Key Takeaways
- • KKR faced dual setbacks on June 29, 2015: the $3.5 billion Sysco-US Foods merger collapsed, and the SEC fined the firm nearly $30 million for improperly allocating expenses to limited partners that should have been absorbed internally.
- • KKR's 2006 fund—deployed into mega-deals including the now-bankrupt TXU—significantly underperformed relative to other private equity investments, marking a critical loss for the storied buyout firm.
- • Blackstone has surpassed KKR on the metric that matters most to investors: stock appreciation doubled that of KKR over five years, driven by successful exits from major investments rather than asset growth alone.
- • KKR remains trapped in oversized legacy positions and has failed to match the exit velocity and capital returns of competitors in the post-2008 crisis environment, undermining its historical dominance on Wall Street.
Summary
KKR, the legendary private equity firm founded by Henry Kravis, encountered a confluence of setbacks on Monday, June 29, 2015, signaling mounting challenges for a franchise once synonymous with dominant leveraged buyout prowess. The day opened with news that the $3.5 billion proposed sale of US Foods to distributor Sysco—a deal KKR and co-investors had shepherded since the 2007 acquisition—had been terminated. The collapse marked a significant failure for an exit that had been anticipated since 2013.
Compounding the day's difficulties, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced that KKR would pay approximately $30 million to settle charges that the firm had inappropriately shifted certain expenses to its limited partners that should have been borne by KKR itself. The settlement underscored governance and fee-allocation practices that had drawn regulatory scrutiny.
These immediate pressures reflected deeper structural challenges. KKR's 2006 fund, which had been utilized for mega-deals including energy company TXU (which subsequently filed for bankruptcy), significantly underperformed relative to other investments within KKR's portfolio. The underperformance of what was intended to be a flagship deployment illustrated the hazards of the pre-crisis buyout environment and compounded management's reputational damage.
Perhaps most troubling for institutional investors was KKR's relative competitive position. While Blackstone had built the largest private equity platform by assets under management, the more meaningful divergence emerged in capital returns. Blackstone's stock had appreciated at a rate exceeding double that of KKR over the preceding five years, driven substantially by successful exits from major portfolio companies rather than mere asset accumulation. KKR, conversely, remained burdened by legacy positions it had yet to exit efficiently, constraining its ability to demonstrate superior returns to stakeholders.
The confluence of these challenges marked a stark departure from KKR's reputation during the leveraged buyout boom of the 1980s, when Kravis and his co-founders redefined Wall Street finance through hostile and negotiated megadeals. By mid-2015, the firm faced the market verdict that it had failed to adapt its model with the same success as its most formidable competitors in the post-financial crisis capital environment.
Compounding the day's difficulties, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced that KKR would pay approximately $30 million to settle charges that the firm had inappropriately shifted certain expenses to its limited partners that should have been borne by KKR itself. The settlement underscored governance and fee-allocation practices that had drawn regulatory scrutiny.
These immediate pressures reflected deeper structural challenges. KKR's 2006 fund, which had been utilized for mega-deals including energy company TXU (which subsequently filed for bankruptcy), significantly underperformed relative to other investments within KKR's portfolio. The underperformance of what was intended to be a flagship deployment illustrated the hazards of the pre-crisis buyout environment and compounded management's reputational damage.
Perhaps most troubling for institutional investors was KKR's relative competitive position. While Blackstone had built the largest private equity platform by assets under management, the more meaningful divergence emerged in capital returns. Blackstone's stock had appreciated at a rate exceeding double that of KKR over the preceding five years, driven substantially by successful exits from major portfolio companies rather than mere asset accumulation. KKR, conversely, remained burdened by legacy positions it had yet to exit efficiently, constraining its ability to demonstrate superior returns to stakeholders.
The confluence of these challenges marked a stark departure from KKR's reputation during the leveraged buyout boom of the 1980s, when Kravis and his co-founders redefined Wall Street finance through hostile and negotiated megadeals. By mid-2015, the firm faced the market verdict that it had failed to adapt its model with the same success as its most formidable competitors in the post-financial crisis capital environment.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.