Tag: SEC

  • The War on Harvard’s Private Equity/VC Collateral Damage

    Republicans have declared a “war on Harvard” in recent months and one front of that is a request to the SEC to look at how Harvard’s massive endowment values illiquid assets like venture capital and private equity.

    What’s fascinating is that in targeting Harvard in this way the Republicans may have declared war on Private Equity and Venture Capital in general. As their holdings (in privately held companies) are highly illiquid, it is considered accounting “standard practice” to simply ask the investment funds to provide “fair market” valuations of those assets.

    This is a practical necessity, as it is highly difficult to value these companies (which rarely trade and where even highly paid professionals miss the mark). But, it means that investment firms are allowed to “grade their own homework”, pretending that valuations for some companies are much higher than they actually have a right to be, resulting in quite a bit of “grade inflation” across the entire sector.

    If Harvard is forced to re-value these according to a more objective standard — like the valuations of these assets according to a 409a valuation or a secondary transaction (where shares are sold without the company being involved) both of which artificially deflate prices — then it wouldn’t be a surprise to see significant “grade deflation” which could have major consequences for private capital:

    • Less capital for private equity / venture capital: Many institutional investors (LPs) like private equity / venture capital in part because the “grade inflation” buffers the price turbulence that more liquid assets (like stocks) experience (so long as the long-term returns are good). Those investors will find private equity and venture capital less attractive if the current practices are replaced with something more like “grade deflation”
    • A shift in investments from higher risk companies to more mature ones: If Private Equity / Venture Capital investments need to be graded on a harsher scale, they will be less likely to invest in higher risk companies (which are more likely to experience valuation changes under stricter methodologies) and more likely to invest in more mature companies with more predictable financials (ones that are closer to acting like publicly traded companies). This would be a blow to smaller and earlier stage companies.

    The problem is investors are often allowed to keep using the reported NAV figures even if they know they are out of date or weren’t measured properly. In those scenarios, the accounting rules say an investor “shall consider whether an adjustment” is necessary. But the rules don’t require an investor to do anything more than consider it. There’s no outright prohibition on using the reported NAV even if the investor knows it’s completely unreasonable.

    Private Equity Caught in Crosshairs of Elise Stefanik’s Attack on Harvard
    Jonathan Weil | Wall Street Journal

  • Is Gamestop a Win for the Little Guy?

    If you’ve been exposed to any financial news in the last few days, you’ll have heard of Gamestop, the mostly brick and mortar video gaming retailer who’s stock has been caught between many retail investors on the subreddit r/WallstreetBets and hedge fund Melvin Capital which had been actively betting against the company. The resulting short squeeze (where a rising stock price forces investors betting against a company to buy shares to cover their own potential losses — which itself can push the stock price even higher) has been amazing to behold with the worth of Gamestop shares increasing over 10-fold in a matter of months.

    Source: Yahoo Finance (pulled 28 Jan 2021)

    While it’s hard not to get swept up in the idea of “the little guy winning one over on a hedge fund”, the narrative that this is Main Street winning over Wall Street is overblown.

    A brief sampling of #HoldTheLine on Twitter

    First, speaking practically, it’s hard to argue that giving one hedge fund a black eye by making Gamestop executives & directors and large investment funds holding $100M’s of Gamestop prior to the increase wealthier is anyone winning anything over on Wall Street. And that’s not even accounting for the fact that hedge funds are usually managing a significant amount of money on behalf of pension funds and foundation / university endowments.

    Winning one over on Wall Street? Created using Imgflip

    Second, while the paper value of recent investments in Gamestop has clearly jumped through the roof, what these investors will actually “win” is unclear. Even holding aside short-term capital gains taxes that many retail investors are unclear on, the reality is that, to make money on an investment, you not only have to buy low, you have to successfully sell high. By definition, any company experiencing a short-squeeze is volume-limited — meaning that it’s the lack of sellers that is causing the increase in price (the only way to get someone to sell is to offer them a higher price). If the stock price changes direction, it could trigger a flood of investors flocking to sell to try to hold on to their gains which can create the opposite problem: too many people trying to sell relative to people trying to buy which can cause the price to crater.

    Buy high sell low? Created using Imgflip

    Regulatory and legal experts are better suited to weigh in on whether or not this constitutes market manipulation that needs to be regulated. For whatever it’s worth, I personally feel that Redditors egging each other on is no different than an institutional investor hyping their investments on cable TV.

    But what is not in doubt is that these sorts of trades are extremely risky for all parties involved — whether you’re betting against a popular stock or trying to “hold the line” on a short-squeeze. For that reason, I’m sympathetic to the brokerages which are limiting investor activity in some of these speculative tickers.

    While many retail investors view these restrictions as a move by Wall Street to screw the little guy, there’s a practical reality here that the brokerages are probably fearful of:

    • Lawsuits from investors, some of whom will eventually lose quite a bit of money here
    • SEC actions and punishments due to eventual outcry from investors losing money

    This is the third reason I’m worried the Gamestop story will ultimately be a bad thing for Main Street. If the resulting lawsuits and/or regulatory actions cause brokerages to put more restrictions on investors, this could put additional friction on investors in terms of how they can participate in long-term wealth creation, something more households need given the paltry state of retirement savings.

    I love stories of hedge funds facing the consequences of the risks they take on — but the idea that this is a clear win for Main Street is suspect (as is the idea that the right answer for most retail investors is to HODL through thick and through thin).

    Thought this was interesting or helpful? Check out some of my other pieces on investing / finance.