你们所有人都认为基础架构的利弊PEvs. TraditionalPE。It can be on all levelsMFvsMMvs LMM, comp, balance, growth in the industry, growth professionally, flexibility to move to other roles, etc.
这背后的想法是衡量不同种类的角色如何相互堆叠在优点和利弊的基础上
WSO Virtual Bootcamps看到所有
Popular Content看到所有
Total Avg Compensation
December 2021私人产权
Leaderboard看到所有
| 1 |
|
99.3 |
| 2 |
|
99.2 |
| 3 |
|
99.1 |
| 4 |
|
99.1 |
| 5 |
|
99.1 |
| 6 |
|
99.0 |
| 7 |
|
99.0 |
| 8 |
|
99.0 |
| 9 |
|
98。9 |
| 10 |
|
98。9 |
Comments (13）
bump
Bump
Pros:No balance sheet造型。缺点：没有资产负债表建模
Why is that a con? Ultimately, in both cases you're looking at cashflows to equity so isn't it all really about the cashflow modeling?
在我看来，您可能能够评估一个项目，但是您没有从整体上看业务的经验。因此，投资者可能会遇到麻烦。我在Instw。
I think the notion is that historically, returns and scale have both been lower in infrastructurePE对企业,一般来说,限制越多ital deployed and the more outsized your returns are, the better the carry. However, in the last few years, we've seen more capital flock to infrastructure (GIP's fund IV is a massive $22bn, and they were doing 20% ish returns on their first two funds). There's also a lot of room for multiple expansion when it comes to assets just given that there's value in de-risking an asset in of itself in taking risk on during construction, so a more "PE-like" infrastructure investor has a lot of different strategies when it comes to creating value.
In general, because many strategies will be asset-oriented, there are less "MF-like" investors and many, many moreMMplayers. Your typicalMFslike Blackstone, Carlyle, etc have infrastructure funds, but they areMMsized. Actually, it is less so the household names but the pure infra players like ECP, GIP, MIRA, Brookfield, Stonepeak, iSquared, etc that have scale in the market. Comp (base+cash), WLB, professional growth, ability to transition intoHFs/corporate are all largely the same vis a vis both infrastructure/traditionalPE。就像我最初说的那样，随着AUM/收益的基础，随着一个人变得更加高级，携带将决定更大的补偿价差。
A positive in infrastructurePEthat I have seen however, is that recruiting into infrastructure is more kind than traditional. Off-brand walks of line are appreciated, so in addition to bankers, there are some project finance folk, some tax equity folk, some strategic folk. With say, aBlackstone，除非您're aGS/MS/PJT/Centerview HPSYM type candidate right? There's less of a focus on prestige in infrastructure and also more people being able to make the transition to the buy-side at a later stage in their careers (can observe banker VPs jumping to the buy side, much less frequent in traditional frankly).
There are only a limited number of infrastructure assets that exist and the rate of new infrastructure asset growth is low. Compare to the wider opportunity set that private (and public company) targets for traditionalPE。
Infra deals go through competitive auction process and lower cost of capital is usually the winner. Consortiums are more common due to larger check sizes. LMM andMM(to some extent) can have proprietary deals and more levers to pull.
由于目标有限，基础设施参与者已扩展为“核心加上”投资，例如数据中心。传统的PEcan take advantage of this reclassification of assets since infra players tend to value assets with lower return expectations.
传统的PEin my opinion has more flexibility and higher earning potential.
However it is possible that infra players capital is genuinely needed to help build new projects as govs ability to invest is more limited now. So that could be rewarding if you like nation building projects.
编辑：在下面阅读评论，同意此响应来自“核心”基础架构POV。
Not the poster here, but wanted to provide more color on what he said:
"as a result of limited targets....traditionalPEcan take advantage of this reclassification" - Sure. That goes both ways though, as there are many companies / portfolios that are "infra-lite" that would typically cater to industrial-focusedPEinvestors, but that infraPEinvestors would have interest in as well (a developer of a back of the meter energy storage system, for instance).
“可能下文球员资本是膝inely needed to help build new projects as govs ability to invest is more limited"... agreed when it comes to core and core+ infra, but infra isn't just telecom, bridges and airports. Energy infra (so stuff relating to solar/water/HCs) and digital infra are hot (look at Sidewalk Infra or Generate Capital, for example) and have significant private investment from inception.
"rate of new infrastructure asset growth is low" I don't entirely disagree, but let's put this into perspective - outside of tech and healthcare, there are only so much ubiquitous trucking companies, lumber companies, recycling companies, etc. It is a bit of a misnomer IMO to slab that label on infra in a traditional vs infra discussion, but not say the same thing for what is most of traditionalPEinvestment (again, outside of tech). There is simply very little "true" disruption/innovation when it comes to acquiring companies (or assets) of scale; in both jobs a large part of investing is figuring out when markets re-rate and how to create value with what's already in place
Lastly, frankly speaking, only pension funds, direct investment arms of insurance funds, strategics and yield-based infrastructure investors (GS是, etc) regularly participate in auctions for assets. You will almost never see see aKKR下属获胜拍卖。完全同意，较低的资本成本决定拍卖赢家（以及对能源的商户价格预测），但会说至少有50-70％的资产销售额不利于银行家/拍卖，并且是专有的。对于许多欧盟能源参与者（EDPR，ENEL等）来说，尤其如此 - 他们正在内部进行这一切。然而，非常大的平台，鉴于它们的稀缺程度，但是通过拍卖会定期进行（第一储备 / Terra-Gen）
关于新的Infra资产增长点的速度，如果您以传统的运输意义，权力和其他方式考虑下属，这是正确的，但是即使如此，我在某种程度上不同意，在某种程度上，Infra基金推动了界限通过追求非常规目标并将其标记为Instra（例如GIP/Signature，Arclight/Proterra，EQT/EQT/他们购买的任何邮轮公司等），“ Instra”一词。仅能量/功率就有很多零件，您有足够的机会来查看（例如能量过渡，氢，存储等）。就像我看到的那样，如今构成“基本资产 /服务”的垂直和横向扩展，这有助于针对青少年中期投资者回报率的红外资金。manbetx 2.0下载
Et molestias quis eligendi et. Eius magni non iure omnis fugiat.
Ducimus repellendus ea ipsa quam. Error similique illum occaecati architecto. Dolorem ea tempora voluptatibus nihil quos velit ut ut. Dolorum explicabo earum ad accusantium omnis dolor autem modi.
Consequatur aut est corporis ducimus aliquid esse consequatur. Suscipit corrupti alias magni minus et et provident. Iure dolore officia ex fugit. Et nam sunt rerum dolore ab voluptas tenetur. Ullam velit vero aperiam repellendus delectus.
、动荡频仍的Dolore atque omnis voluptas asperiores。Corporis eveniet molestias omnis. Qui ut aperiam repellendus inventore ipsa molestias ad ex. In nesciunt voluptas aliquam dolorem perferendis deserunt id sapiente.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus:6财务建模课程免费（$ 199的价值）
or想要开锁经过signing in with your social account?
预览和下载评论作为图像
You can download this screenshot as image or copy to clipboard using browser's context menu