Public and Private Equities

Question A:

Although the reported volatility of asset values in private markets (private equity, buyouts, and venture capital) is lower than that of comparable assets in public markets, their true volatility is broadly similar or greater.

Responses weighted by each expert's confidence

Question B:

Since the global financial crisis, the realized returns on private equities have measurably exceeded the returns on public equities.

Responses weighted by each expert's confidence

Question A Participant Responses

Participant University Vote Confidence Bio/Vote History
Campbell
John Campbell
Harvard
Agree
7
Bio/Vote History
Reported private equity volatility is understated by imperfect marking to market, which lowers volatility particularly when downturns are short-lived. I believe this effect is strong enough that true private equity returns are as volatile as public returns.
Cochrane
John Cochrane
Hoover Institution Stanford
Strongly Agree
8
Bio/Vote History
Privately held assets (and real estate) are not marked to market. Market valuations change quickly. To some extent that's the point: "volatility laundering" or "beta laundering" allows investors to ignore valuation changes, some of which mean revert.
-see background information here
-see background information here
Cornelli
Francesca Cornelli
Northwestern Kellogg
Agree
9
Bio/Vote History
There is smoothing in the adjustment of the asset values
Diamond
Douglas Diamond
Chicago Booth Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Duffie
Darrell Duffie
Stanford
Strongly Agree
9
Bio/Vote History
Eberly
Janice Eberly
Northwestern Kellogg
Agree
4
Bio/Vote History
Private asset values are opaque and vary in leverage, liquidity, and risk to public markets, so the reported data are not comparable. Adjustments for these factors raise the estimated risk of private assets.
Gabaix
Xavier Gabaix
Harvard Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Goldstein
Itay Goldstein
UPenn Wharton
Agree
9
Bio/Vote History
Graham
John Graham
Duke Fuqua
Uncertain
4
Bio/Vote History
Harvey
Campbell R. Harvey
Duke Fuqua
Strongly Agree
9
Bio/Vote History
These illiquid assets are not marked to market regularly. Low vol is a mirage. But it is not just vol. Salespeople will say that correlations are low and this is a great diversifier. Reported correlation is low for the same reason. False information used to hype private markets.
Hirshleifer
David Hirshleifer
USC
No Opinion
Bio/Vote History
Hong
Harrison Hong
Columbia
Agree
8
Bio/Vote History
Fundamentals of private equity is likely similar to public equity. Private equity's lower volatility most likely reflect lack of transparent prices.
Jiang
Wei Jiang
Emory Goizueta
Agree
8
Bio/Vote History
Kaplan
Steven Kaplan
Chicago Booth
Agree
6
Bio/Vote History
Kashyap
Anil Kashyap
Chicago Booth
Agree
5
Bio/Vote History
See Cliff Asness's twitter account for details
Koijen
Ralph Koijen
Chicago Booth Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Kuhnen
Camelia Kuhnen
UNC Kenan-Flagler
No Opinion
Bio/Vote History
Lo
Andrew Lo
MIT Sloan Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Lowry
Michelle Lowry
Drexel LeBow
Strongly Agree
7
Bio/Vote History
Uncertainty related to underlying fundamentals is higher for riskier companies. Many companies within this category of private firms - including for example VC-backed startups - are extremely risky.
Ludvigson
Sydney Ludvigson
NYU
No Opinion
Bio/Vote History
Maggiori
Matteo Maggiori
Stanford GSB
No Opinion
Bio/Vote History
Matvos
Gregor Matvos
Northwestern Kellogg Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Moskowitz
Tobias Moskowitz
Yale School of Management
Strongly Agree
10
Bio/Vote History
Private equity is typically more levered than public equity, having a beta greater than one, and on average having characteristics that are associated with higher volatility in public markets. Hence, one should expect PE to have at least as high, and probably higher, volatility.
Nagel
Stefan Nagel
Chicago Booth
Agree
8
Bio/Vote History
There is plenty of evidence that reported PE valuations adjustments are delayed and smoothed, which hides volatility. There is no economic reason why values of firms in PE firms should have different volatility than values of comparable publicly traded firms.
Parker
Jonathan Parker
MIT Sloan
Agree
7
Bio/Vote History
Smaller assets are more volatile, and private markets typically hold smaller assets. In private markets, there are incentives to report less volatility; accounting and lack of market prices permit it. e.g. pension and endowment returns are smoothed versions of underlying returns.
Parlour
Christine Parlour
Berkeley Haas
Agree
8
Bio/Vote History
There are obviously measurement/observation problems. There are substantial differences in the way in which prices are determined.
Philippon
Thomas Philippon
NYU Stern
Agree
6
Bio/Vote History
Puri
Manju Puri
Duke Fuqua Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Roberts
Michael R. Roberts
UPenn Wharton
Uncertain
5
Bio/Vote History
Don't know the data.
Sapienza
Paola Sapienza
Northwestern Kellogg
Uncertain
5
Bio/Vote History
Hotly debated topic, mostly due to the opacity of data (and who provides them). Both results are found in the literature; even KKR in a recent paper has argued that volatility is underestimated in PE. The question is by how much?
Seru
Amit Seru
Stanford GSB
Strongly Agree
7
Bio/Vote History
With the kinds of investments undertaken, it’s a given
Stambaugh
Robert Stambaugh
UPenn Wharton
No Opinion
Bio/Vote History
Starks
Laura Starks
UT Austin McCombs Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Stein
Jeremy Stein
Harvard
Strongly Agree
9
Bio/Vote History
Stroebel
Johannes Stroebel
NYU Stern
Agree
5
Bio/Vote History
More relevant than the volatility are perhaps the risk exposures, which seem substantial for most PE funds.
-see background information here
Sufi
Amir Sufi
Chicago Booth Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Titman
Sheridan Titman
UT Austin McCombs
Agree
8
Bio/Vote History
Van Nieuwerburgh
Stijn Van Nieuwerburgh
Columbia Business School
Strongly Agree
8
Bio/Vote History
Lower diversification, higher risk activities (smaller, earlier-stage, growth companies, riskier real estate investments) result in more underlying risk than traditional public equity investments which involve (diversified baskets of) larger, more stable firms.
-see background information here
Werner
Ingrid M. Werner
OSU Fisher School
No Opinion
Bio/Vote History
Whited
Toni Whited
UMich Ross School
Agree
7
Bio/Vote History

Question B Participant Responses

Participant University Vote Confidence Bio/Vote History
Campbell
John Campbell
Harvard
Uncertain
3
Bio/Vote History
This was perhaps true before the market downturn in 2022, but smoothing in private equity has concealed the extent of private equity losses in 2022 which are yet to be fully realized.
-see background information here
Cochrane
John Cochrane
Hoover Institution Stanford
Uncertain
8
Bio/Vote History
If privately held hide volatility by not marking to market, it's hard to know what performance is, isn't it? After 14 years we have some data, others will review better. But we also need to control for risk characteristics, which, per first question, is hard.
Cornelli
Francesca Cornelli
Northwestern Kellogg
Agree
9
Bio/Vote History
However PE returns have been decreasing towards the stock market values
Diamond
Douglas Diamond
Chicago Booth Bio/Vote History
Duffie
Darrell Duffie
Stanford
Disagree
9
Bio/Vote History
Important qualification: I am addressing the returns to non-PE managers, meaning the limited partners. The returns to PE managers (general attends) likely exceed risk-adjusted returns on exchange traded equities, by a lot.
Eberly
Janice Eberly
Northwestern Kellogg
Agree
5
Bio/Vote History
Reported returns to PE have been higher than public equity, though the gap has declined and the benchmark for comparable public equity is the subject of debate.
Gabaix
Xavier Gabaix
Harvard Bio/Vote History
Goldstein
Itay Goldstein
UPenn Wharton
Uncertain
6
Bio/Vote History
Graham
John Graham
Duke Fuqua
Uncertain
5
Bio/Vote History
Harvey
Campbell R. Harvey
Duke Fuqua
Disagree
8
Bio/Vote History
Hirshleifer
David Hirshleifer
USC
No Opinion
Bio/Vote History
Hong
Harrison Hong
Columbia
Agree
6
Bio/Vote History
Performance has been higher by 50bps annualized according to recent reports/surveys.
Jiang
Wei Jiang
Emory Goizueta
Uncertain
6
Bio/Vote History
Kaplan
Steven Kaplan
Chicago Booth
Strongly Agree
9
Bio/Vote History
Strongly true for buyout and venture in the Burgiss data set.
Kashyap
Anil Kashyap
Chicago Booth
Uncertain
3
Bio/Vote History
Koijen
Ralph Koijen
Chicago Booth Bio/Vote History
Kuhnen
Camelia Kuhnen
UNC Kenan-Flagler
Disagree
5
Bio/Vote History
Lo
Andrew Lo
MIT Sloan Bio/Vote History
Lowry
Michelle Lowry
Drexel LeBow
Agree
7
Bio/Vote History
There are two caveats to this: First, reflecting the higher Beta of VC funds (compared to buyout funds), returns of VC funds tend to be higher. Second, overall realized returns are much higher than net of fee returns obtained by investors.
Ludvigson
Sydney Ludvigson
NYU
No Opinion
Bio/Vote History
Maggiori
Matteo Maggiori
Stanford GSB Bio/Vote History
It seems plausible due to assets not being marked to market.
Matvos
Gregor Matvos
Northwestern Kellogg Bio/Vote History
Moskowitz
Tobias Moskowitz
Yale School of Management
Disagree
8
Bio/Vote History
Adjusting for beta, not clear PE has better average returns. However, there might be an illiquidity premium, but that illiquidity also has some benefit -- the ability to smooth reported returns -- which could lead to an illiquidity discount. The evidence is not clear.
Nagel
Stefan Nagel
Chicago Booth
Uncertain
8
Bio/Vote History
Perhaps yes, but the answer depends substantially on the discount one applies to current valuations to adjust for the lack of adjustment to recent declines in public market equity values.
Parker
Jonathan Parker
MIT Sloan
No Opinion
Bio/Vote History
Parlour
Christine Parlour
Berkeley Haas
Uncertain
5
Bio/Vote History
Philippon
Thomas Philippon
NYU Stern
Uncertain
3
Bio/Vote History
Puri
Manju Puri
Duke Fuqua Bio/Vote History
Roberts
Michael R. Roberts
UPenn Wharton
Uncertain
5
Bio/Vote History
Don't know the data and risk-adjustment is tricky with non-tradeable assets.
Sapienza
Paola Sapienza
Northwestern Kellogg
Agree
4
Bio/Vote History
Weakly agree, the answer depends on which data are used, what vintage and it is certainly too early to determine the past two years PME for PE, given that many recent vintages will not come to fruition for a while. The academic literature has serious data issues to nail this
Seru
Amit Seru
Stanford GSB
Uncertain
2
Bio/Vote History
Stambaugh
Robert Stambaugh
UPenn Wharton
No Opinion
Bio/Vote History
Starks
Laura Starks
UT Austin McCombs Bio/Vote History
Stein
Jeremy Stein
Harvard
Uncertain
5
Bio/Vote History
Stroebel
Johannes Stroebel
NYU Stern
Disagree
4
Bio/Vote History
Again, accounting for risk exposures, they don't seem to do all that well: "We find that the average PE fund creates little value for its LPs after accounting for a broader spectrum of risk." (Gupta and van Nieuwerburgh, JF 2021)
-see background information here
Sufi
Amir Sufi
Chicago Booth Bio/Vote History
Titman
Sheridan Titman
UT Austin McCombs
No Opinion
Bio/Vote History
Van Nieuwerburgh
Stijn Van Nieuwerburgh
Columbia Business School
Disagree
8
Bio/Vote History
Raw returns have been similar, but risk-adjusted returns have been lower for private investments. They key is to properly adjust for (the many different sources of) risk.
-see background information here
Werner
Ingrid M. Werner
OSU Fisher School
No Opinion
Bio/Vote History
Whited
Toni Whited
UMich Ross School
Uncertain
2
Bio/Vote History