multiple) and TVPI (a return multiple that considers accounting values of ongoing investments). We assess performance in each measure both as absolute values and measured against the corresponding performance benchmark, leading to 2*3=6 performance indicators.

These six indicators are then combined for multiple funds based on a proprietary statistical method that considers the empirically-derived historical reliability of performance measured at a given ‘fund age’ as weights. The intuition for this method is as follows: We determined empirically the reliability of performance of funds that are 2, 3, 4… years old. Our sample included detailed data on the evolution of the performance of 492 actual buyout funds over time. Imagine, the performance of a 3-year-old fund predicts its final performance with 35% accuracy, while the performance of a 5-year-old fund predicts its final performance with 70% accuracy. We would then give twice as much weight to performance data of 5-year-old funds than to the performance data of 3-year-old funds in the aggregation. Finally, we combine all six performance measures to a single performance score2 using a standard statistical method called ‘Principal

1 US and International Patents Pending

2 The extracted factor has an Eigenvalue of 5.1 and captures 86% of the total variance of all 6 performance measures.

Component Analysis’. This makes it possible to compare the overall value creation ability of

Private Equity Firms across all their funds.

How to Interpret the ‘Aggregate Performance Score’?

The aggregate performance score is neither an IRR-type annual return measure nor a money multiple. It can only be interpreted relative to the average aggregate performance score of all firms we analyzed: An aggregate performance score of 1 means that a given PE Firm has an aggregate performance that is one ‘standard deviation’ above the average performance, which would position it typically at the 85% percentile, i.e. 85% of all firms would have a lower aggregate performance. Also, an aggregate performance score of 2 means that performance is twice as high as for an aggregate performance score of 1. A PE Firm with the average performance has (by design) an aggregate performance score of 0.

How sensitive are the results to the valuation of unrealized investments?

The valuation of unrealized investments has only a small impact on the rankings. First, we only consider funds that are at least four years old. Second, according to our methodology, young (with relatively more unrealized investments) funds carry less weight in the performance aggregation than older funds, as we consider that the performance of younger funds is inherently less precise. Finally, two of our six individual performance measures (DPI) consider cash-on- cash performance only and ignores valuations of unrealized investments.

What does the ranking not capture?

The Performance Ranking is backward-looking by definition. It cannot capture recent changes in the strategy, the core team or the fund/deal size of a PE Firm. As such, it may not capture all elements of the current competitiveness of a given PE Firm.


The confidential nature of the PE industry makes it impossible to compose a 100% accurate database on private equity and we cannot exclude the possibility of biases in our results due to missing or inaccurate information. However, we rely on the same data sources typically used to compose industry-standard statistics of PE activity and we consider our data by far the ‘best available’ for this kind of analysis.


This material has been prepared on the basis of publicly available information, internally developed data and other third party sources believed to be reliable, however, HEC Paris and Peracs, LLC have not sought to independently verify information obtained from these sources and makes no representations or warranties as to accuracy, completeness or reliability of such information. This material is for information and illustrative purposes only, is not investment advice and is no assurance of actual future performance or results of any private equity segment or fund. HEC and Peracs do not represent, warrant or guarantee that this information is suitable

for any investment purpose and it should not be used as a basis for investment decisions. Nothing herein should be construed as any past, current or future recommendation to buy or sell any security or an offer to sell, 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.

Continue Reading

Secretive Rhone Group said to hit €2.6bn close for Fund V

Secretive private equity house Rhône Group has reportedly held a €2.6bn close for its fifth buyout fund after just over six months in the market. The firm, which has decided not to embrace a wave of increasing openness exhibited by the private equity community over the past few years, has a single-page website which simply includes its New York and London office addresses and a button for investors to log in. Rhone’s latest fundraise was reported by Financial News, which cited a person familiar with the matter. The vehicle is more than twice the size of the firm’s fourth fund, which closed on about €1.2bn following its 2011 launch, if the report is accurate. Rhone, which was founded in 1996, is slightly more open about its dealmaking activity. Last November the firm agreed a deal to purchase Global Knowledge from New York-based MidOcean Partners. A month earlier it teamed with Goldman Sachs to buy logistics service provider Neovia Logistics from Platinum Equity Partners. One of its bigger deals from the past few years was the €1.05bn buyout of the bakery supplies business of CSM in 2013.

Continue Reading

Rhone Capital pronta a vendere la sua quota nella catena Unieuro

Another Italian article I found.

Banca Imi e Unicredit si sarebbero mosse in qualità di advisor su una serie di private equity e alcune offerte sarebbero già al vaglio
Rhone Capital ha iniziato il suo rapporto finanziario con SGM Distribuzione nel 2005 ed è ovvio che come tutti i fondi voglia rientrare del proprio investimento, tanto più che lo stesso è stato avviato 10 anni fa. Ebbene, a quanto trapela, questo sarebbe per Robert Agostinelli – volto e fondatore del fondo – il momento più propizio alla luce dei risultati incassati dalla società di Forlì nell’ultimo esercizio che si è chiuso lo scorso 28 febbraio. Secondo infatti quanto confermato da Corriere Economia, Banca Imi e Unicredit si sarebbero già mosse in qualità di advisor su una serie di private equity italiane ed estere e alcune offerte di acquisizione del 70% delle quote della catena nelle mani di Agostinelli e socio sarebbero al vaglio. Il giornale parla di un valore dell’operazione di 300 milioni di euro. Oltre al fondo americano il resto del capitale è nelle mani ancora del colosso Dixons Retail (15%) con cui nel 2013 è stata siglata la fusione tra la rete MarcoPolo Expert e quella Unieuro, di Giuseppe Silvestrini (10%) – tuttora presidente di SGM distribuzione – e di Giancarlo Nicosanti Monterastelli (5%) attuale amministratore delegato. Lo scorso esercizio si sarebbe chiuso con ricavi per quasi 1,4 miliardi di euro, con un utile lordo di 355 milioni e un EbitDA positivo per 57 milioni, con debiti netti per 35 milioni di euro. Source:

Continue Reading

The 2015 George W Bush W100K Bike ride

The 2015 George W Bush W100K Bike ride

Each spring, approximately 20 servicemen and women wounded in the global war on terror join President George W. Bush for a 100-kilometer mountain bike ride. Part of the Bush Institute’s Military Service Initiative, the W100K highlights the bravery and sacrifice of warriors and recognizes organizations that support America’s veterans.

Read more Live Coverage of the 2015 W100K

Robert Agostinelli taking part in the 100-kilometer mountain bike ride.

Robert Agostinelli taking part in the 100-kilometer mountain bike ride.

Posted in Robert Agostinelli

Continue Reading

Robert Agostinelli reasearch – harder than it seems….

Robert Agostinelli reasearch – harder than it seems….

Robert Agostinelli reasearch - harder than it seems....

Robert Agostinelli reasearch – harder than it seems….

I am not sure if I have hit a brick wall with my search for information. Or as I suspect – there is not as much information about Robert Agostinelli on the Internet as I thought. Another theory is that I have been predominantly using Google to search for information. I may actually have exhausted their index listing of links (If that’s even possible). I only say this because after a quick search with BING (Microsoft’s search engine), what is returned is a little different. There may be some articles or information there about  Robert Agostinelli that has previously eluded me. This leads me to believe that there is much more out there than I have already found – but has either not been indexed by the major search engines, or buried deep within countless websites, that haven’t gone to the trouble of optimizing their pages for search engines. If this is the case – finding new material, or even extensions of the current material I have uncovered, is going to be quite difficult. What is particularly frustrating, is that for all the charity work Robert Agostinelli does, along with the work that Rhone does (Of which Robert is one of the founders) – surprisingly little information, news, etc. exists. I would have thought that there would be more about him with Friends of Israel or The C Group, but those avenues of data mining have proved to be a bit of a dead end. There is information, but not much. As he is a very private man,  I don’t expect a lot of information to turn up en mass, but after trawling through the Wall Street Journal and Washington Times websites for a few days – I think there might be enough in there from time to time to sustain my research. He does pen some interesting letters/responses to their copy sometimes. 🙂  

Continue Reading

Latest Tweets