GPs and the art of progressive reporting

If one were to go back to the fundamental reasons for the blossoming of private equity as an industry, the tightened regulations that were the aftermath of the Enron/worldcom tragedy would certainly be paramount. The other day I ran into someone who runs a small cap company in NYSE (which has a Mcap of < $ 300 mn). He estimated the direct cost of reporting/compliance alone to be in excess of $ 4-5 million. Anyone, of course, would tell you the level of reporting sophistication in India (barring a few like Infosys) is still some way off the international standards.

Ask any GP in India, and one of the foremost things he would talk about is how his PE fund has been working with the promoters of portfolio companies to improve governance, compliance and sophistication of reporting. However, unlike in the West, where the industry has evolved to a level where reporting standards amongst PE firms have been templatized (also partly due to the fact that most of the portfolio companies are public companies being taken private and hence are used to a much higher reporting standard in any case),

This in particular is a problem for LPs, (like Fund of Funds, Endowments and the likes) who I presume must have uniform reporting standards, irrespective of their geographical allocation. I have of course, met a couple of "Indian LPs" and they seem to be far more forgiving in their ask for information (which is not necessarily a good thing in the long term).

This brings me to the following questions :

• Can there be different reporting standards for different geographies in PE ?
• How does one have a smooth upgrade in the quality of reporting without being too stifling at the beginning and too lax in the end ?
• How do you capture “significant, material intangibles” in a templatized form ? For eg., expected attrition amongst senior management, materiality of pending law suits, forex risk etc.

It would be interesting to hear the voices of a few LPs on this.

~Varadha