就在伯克希尔-哈撒韦公司（Berkshire Hathaway）宣布以280亿美元收购亨氏集团（H.J. Heinz Co.）（HNZ）不久之后，我曾认为，沃伦•巴菲特对私募股权的成见必然是有所减轻了。毕竟，伯克希尔（BRKA）此次交易的合作方便是一家名为3G Capital的私募股权公司。

    就这一问题，巴菲特在参加CNBC的Squawk Box节目时回答如下：

    “（与3G Capital收购亨氏）是合伙关系，而且是永久性的。我们不会出售我们的权益，因此这与私募股权那帮人先买后卖的做法是完全不同的。我们不先买后卖，这就不同于私募股权。而且我们并未对任何人收取任何费用，没有2%，没有20%，一分钱费用都没有。我们也没有从任何人的投资当中提成。3G公司大部分的资金是其自有资金。该公司的运营目标也不是利用其他人的资金来赚钱，而是利用他们自己的资金。了解乔治•保罗•雷曼（Jorge Paulo Lemann）的人都知道，他有很多钱用于注资。因此这是一个合伙关系。我们注入了180亿美元的股权，然后有120亿美元是债务融资。并不像其他私募股权公司那样需要筹集基金，最终退出或收取2%-20%的管理费。试想一下，假若我们每年向这120亿美元支付2%的管理费，那么我们每年就会白白浪费2.4亿美元。我们不会这样做。我们自己拥有资金。并没有利用其他任何人的钱。无论从哪种形式来看，这都不是私募股权交易。”

    此次亨氏收购案并不是一个传统的杠杆式收购，就这一点来说，巴菲特是对的。而且在此交易中，首要投资人（伯克希尔）计划无限期地持有公司股份，而且也不会向投资者征收类似于私募股权投资的费用。但是在3G公司问题上，他依然在遮掩，而且该公司的的确确是一个私募股权公司。

    3G向美国证券交易委员会（SEC）提交的文件显示，它不会对外界投资者收取2%的管理费和20%的附股权益费。不过该公司也有确凿的退出投资史。例如，3G于2010年收购了汉堡王（Burger King Worldwide），然后在两年后通过反向合并让其重新上市，该交易为3G和其投资者带来了14亿美元的现金。3G公司在汉堡王的控股比例也从100%降至70%左右。

    巴菲特似乎对所有这些避而不谈，因为，用他的话来说，3G的大部分资本金来自于其内部高管（包括乔治•雷曼）。但是，这只是意味着，对比一般的私募股权基金（普通合伙人的注资比率从1%到10%不等），这家私募股权公司拥有更好的利益联盟。然而合伙人注资率达10%的基金是否要比注资率为1%的公司少一些私募股权的性质呢？当然不是。

    此外，为什么巴菲特认为用于收购亨氏集团的债务融资不属于“私募股权”范畴呢？这一点我并不是很清楚。根据委托声明书，该交易将涉及来自于伯克希尔和3G公司162.4亿美元的股权收购，以及通过各种杠杆方式获得的126亿美元。如果刨除亨氏现有的50亿美元负债，那么股权出资比例将达到70%左右。这几乎是大型私募股权交易中典型股权出资规模的两倍，但也并非没有先例。实际上，有一些私募股权公司——例如New Mountain Capital——会在一些交易中彻底摒弃债务融资的手段。

    最终，对于亨氏收购案“是否是某种形式的私募股权交易”，巴菲特的认可与否并不重要，人们不应忽视的是客观事实。(财富中文网）

    Shortly after Berkshire Hathaway announced plans to buy H.J. Heinz Co. (HNZ) for $28 billion, I suggested that Warren Buffett's well-documented disdain for private equity must have softened. After all, Berkshire (BRKA) was partnering on the deal with a private equity firm called 3G Capital.

    So yesterday the question was put to Buffett, during an appearance on CNBC's Squawk Box. Here was his reply:

    "It is a partnership. It's a permanent partnership. We will not sell our interest, so it has no connection with the private equity people that essentially buy and then resell businesses. So we are not in the buying and reselling of businesses which private equity is. We are not charging anybody a fee of any kind. There's no 2%, there's no 20%, there's no nothing. We are getting no cut on anybody else's investment. The people at 3G, most of that money is probably their own money. It is not primarily designed to get a return on other people's money, it's designed as a place to put their own money and if you know Jorge Paulo Lemann, he has plenty of money to put in. So it is a partnership. We put $18 billion of equity in and there's $12 billion of debt basically. It has no relationship to the kind of enterprises where people take funds, have to get the money out or getting two and 20. Imagine if we were getting 2% on our $12 billion. You know, we're investing $240 million a year just for staring at ketchup bottles. That is not what we're doing. We've got our own money up. We're getting no carry on anybody else's money. It is not a private equity deal in any way shape or form."

    Buffett is certainly correct that Heinz is not a traditional leveraged buyout, in that the lead investor (Berkshire) plans to hold the company indefinitely and doesn't charge private equity-type fees to its investors. But he's also obfuscating when it comes to 3G, which most certainly is a private equity firm.

    3G does charge its outside investors both a 2% management fee and 20% carried interest, according to documents filed with the SEC. It also has a demonstrated history of exiting investments. For example, 3G purchased Burger King Worldwide (BKW) in 2010 and then returned it to the public markets just two years later via a reverse merger that netted $1.4 billion in cash for 3G and its investors. The deal also reduced 3G's ownership stake in Burger King Worldwide from 100% to just around 70%.

    Buffett seems to brush all of this aside because, as he says, the majority of 3G's capital comes from its own managers (including Jorge Lemann). But that just means that its a private equity firm with a better alignment of interests than the typical PE fund, where GP contributions range from 1% to 10%. Are the 10% funds less "private equity" than the 1% funds? Of course not.

    Moreover, I'm not quite sure why Buffett thinks the debt being used to buy Heinz falls below "private equity" thresholds. According to a proxy statement, the deal will include $16.24 billion in equity from Berkshire and 3G, plus another $12.6 billion in various forms of leverage. If you pull out Heinz's existing $5 billion debt-load, you're talking about around a 70% equity contribution. That's nearly double the typical equity contribution for large-cap PE deal, but it's not unheard of. In fact, there are certain private equity firms -- such as New Mountain Capital -- that avoid debt entirely on some of their deals.

    Ultimately, it doesn't really matter whether or not Buffett believes Heinz is "a private equity deal in any way shape or form." But the objective reality of the situation should be noted for the record.