{
  "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b635-efee526b2162",
  "docSlug": "6ebe7bc3c470921e",
  "documentTitle": "Global Private Equity Report 2015",
  "authorId": "Bain",
  "authorName": "Bain",
  "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck",
  "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck",
  "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting",
  "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting",
  "presentationDate": null,
  "orientation": "portrait",
  "aspectRatio": 0.773,
  "pageNumber": 54,
  "pageCount": 68,
  "prevPage": 53,
  "nextPage": 55,
  "slideType": "data_table",
  "function": "analyze_data",
  "density": "overcrowded",
  "nDataPoints": 27,
  "notes": "The chart displays three lines representing different vintage periods (1990-1999, 2000-2004, 2005-2009) against Net IRR ranges.",
  "elementsJson": [
    "headline_text",
    "line_chart",
    "paragraph",
    "footnote"
  ],
  "metadataConfidence": 1,
  "imagePath": null,
  "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b635-efee526b2162/54",
  "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b635-efee526b2162",
  "deckJsonHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b635-efee526b2162.json",
  "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b635-efee526b2162#slide-54",
  "components": [
    {
      "bbox": null,
      "kind": "callout",
      "text": "The narrow range of returns among the vast majority of GPs grouped in the middle makes it very challenging to distinguish which is truly good from which is weak—and which is just lucky.",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": null,
      "toolName": "Visual emphasis",
      "toolSlug": "visual-emphasis",
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "019dd951-b48c-7655-b300-bbd1740130da",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.35,
        "w": 0.78,
        "x": 0.118,
        "y": 0.18
      },
      "kind": "chart",
      "text": "Distribution of US-focused buyout funds (grouped by vintage year, percentage of funds in sample)",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "line",
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "d0cfcb39-70a9-4137-819a-e4f4ffa6da19",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.05,
        "w": 0.4,
        "x": 0.3,
        "y": 0.435
      },
      "kind": "legend",
      "text": "1990-1999 Median=13.0% 2000-2004 Median=14.8% 2005-2009 Median=11.9%",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": null,
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "966813fe-0cda-492c-b779-f9e90568359c",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": null,
      "kind": "metric",
      "text": "Net IRR: 11.9%",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "primary",
      "toolName": "Quantification",
      "toolSlug": "quantification",
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "019dd951-b48c-7655-b300-bc29e7390ee8",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.2,
        "w": 0.78,
        "x": 0.118,
        "y": 0.75
      },
      "kind": "paragraph",
      "text": "LPs do get interim readings on the status of their unrealized holdings, of course, when GPs revalue assets still held in the portfolio to reflect market-equivalent gains or losses. But those mark-to-market updates have been of little help as forward-looking assessments about where their funds will ultimately end up and, hence, of little value in guiding their future capital commitments. For example, when Bain & Company analyzed a sample of buyout funds whose valuations put them in the top quartile after their first year, we discovered that just 40% of them ended up as top-quartile funds by the end of year seven. In fact, they were just as likely to have closed out their seventh year as underperforming third- or fourth-quartile funds. Likewise, 40% of the funds that were in the bottom quartile after their first year ended up in the top two quartiles after seven years (see Figure 2.20).",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "paragraph",
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "49952b8e-751a-48da-9b8d-42ec88079e34",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.08,
        "w": 0.78,
        "x": 0.118,
        "y": 0.67
      },
      "kind": "paragraph",
      "text": "Trying to hit a moving target. For LPs, the task of separating the strong from the weak performers for purposes of deciding which GPs to back with future capital commitments has become that much harder as PE funds have stretched out holding periods for investments.",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "paragraph",
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "9ae11fdc-8d4a-468a-925e-78411ee5d5b2",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.2,
        "w": 0.78,
        "x": 0.118,
        "y": 0.53
      },
      "kind": "paragraph",
      "text": "zero and 20%, fully 75% of the 2005 through 2009 vintage funds have produced gains that fall within that range. With so many recent-vintage funds bunched within that narrow band, many fewer GPs show up in the distribution tail with funds that produced superstar returns. Just over 15% of the US-focused buyout funds from the 2005-2009 vintages are on track to yield outsized IRRs that exceed 20%; in comparison, nearly 30% of 1990s-vintage funds and fully 35% of funds in the 2000-2004 vintages produced IRRs over 20%. The narrow range of returns among the vast majority of GPs grouped in the middle makes it very challenging to distinguish which is truly good from which is weak—and which is just lucky.",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "paragraph",
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "df011397-56e6-4a48-840c-ec6353a3a04c",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.03,
        "w": 0.78,
        "x": 0.118,
        "y": 0.125
      },
      "kind": "title",
      "text": "Figure 2.19: Funds now cluster in a very narrow band of returns, as the long tail of outperformers has shrunk",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "headline",
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "b4b2016d-dccf-4f4e-b14f-6c323b07b9e2",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    }
  ],
  "metrics": [
    {
      "metricRaw": "Net IRR",
      "numberRaw": "11.9%",
      "numberKind": "percent",
      "actionTitle": "Funds now cluster in a very narrow band of returns, as the long tail of outperformers has shrunk",
      "calloutText": "The narrow range of returns among the vast majority of GPs grouped in the middle makes it very challenging to distinguish which is truly good from which is weak—and which is just lucky.",
      "numberScale": null,
      "numberValue": 11.9,
      "metricFamily": "other",
      "numberCurrency": null
    }
  ],
  "tools": [
    {
      "name": "Action Titles",
      "slug": "action-titles",
      "agent": "Architect",
      "layer": "slide",
      "matchId": "019dd95a-173e-703c-8768-6c9225887552",
      "evidence": "Title: 'Funds now cluster in a very narrow band of returns'",
      "confidence": 85
    },
    {
      "name": "Data Story Arc",
      "slug": "data-story-arc",
      "agent": "Storyteller",
      "layer": "slide",
      "matchId": "0490de35-4cc9-446f-89be-5ca48d5023e2",
      "evidence": "LPs do get interim readings on the status of their unrealized holdings, of course, when GPs revalue assets still held in the portfolio to reflect market-equivalent gains or losses.",
      "confidence": 0.7
    },
    {
      "name": "Von Restorff Effect",
      "slug": "von-restorff-effect",
      "agent": "Designer",
      "layer": "slide",
      "matchId": "019dd95a-173e-703c-8768-70872c9233ae",
      "evidence": "Highlighted 11.9% statistic",
      "confidence": 70
    }
  ],
  "frameworks": [],
  "arcBeats": [
    {
      "to": 58,
      "from": 52,
      "beatId": "019dd95a-07a4-702a-b0b2-910214af8673",
      "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit",
      "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit",
      "beatName": "Evidence & Proof",
      "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-evidence-proof",
      "evidence": "Performance compression data: vintages, quartile gaps, persistence slipping",
      "position": 4,
      "confidence": 82,
      "parentBeatName": "Evidence",
      "parentBeatSlug": "evidence"
    },
    {
      "to": 58,
      "from": 29,
      "beatId": "019dd95a-07a5-761b-9143-8438c4caf57f",
      "arcName": "The Triple Take",
      "arcSlug": "triple-take",
      "beatName": "The Implications (So What)",
      "beatSlug": "triple-take-the-implications-so-what",
      "evidence": "Section 2: dynamics that will shape PE in 2015+",
      "position": 2,
      "confidence": 70,
      "parentBeatName": "Reflection",
      "parentBeatSlug": "reflection"
    }
  ],
  "loops": [
    {
      "to": 57,
      "from": 52,
      "name": "So What Cascade",
      "slug": "41-so-what-cascade",
      "bestFor": "Data presentations, executive summaries, driving to recommendations",
      "matchId": "019dd95a-088c-724c-b312-49466c52b2cc",
      "evidence": "Compressed returns -> narrower band -> persistence slipping -> GPs' mandate to differentiate.",
      "position": 9,
      "objective": "Drive return-compression data to a so-what about GP differentiation",
      "structure": "The Data -> So What? (Insight 1) -> So What? (Insight 2) -> So What? (The Action)",
      "confidence": 80,
      "description": "Chain insights together, each answering 'so what?' until you reach the actionable conclusion"
    }
  ],
  "imagePathAlt": null,
  "thumbSrc": null,
  "thumbSrcAlt": null,
  "locked": true
}