PitchBook Q1 Benchmarking for Private Equity and Venture Capital

ww

VC DIS T RIBU T IONS T O L PS SL OW T O BEGIN 20 16

200 7 V IN TAGE PE F UNDS Y E T T O RE AL IZE DPI OF 1 .0X

HORIZ ON KS-PME BENCHMARKS F OR PE & VC

6

11

16

SPONSORED BY

BENCHMARKING+ F UND P ERF ORM A NCE

through 1Q 2016

Credits & ContactPitchBook Data, Inc.

JOHN GABBERT Founder, CEO

ADLEY BOWDEN Vice President,

Market Development & Analysis

Content

NIZAR TARHUNI Senior Analyst

KYLE STANFORD Analyst

DYLAN COX Analyst

ELIZABETH ARMON Analyst

BRYAN HANSON Data Analyst

JENNIFER SAM Senior Graphic Designer

Contact PitchBook pitchbook.com

RESEARCH

[email protected]

EDITORIAL

[email protected]

SALES

[email protected]

COPYRIGHT © 2016 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.

Introduction 4

PE & VC KS-PME Benchmarks 5-6

KS-PME Case Study: IT 7

IRR by Fund Type 8

Quartiles & Benchmarks 9

PE IRRs 10

PE Fund Return Multiples 11

PE Fund Cash Flows 12-13

VC IRRs 14

VC Fund Return Multiples 15

VC Fund Cash Flows 16

Select Top Funds by IRR 17

Methodology 18

Contents

3 PITCHBOOK GLOBAL PE & VC BENCHMARKING & FUND PERFORMANCE REPORT

SPONSORED BY

Donnelley Financial Solutions (NYSE: DFIN) provides software and services that enable clients to communicate with confidence in a complex regulatory environment. With 3,500 employees in 61 locations across 18 countries,

we provide thousands of clients globally with innovative tools for content creation, management and distribution, as well as data analytics and multi-lingual localization services. Leveraging advanced technology, deep-domain expertise and 24/7 support, we deliver cost-effective solutions to meet the evolving needs of our clients. For more information about Donnelley Financial Solutions, visit dfsco.com.

Our Venue® secure online workspace provides a powerful set of features 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® gives you access to hands-on, start-to-finish service that’s unique in the industry and that earns us a satisfaction rating of more than 97% from our demanding users. Get full Venue® room service or manage your room yourself, with our experienced in-house team ready 24/7/365. As part of Donnelley Financial Solutions, the global leader in managing time-sensitive, highly confidential documents, Venue provides the control you need with the security you demand.

IntroductionOver the long term, private equity horizon IRRS have outpaced most other asset

classes, yet on a short-term basis, the venture market has done better. Limited

partners continue to see positive inflows from PE vehicles, but fundraising

figures remain impressive and net cash flows have declined, an interesting trend

to note given the consistent quarterly drop we’ve seen in deal flow.

For venture, net cash flows to LPs were negative for the first time in three years.

While that has historically been the case, recent years have seen a series of

outsized exits support distributions. With liquidity remaining low as of late, the

pace and level at which late-stage private companies exit in the coming future

will be closely watched in terms of how they’ll affect the distribution of cash and

current fund IRRs—which today are certainly supported by hefty paper gains

they have yet to realize.

Throughout this report, we take a deeper look into private market IRRs, fund

cash flows and return multiples, across other metrics. We hope this report helps

inform your decision making process, and as always, feel free to reach us at

[email protected] with any comments or questions.

MAKE WAY FOR

SMARTER, ON-THE-FLY MEETING PREP

US +1 206.623.1986

UK +44 (0)207.190.9809

[email protected]

pitchbook.com

Introducing PitchBook

Mobile. The same

excellent data, technology

and service from the

PitchBook Platform, now

available on a mobile

device.

Search:

“PitchBook”

Available for

NIZAR TARHUNI

Senior Analyst


SPONSORED BY

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

KS-PME Benchmarks

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].

PMEKS—TVPI, T =S t=0

distribution

I t

T tNAVTIT

( )+

AN INTRODUCTION

TO PME BENCHMARKS

S t=0T contribution

I t

t( )

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-2008 vintage PE funds outperformed the public markets consistently between 2003 and 2008, while recent VC vintages have definitely outperformed public indices as of late, doubtless benefiting from the recent venture boom that produced some notable winners.

When using a KS-PME, a value greater than 1.0 indicates outperformance of the public index (net of all fees). For example, the current 1.27 value for 2005 vintage PE funds means investors in a typical vehicle from that year are 27% better off having invested in PE than if they had invested in public equities over the same period.

When using a KS-PME, a value less than 1.0 indicates underperformance of the public index (net of all fees). For example, the 0.92 value for 2006 vintage VC funds means investors in a typical vehicle from that year would see only 92% of the value they would have in the public markets.

PME calculated using Russell 3000® Index

PME calculated using Russell 2000® Growth IndexSource: PitchBook


SPONSORED BY

http://pitchbook.com/news/articles/pme-introduction-benchmarking-methods

http://pitchbook.com/news/search?query=PME%20benchmark

mailto:research%40pitchbook.com?subject=PE%20%26%20VC%20Benchmarking%20%26%20Fund%20Performance%20PME

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

1Q 2

000

3Q 2

000

1Q 2

001

3Q 2

001

1Q 2

002

3Q 2

002

1Q 2

003

3Q 2

003

1Q 2

004

3Q 2

004

1Q 2

005

3Q 2

005

1Q 2

006

3Q 2

006

1Q 2

007

3Q 2

007

1Q 2

008

3Q 2

008

1Q 2

009

3Q 2

009

1Q 2

010

3Q 2

010

1Q 2

011

3Q 2

011

1Q 2

012

3Q 2

012

1Q 2

013

3Q 2

013

1Q 2

014

3Q 2

014

1Q 2

015

3Q 2

015

1Q 2

016

Russell 3000 (R3K): AOP Russell 2000 Growth (R2K-Growth): AOP

0.90

0.95

1.00

1.05

1.10

1.15

1.20

1.25

1-Year 3-Year 5-Year 10-Year 15-Year

1.00

1.05

1.10

1.15

1.20

1.25

1-Year 3-Year 5-Year 10-Year 15-Year

Horizon PE KS-PME versus Russell 3000

Source: PitchBookPME calculated using Russell 3000® Index

PME calculated using Russell 2000® Growth IndexSource: PitchBook

Horizon VC KS-PME versus Russell 2000 Growth

Average quarterly closing price of Russell 2000 Growth & 3000 indices

Source: PitchBook

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 Indices, visit www.russell.com.

The current differences

between PE and VC fund lifecycles are well illustrated by the charts to the left, although the timeline for PE has been slowly lengthening beyond historical norms.


SPONSORED BY

0.27

x

0.27

x

0.32

x

0.84

x

0.44

x

0.63

x

0.42

x

0.65

x

0.38

x

0.24

x

0.49

x

0.12

x

0.20

x

0.19

x

0.44

x

0.66

x

0.83

x

0.92

x

0.98

x

1.30

x 1.13

x

1.13

x

1.19

x

1.02

x

0.59x

1.48x

0.88x

1.27x1.35x

1.45x

1.66x 1.71x

1.48x

1.32x1.23x

1.10x

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Median of DPI Median of RVPI Median of TVPI

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1-year 3-year 5-year 10-year 15-year

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

KS-PME Case Study: ITOver the past 10 years, the venture

market has seen huge growth in

almost every aspect. Valuations have

gone so high in the private market that

last year many believed, and maybe

still believe, that a bubble had formed

and would come crashing down in the

near future; the number of unicorns

has gone from just a couple to well

into triple digits in number; and the

amount of funding available to private

companies from VCs shows no signs

of slowing. The venture industry is

made up by much more than tech

companies and is present in near all

markets, but tech is still a main focus

of many VC investors. So it comes as

no surprise in many cases when the

private market outperforms the public

markets at certain horizons, especially

with regards to IT-focused venture

funds

Across one to 10-year horizons, IT-fo-

cused venture funds have outpaced

the Russell 2000 Index by no less

than 20% on each horizon. The larg-

est outperformance (almost 26%)

can be seen at the three-year horizon,

which has been driven by the recent

growth in valuations and overall rise

in financing totals during that time.

In our recent VC Unicorn Report, we

noted that Series D+ postvaluations

for unicorns had outpaced the Russell

2000 Index by more than double since

2005, which more than helps illustrate

this trend. That said, for the purpose of

calculation we do incorporate unre-

alized values into VC IRRs with the

understanding that those values could

change upon a future exit.

Global IT-focused VC fund KS-PME benchmark by vintage

Global IT-focused VC fund return multiples by vintage

PME calculated using Russell 2000® IndexSource: PitchBook

Source: PitchBook

*As of 3/31/2016

PME calculated using Russell 2000® IndexSource: PitchBook

Horizon VC IT KS-PME versus Russell 2000


SPONSORED BY

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

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

PE Funds VC Funds Debt Funds Fund-of-Funds

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Fund-of-Funds

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

PE Funds VC Funds Debt Funds Fund-of-Funds

IRR by Fund Type

Global horizon IRR by fund type

Global median IRR by fund type and vintage year

As LPs make decisions about

alternative asset allocations,

it’s important to keep in mind that

diversification and a long-term mindset

remain paramount. That being said,

horizon IRRs for venture capital

investments are outperforming private

equity returns on a one-, three-, and

five-year basis. On a 10-year horizon,

global PE produces an IRR of 10.4%

compared to VC’s 8.9%, but if current

trends hold, VC returns may outpace

PE on every time horizon in the next

few years. Keep in mind, however,

that much of this VC performance

is driven by inflated valuations in an

overcrowded and ballooning late-

stage deal market.

As expected, differences in returns

across asset classes are more

pronounced in the short run, and more

or less converge on a 10-year horizon

basis. Debt funds do not show a return

until after the first few years, as the

restructuring processes and distressed

debt strategies that many of these

firms use take more time to show an

initial change in NAV.

Turning to median IRR by vintage year,

VC funds that first deployed capital

in 2010 saw a 5.2 percentage point

decrease in IRR since the last edition of

this report (which did not include data

from 1Q 2016). Venture returns across

the board have been marked down

as worry spreads that many of these

late-stage companies may not ever

see an exit at such frothy valuations.

Meanwhile, 2011 and 2012 vintage PE

funds saw IRR increases of 0.3% and

1.9% from last quarter, respectively, as

managers continue to slowly refine

operations at more mature portfolio

companies.

Source: PitchBook

*As of 3/31/2016

Source: PitchBook

*As of 3/31/2016


SPONSORED BY

Quartiles & Benchmarks Global PE IRR quartiles by vintage year

Source: PitchBook

*As of 3/31/2016

In the last edition of this report, we discussed

the widening gap between top-quartile and

bottom-quartile PE managers in the years since

the recession. That trend, however, is not as

pronounced when we include the most recent fund

return data from 1Q 2016. The difference in IRR

between top and bottom-quartile managers is 11.5%

for both 2011 and 2012 vintages, less than the 12%-

13% difference seen for vintages from 2008 to 2010.

Meanwhile, 2009 is no longer the best year to have

deployed capital—at least on an IRR basis—since

the recession. 2012 vintages, with a median IRR of

12.0%, now hold that distinction.

Median IRR for funds that first deployed capital

between 2005 and 2008 is still below 10%, as

is expected with net asset values worldwide

nosediving during the financial crisis. Certain

managers were able to keep their businesses

solvent through restructurings and refinancings,

then exit years later after prices had recovered.

Many other firms, however, were forced to exit their

investments at lower EBITDA multiples or extend

their holdings for so long that IRRs became diluted

accordingly.

Global VC IRR quartiles by vintage yearTop-quartile benchmarks for VC funds have

moved consistently lower for three consecutive

vintages starting with 2011 funds. Vintage 2010

funds have posted a top quartile IRR of nearly

32%, riding high on the unique opportunity

many of these funds had to invest in the likes

of Facebook, Uber, Twitter and other current or

previous unicorns while they were in the early

stages. Globally, 2010 vintage VC vehicles have

invested in more than 70 companies that have

achieved a $1 billion-dollar valuation while in the

private market, and were positioned to ride the

growth of valuations coming out of the crisis.

While the subsequent vintages have fallen back

from the 2010 top-quartile IRR, each vintage is still

returning an IRR above 20%. The ability for each

vintage to capitalize on the growth in valuations

has been limited each succeeding year. Much

of the IRR value within these later vintages may

still be yet unrealized, which will bring more into

focus whether or not these larger IRRs have been

underpinned by true or artificial valuations.

Source: PitchBook

*As of 3/31/2016

Vintage Year

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Top Quartile IRR

11.3% 14.8% 16.3% 18.7% 16.3% 18.3% 18.1% 19.5%

Median 7.7% 9.3% 9.2% 10.1% 8.7% 11.2% 12.0% 7.3%

Bottom 3.0% 4.5% 3.9% 6.3% 3.3% 6.9% 6.6% -1.7%

Vintage Year

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Top Quartile IRR

10.2% 16.6% 18.0% 20.8% 31.9% 26.2% 21.9% 20.3%

Median 4.4% 8.2% 8.1% 11.1% 11.7% 16.8% 13.5% 16.2%

Bottom -7.5% -0.3% 1.5% 5.6% 7.0% 3.4% 6.3% 8.0%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 201325th Percentile Median 75th Percentile

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 201325th Percentile Median 75th Percentile


SPONSORED BY

Private Equity IRRsGlobal PE horizon IRR by size bucket

PE horizon IRR by region

Source: PitchBook

*As of 3/31/2016

When observing returns to

any asset class over time, it’s

important to remember the market

conditions that these investments have

weathered. For example, PE horizon

IRRs are lower on a 10-year time

frame than five, due to the stretched

hold periods and asset write-offs

that happened during the recession.

Meanwhile, the three-year horizon IRR

is the highest in our dataset, due to the

fact that these investments were made

before the recent run-up in valuations

and have been subsequently marked

as such—even though many of these

returns have yet to be fully realized

through an exit.

Interestingly, our data show that PE

funds sized between $250 million and

$500 million, and $1 billion+ largely

track each other in performance. The

horizon IRRs for these two buckets

are within one percentage point of

each other on a one, three, five, and

10-year basis. Funds under $250

million in size underperform the rest

of the asset class on a one and three-

year horizon—perhaps due to a more

pronounced J-curve effect in smaller,

more operationally focused funds—but

returns converge on a five and 10-year

basis. Globally, all fund sizes report

between a 10.3% and 10.9% 10-year

horizon IRR, with the smallest funds

producing the largest returns in that

range.

Focusing now on returns by

geographic region, US PE funds

perform better than both Europe and

the rest of the world on a three-, five-,

and 10-year basis. As with differences

in size of funds however, the disparity

in returns is less pronounced over the

longer-term. US PE funds have a 10.9%

10-year horizon IRR, compared to 8.7%

in Europe and 10.1% in the rest of the

world.

Source: PitchBook

*As of 3/31/2016

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%


U.S. PE Funds European PE Funds Rest of World PE Funds

0%

5%

10%

15%


Under $250M $250M-$500M $500M-$1B $1B+


SPONSORED BY

1.62

x

1.43

x

1.22

x

1.09

x

0.93

x

0.80

x

0.79

x

0.45

x

0.25

x

0.16

x

0.04

x

0.07

x

0.08

x

0.23

x

0.31

x

0.48

x

0.55

x

0.61

x

0.85

x

0.95

x

1.00

x

1.00

x

1.70x1.56x

1.48x 1.43x 1.48x 1.42x 1.38x1.28x 1.25x 1.24x

1.10x

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Median of DPI Median of RVPI Median of TVPI

PE Fund Return Multiples

Global average PE DPI multiples over time by vintage

Global median PE fund return multiples by vintage

Source: PitchBook

*As of 3/31/2016

Source: PitchBook

*As of 3/31/2016

0.0x

0.2x

0.4x

0.6x

0.8x

1.0x

1.2x

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

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

As PE exit activity fell in 1Q 2016,

median TVPI growth slowed for

many funds. Each vintage from 2008-

2010 showed either no change or a

decrease in TVPI from last quarter.

However, PE managers for 2011 and

2012 vintages are still having success,

growing investment multiples by

12% and 20% respectively on an

annualized basis in 1Q 2016. In these

more recent funds, there remain many

quality portfolio companies that have

recently become ready for sale and

can find willing buyers to pay outsized

multiples despite the overall slower

exit environment.

Turning now to DPI, or the cash

distributions to LPs divided by the

initial cash paid-in, 2009 vintages have

returned on average 85% of capital

to investors after just six years, faster

than any other year in the dataset.

Meanwhile, with new data from 1Q

2016, 2006 vintage funds have now

returned on average 100% of capital

to investors—a long wait for investors

who jumped into the market just

before the downturn.


SPONSORED BY

PE Fund Cash Flows

YEAR TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS ($B)

TOTAL DISTRIBUTIONS ($B)

NET CASH FLOW ($B)

2002 ($72.7) $27.6 ($45.1)

2003 ($78.5) $55.8 ($22.8)

2004 ($108.0) $141.3 $33.3

2005 ($138.8) $152.2 $13.5

2006 ($226.0) $179.7 ($46.3)

2007 ($306.0) $210.5 ($95.5)

2008 ($301.5) $118.4 ($183.1)

2009 ($171.3) $59.4 ($111.9)

2010 ($250.7) $169.8 ($80.8)

2011 ($252.9) $253.4 $0.4

2012 ($267.1) $327.1 $59.9

2013 ($225.9) $373.5 $147.6

2014 ($273.6) $452.7 $179.1

2015 ($294.1) $444.9 $150.8

2016* ($96.2) $124.1 $27.9

Global PE funds’ annualized cash flow by year

Global PE distributions to LPs have

never been higher than they

were in 2014 through 2015. A total of

$898 billion was distributed from PE

investments in those two years, while

$568 billion was contributed back into

new vehicles, for a net cash flow of

$330 billion back to LPs.

The first quarter of 2016 saw $124

billion in cash returned to LPs and

$96 billion contributed to new funds,

amounting to a net cash flow of about

$28 billion—well behind the pace

set during the last two years. This

decrease was expected, as the number

of PE-backed exits in the US fell by

26% quarter over quarter in 1Q 2016,

while the number of new PE deals

decreased by just 7% over the same

period.

We expect that net cash flow to

LPs will continue to decrease, and

may even become negative in the

-$400

-$300

-$200

-$100

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016*

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

Global PE funds’ net cash flows

Source: PitchBook

*As of 3/31/2016

Source: PitchBook

*As of 3/31/2016


SPONSORED BY



NET CASH FLOW ($B)

2002 ($52.0) $17.7 ($34.3)

2003 ($54.3) $42.5 ($11.8)

2004 ($73.8) $104.5 $30.7

2005 (93.5) $106.5 $13.0

2006 ($146.0) $122.8 ($23.2)

2007 ($197.4) $141.6 ($55.8)

2008 ($191.9) $74.8 ($117.1)

2009 ($104.0) $45.5 ($58.5)

2010 ($147.8) $122.0 ($25.8)

2011 ($145.2) $157.3 $12.0

2012 ($151.3) $226.7 $75.4

2013 ($136.7) $240.3 $103.6

2014 ($166.2 $291.6 $125.4

2015 ($173.5) $264.3 $90.8

2016* ($57.8) $63.2 $5.4

US PE funds’ annualized cash flow by year

next few quarters due to the strong

fundraising numbers seen in the PE

marketplace lately. US PE fundraising

value through the first three quarters

of 2016 increased by 9% year over year.

Despite lagging deal flow numbers,

firms are still finding useful ways

to deploy capital, namely add-on

transactions and tech buyouts. This

newly committed capital will be called

down sooner rather than later, and a

large portion of deals completed in

2014-2015 are still some years away

from an exit. Thus, we expect capital

contributions to outpace distributions

in the near term.

US PE funds’ net cash flows

-$300

-$200

-$100

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016*


Source: PitchBook

*As of 3/31/2016

Source: PitchBook

*As of 3/31/2016


SPONSORED BY

Venture Capital IRRs

Source: PitchBook

*As of 3/31/2016

Global VC horizon IRR by size bucket

VC horizon IRR by region

On a 10-year basis venture funds

have underperformed the horizon

IRRs of their three and five-year

counterparts. Through the first quarter

of 2016, 10-year horizon IRRs came in

at roughly 9%, whereas 3 and 5-years

yielded 17.4% and 13.1%, respectively.

As a majority of asset classes saw

their performance suffer following

the financial crisis, the venture market

saw deal activity decline, valuations

drop lower, and liquidity become

increasingly difficult to come by.

Consequently, the lagged performance

of funds on a 10-year basis is largely

driven by venture funds with vintages

just prior to the recessions that

fell victim to nontraditional market

conditions.

When looking at three and five-year

horizon IRRs, venture funds have

performed relatively strong. We

believe that this trend has been

fundamentally driven by record

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

1-Year 3-Year 5-Year 10-YearU.S. VC Funds Rest of World VC Funds

Global median VC IRR by vintage

Source: PitchBook

*As of 3/31/2016

demand for the asset class, which can

be easily highlighted by the outsized

amounts of capital committed by both

LPs as well as nontraditional investors.

Given that a considerable amount of

fund managers today are sitting on

impressive paper gains, we could see a

disconnect between current marks and

where funds are actually able to exit

portfolio companies moving forward.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

1-Year 3-Year 5-Year 10-YearUnder $100M $100M-$250M $250M-$500M $500M+

Source: PitchBook

*As of 3/31/2016

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

VC Top Quartile VC Top Decile


SPONSORED BY

0.86

x

0.84

x

0.45

x 0.72

x

0.48

x 0.75

x

0.35

x

0.41

x

0.43

x

0.13

x

0.01

x

0.10

x

0.19

x

0.38

x

0.51

x

0.62

x

0.82

x

0.85

x 1.04

x

1.07

x

1.21

x

1.15

x

1.11

x1.16x

1.23x

0.97x

1.26x 1.26x1.40x

1.47x1.60x

1.48x 1.44x

1.25x1.20x

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Median of DPI Median of RVPI Median of TVPI

VC Fund Return Multiples

Global average VC DPI multiples over time by vintage

Global median VC fund return multiples by vintage

Source: PitchBook

*As of 3/31/2016

Driven by the factors we mentioned

in the previous section, fund TVPIs

of most recent vintages have climbed

higher relative to the last publish of

this report. In fact, going back to 2006,

every vintage since saw a slight bump,

with the exception of both 2007 and

2010 vintages, which experienced

slight declines. In step with what we

have previously reported, the median

TVPI of 2009 vintages once again

came in higher than any other vintage

over the last decade at 1.6x. That said,

its 2008 and 2010 counterparts have

followed rather closely, sporting TVPIs

of 1.47x and 1.48x, respectively, as of

the end of 1Q 2016.

2007 vintages have also seen an

interesting trend, particularly, in regard

to their DPI multiples. Despite being

raised directly before the financial

crisis, 2007 vintage vehicles have seen

higher DPIs than any other vintage

over the past decade. After pacing

alongside other vintages for the first

five years of their lifecycle, 2007

vintages began distributing capital

back to LPs at a rather impressive clip

six years post-inception. DPI multiples

for the 2007 vintage more than

doubled six years in, only to increase

another twofold between years seven

(0.34x) and nine (0.84x).

Robust exit volume in 2013 and 2014

supported ample distributions to LPs.

Today, we’ve seen exit activity decline

and, consequently, distributions across

most vintages have done the same.

We think this trend will remain in place

for the near future and we’ll likely see

DPI multiples remain subdued moving

forward.

0.0x

0.1x

0.2x

0.3x

0.4x

0.5x

0.6x

0.7x

0.8x

0.9x

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

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Source: PitchBook

*As of 3/31/2016


SPONSORED BY

VC Fund Cash Flows

Global VC funds’ annualized cash flow by year



NET CASH FLOW ($B)

2004 ($27.1) $9.4 ($17.8)

2005 ($32.8) $13.5 ($19.3)

2006 ($39.6) $26.4 ($13.2)

2007 ($45.3) $33.2 ($12.0)

2008 ($42.5) $11.1 ($31.4)

2009 ($33.8) $14.5 ($19.3)

2010 ($40.5) $27.4 ($13.2)

2011 ($46.3) $33.0 ($13.4)

2012 ($44.6) $37.5 ($7.0)

2013 ($43.7) $38.1 ($5.6)

2014 ($36.3) $54.7 $18.4

2015 ($49.5) $65.6 $16.1

2016* ($16.4) $9.4 ($7.0)

For the first quarter of 2016, net cash

flow from investors to LPS came

in at -$7 billion, taking that metric

negative for the first time since 2013.

At face value, a negative cash flow

would seem a bad signal, which may fit

into the overall narrative that has been

painted throughout the year. But when

compared historically, the negative

cash flow is neither surprising nor is

it cause for concern, as just two years

have seen a positive overall cash flow

since 2003.

Diving into 1Q data, it’s easy to see

what happened to distributions to

LPs. Coming in at $9.4 billion, 1Q

distributions were well below the $15

billion+ average we had seen in 2014

and 2015. A sluggish exit market saw

zero IPOs during the first month of the

year, and just seven exits completed

of $500 million or higher to go along

with the lowest total VC-backed exit

count since 2Q 2013. But if $9.4 billion

were to finish 2016 as the quarterly

average, however, it would surpass any

quarterly distribution average for at

least 10 years prior to 2014.

At the same time as distributions

were down, LP contributions came

in at one of the highest levels we

have seen. The more than $16 billion

contributed by LPs is indicative of the

growth in deal sizes across the venture

landscape, as investors continue to

show their willingness to put large

amounts of capital to work in the right

opportunities.

-$60

-$40

-$20

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016*


Global VC funds’ net cash flows

Source: PitchBook

*As of 3/31/2016

Source: PitchBook

*As of 3/31/2016


SPONSORED BY

Fund name Vintage IRR DPI

Menlo Ventures XI 2010 64.22% 0.51x

TPG Biotechnology Partners IV

2012 47.38% 0.73x

Lightspeed Venture Partners IX

2012 43.11% 0.00x

Institutional Venture Partners XIV

2012 36.14% 0.24x

5AM Ventures III 2009 36.10% 1.35x

Sofinnova Ventures VIII 2011 30.04% 0.93x


Northcreek Mezzanine Fund I

2010 26.70% 1.29x

VSS Structured Capital II 2009 25.99% 1.55x

Fortress Investment Fund III PIK Notes

2009 20.24% 1.53x

Monroe Capital Partners Fund

2011 18.39% 0.63x

Merion Investment Partners II

2010 17.50% 0.64x

Yukon Capital Partners 2009 16.20% 0.79x

Central Valley Fund II 2012 15.17% 0.07x

Select Top Funds by IRR 2009 to 2012 vintage mezzanine funds


New Horizon Capital IV 2011 23.90% 0.22x

Valor Equity Partners II 2007 23.32% 0.85x

Trustbridge Partners IV 2011 19.52% 1.96x

Insight Venture Partners VI

2007 19.27% 1.96x

Spectrum Equity Investors VI

2010 18.31% 0.60x

Aurora Resurgence Fund 2008 17.00% 0.55x

FTV III 2007 16.60% 1.19x

2007 to 2011 vintage growth funds 250M+


DN Capital- Global Venture Capital III

2012 165.40% 0.33x

DCM VII 2014 70.52% 0.00x

ARCH Venture Fund VIII 2014 53.47% 0.00x

DCM A-Fund 2011 29.30% 0.30x

Sante Health Ventures II 2011 27.45% 0.68x

Union Square Ventures 2012 Fund

2011 24.03% 0.13x

2010 to 2014 vintage early-stage VC funds 2009 to 2012 vintage US Bay Area VC funds


Sun Capital Partners VI 2013 65.50% 0.20x

Cortec Group Fund V 2011 47.10% 0.00x

TowerBrook Investors V 2013 44.12% 0.07x

TSG6 2012 41.70% 0.38x

Acorn General Fund One 2010 39.40% 3.10%

Vestar Capital Partners VI

2013 34.01% 0.38%

2009 to 2013 vintage B2C funds


Cortec Group Fund V 2011 47.10% 0.00x

Sentinel Capital Partners IV-A

2008 35.23% 1.35x

Odyssey Investment Partners Fund IV

2009 30.91% 1.76x

Altaris Health Partners II 2008 28.30% 2.15x

Clayton Dubilier & Rice Fund VIII

2009 27.00% 1.53x

Apollo Investment Fund VII

2008 27.00% 1.50x

2007 to 2011 vintage US New York Metro buyout funds

Source: PitchBookSource: PitchBook

Source: PitchBookSource: PitchBook

Source: PitchBook

Source: PitchBook

Note: The funds returns data on this page is as of 11/15/2016.


SPONSORED BY

PitchBook currently tracks over 34,000 funds

around the world and has returns data on close

to 8,300 vehicles. In this edition of the quarterly

Benchmarking Report, PitchBook examines

data from over 5,600 funds and 24,000 distinct

LP commitments. We are constantly adding

historical performance 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 2016, as reported by LPs.

DEFINITIONS

PE fund:

Unless otherwise noted, PE fund data includes

buyout, diversified PE, energy - alternative/

renewables, energy - oil & gas, mezzanine,

mezzanine captive, growth and restructuring/

turnaround.

Debt fund:

For this report, the debt fund classification

includes general debt, direct lending,

infrastructure debt, bridge financing, credit

special situations, distressed debt, real estate

debt and venture 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. The cash flows are calculated from the

entire value of a fund, so IRRs are also based

upon value that remains within the vehicle.

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 2015 to 1Q 2016,

while the three-year horizon IRR is for the period

from 1Q 2013 to 1Q 2016.

Distributions to paid-in (DPI):

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.

Remaining value to paid-in (RVPI):

A measurement of the unrealized return of a

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

contributed, capital.

Total value to paid-in (TVPI):

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. As the charts depict medians of fund

return multiples that are calculated based on

aggregated statistics, they may not necessarily

add up, whereas on an individual basis they

shall.

Methodology

Donnelley Financial Solutions is the sponsor of the PitchBook Global PE & VC Benchmarking 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. Donnelley Financial Solutions expressly disclaims all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any or all the content herein.


SPONSORED BY

See how the PitchBook Platform can

help your private equity firm close your

next deal.

[email protected]

We do contact information, LP investment preferences, custom benchmarking,mandates,fund performance data.

You focus on building relationships.

PitchBook Q1 Benchmarking for Private Equity and Venture Capital

Economy & Finance

Transcript of PitchBook Q1 Benchmarking for Private Equity and Venture Capital