|
Private equity fuelling healthy growth
The health sciences sector has been witnessing a spike in
private equity (PE) activity, which is expected to get stronger. A review of
deals so far and factors to be considered by pharma companies while choosing
a PE firm Navroz Mahudawala
Private equity (PE) in India has established itself as a successful approach
of raising capital. While in the earlier years, the concept was nascent with
majority of transactions being in early stage ventures, in the last few years
PE has emerged as a recognised mode for late stage companies seeking expansion
capital. The year 2006 witnessed growth in PE, with around 296 deals totaling
$7.4 billion. However, 2007 broke all past records and saw PE deals of $17.1
billion value. (Source: AVCJ)
The health sciences sector has historically been one of the favoured sectors
for PE firms in India and globally. In the former years, there were early stage
investments in firms like Ajanta Pharma, Medicorp, Gland Pharma, Neuland, Biocon
etc. Majority of these were led by Indian Venture Capital (VC) firms and were
done in the late nineties. As the sector grew dramatically and Indian firms
achieved perceivable success in the global generics arena, the size of deals
and stage of investment changed. While there have been large deals such as Matrix,
Emcure, Jubilant, Apollo, they have been comparatively fewer and majority of
the deals average on/at $15-20 million range. As per industry estimates, PE
statistics of 2007 show that the health sciences sector accounted for only two
percent of the total PE market in India.
Major PE Deals
Funds which have been active in the health sciences sector are ICICI Ventures,
CVC, Chrys Capital, IFC, Actis and Schroders.
While formulations and Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API) were the key
areas of interest earlier, outsourcing Contract Research and Manufacturing Services,
(CRAMS) and healthcare has been the dominant investment themes in recent times.
Outsourcing/CRAMS continues to be a favourite with three major investments this
year (Sai Advantium, GVK Biosciences, Siro) focusing on this theme. Two large
deals (Max/IFC and Apollo/Apax Partners) this year in healthcare reiterated
the importance of healthcare in the portfolio of large, global funds. Though
much debated, most entrepreneurs (who have received PE money) believe that funds
add value to the company through various strategic inputs which helped the company
in its growth strategy. Most funds are known to provide good industry insights
and strategic planning; besides active board representation. Majority of funds
are focused on assisting the management in a few select areas and never interfere
with the day-to-day operations.
|
Company
|
Fund
|
Investment (In Rs Million)
|
Year
|
| Lupin |
CVC |
1,260 |
2003 |
| Emcure |
Blackstone |
2,250 |
2006 |
| Max India group |
Chrys Capital, Warburg |
2,500 |
2004 |
| |
IFC |
3,000 |
2007 |
| Jubilant |
CVC, Henderson |
2,250 |
2004 |
| Matrix |
Newbridge, Temasek |
6,075 |
2003 |
| Apollo Hospitals |
Apax Partners |
4,260 |
2007 |
| |
Khazanah |
1,925 |
2005 |
| Arch Pharmalabs |
ICICI Ventures, Swisstec & IL&FS |
1,300 |
2005/2006 |
Following are the areas wherein PE funds have added value
to their investee companies:
Attracting talent: Today most HR heads of companies
in India accept the challenges before them in attracting mid and senior level
talent. Through their relationships both in domestic and international market,
PE firms have been able to attract talent for their investee companies. This
factor is in fact the most crucial value add that PE firms offer to biotech
investee companies.
Business generation and development: Expansion into
new geographies and helping investee companies win new customer contracts.
Financial advisory support: While Indian corporates
have excellent skillsets in financial accounting; they lack in M&A planning
and execution capabilities. The pharma sector has seen among the largest number
of outbound transactions in recent times and having the support of PE has helped
some of these companies tremendously. These funds have also advised companies
in acquisition financing.
Corporate governance: Managements find that there
is a huge gap between corporate governance followed in their existing state
(ie. privately held) and a listed status. PE helps bridge this gap by creating
systems and procedures wherein board level controls could be exercised. Also,
they help in recruiting independent directors on the board.
Fund raising capabilities: This largely involves capital
market expertise during the Initial Public Offer (IPO) process. With their relationships
with Investment banking and Foreign Institutional Investors (FII), PE funds
are best poised to run an effective IPO process for their investee companies.
Many PE funds have also helped their companies to raise External Commercial
Borrowings (ECBs) at competitive rates.
Systems and risk management: Most entrepreneurial
and high growth companies lack the requisite management expertise in choosing
the right kind of systems and vendors for their MIS, ERP, forex risk management
and supply chain. Funds through their experience in other investee companies
have been able to identify appropriate vendors and negotiate better.
The benefits of PE for health sciences companies is immense, however it is important
for companies to evaluate PE funds. Just as management styles differ, similarly
fund management styles also differ. While some are more passive investors, others
follow an active hands on approach. Hence, managements need to be
extremely careful and evaluate various factors before choosing a correct fund.
Some key factors which a pharma company should evaluate comprise:
Global presence: This is a critical factor, especially
for CRAMS companies, as global funds can add a lot of value in generating new
business through their business relationships.
Experience in India in creating successful companies: While managements of many
pharma companies are experienced, tie-up of such companies with young PE teams
with limited experience could be disastrous.
Knowledge and maturity of the fund manager: The experience profile of the person
who is leading the investment from the fund side is critical. Pharma and its
dynamics can be complicated, it is important to give a board seat to a person
who understands the sector in detail.
Risk appetite: It is important to align with a fund
that has a similar perception of risk of the business plan as the Management.
Speed to move: The investment process highlights a
lot of factors related to the fund; especially its internal decision making
capacity and timelines. Hierarchical funds with limited decision making capabilities
in India are best avoided.
Industry focus/experience: A fund with global life
sciences focus can add a lot of value to the investee company. The strategic
guidance provided by such funds could be invaluable as these funds understand
global industry dynamics and can guide managements in their global forays.
Brand: A marquee name as an investor helps on various
fronts including at the stage of IPO.
Chemistry between principals: Often underestimated;
a crucial factor during the troughs of business. The promoters and management
need to substantially interact with the fund managers even socially to develop
a rapport.
Valuation: Perhaps the most important factor from
a promoter's mindset. However, history has proved consistently that the best
of funds typically are conservative in their valuations.
The health sciences sector has been witnessing a spike in
private equity activity, which is expected to get stronger. With a huge potential
for innovative business models and novel service areas in sectors like healthcare,
private equity companies provide the much needed funding along with brainpower
and expertise, helping companies realise their optimal potential. Increasing
availability of private equity funding would help transform innovative technology
and business ideas into tangible products and services, thus unlocking substantial
inherent value of various businesses in the sector.
(The author is Associate Director, Healthsciences Practice,
Ernst & Young. The views expressed herein are the personal views of the
author and do not necessarily represent the views of Ernst & Young Global
or any of its member firms)
|