KPI tracking for private equity: what a tracked figure assumes
By Derwin Lucas ·
Summary
KPI tracking for private equity sets each portfolio company’s figures against three references: the plan, the company’s own history and the other companies in the portfolio. Each comparison carries an assumption. Against plan, that the months compared are like months. Against history, that the measure has not changed its meaning. Against peers, that the companies define it the same way. Tracking systems present all three comparisons with equal confidence and verify none of the assumptions. Private equity portfolio analytics built on those comparisons, from trend lines to rankings to cohort views, compounds whatever the assumptions conceal.
Three comparisons, three assumptions
Exhibit 1. What each tracked comparison assumes (illustrative)
| Comparison | What it assumes | How the assumption fails |
|---|---|---|
| Against plan | Like months are compared with like months, and every company in the plan has reported | A month not yet submitted is counted as a miss, or a total covering 22 of 25 companies is set against a plan for 25 |
| Against prior periods | The measure means the same thing in every period | A company moves from counting gross sales to net sales, and its close rate falls from 33% to 27% with no change in how it sells |
| Against other companies | Each company calculates the measure the same way | One company leaves about $150,000 of shared-service costs out of its EBITDA and appears more profitable than a peer that carries them |
Each failure produces a figure that is correct as submitted and misleading as tracked. None of them is visible in the tracked series itself.
Against plan
A plan is built once, on the definitions in force when it was set. Tracking against it is sound when the actuals are measured the same way and cover the same companies and months.
Two conditions are easy to lose. The first is like months: year-to-date comparisons are fair only over months that have been reported on both sides, so a company that has not yet submitted is stated as not reported rather than counted as falling short. The second is coverage: a portfolio total that includes 22 of 25 companies is a different figure from the plan’s total for 25, and the variance between them is partly a reporting gap. See the reporting coverage case →
Against history
A tracked series implies continuity. If a company changes its CRM, its cancellation window or the account in which it books commissions, the series continues under the same label while the measure beneath it changes.
Exhibit 2. A series with a definition change (illustrative)
| Months 1–3 | Month 4 onward | What changed |
|---|---|---|
| Close rate 33% | Close rate 27% | The company began counting contracts net of cancellations. Selling performance did not change. |
A trend line drawn through Exhibit 2 shows a decline. The accurate presentation shows two series on two definitions, with the break marked. Where the earlier months can be restated from records, they should be; where they cannot, the break should remain visible. Definition drift in portfolio reporting →
Against other companies
Comparisons across companies feed decisions directly. A peer ranking moves budget, sets targets and informs which practices are rolled out. When the companies measure differently, the ranking rewards the most generous definition. How to compare performance across acquired companies →
Targets and incentive pay
When a tracked KPI sets a target or a bonus, its definition becomes part of the compensation arrangement. A company that changes how it counts a sale during the year changes its attainment without changing its performance. A target set on gross sales and measured on net sales is missed by definition; the reverse is met by definition.
The definition in force when a target is set should be recorded with the target, and attainment measured on that definition for the target’s term. Where the company’s practice changes mid-term, attainment can be calculated on both definitions and the difference stated, so the compensation decision is made on an explicit basis rather than an inherited one.
Why analytics compounds the assumption
Private equity portfolio analytics is built from tracked comparisons. A cohort analysis groups companies by acquisition year and compares their trajectories. A driver analysis attributes a margin movement to price, volume and cost. A forecast extends a trend. Each step is sound if the comparison beneath it is sound, and each multiplies the effect if it is not. A definitional break at month four becomes, two analyses later, an operating narrative.
A driver analysis is the clearest case. A margin that moved because commissions were reclassified from selling expense into cost of goods will be attributed to cost. The analysis is correct about the arithmetic and wrong about the business, and its output is the kind of explanation a board is likely to accept. AI portfolio monitoring →
The more sophisticated the analytics, the more important it is that the inputs carry their own basis.
What trustworthy tracking records
Tracking can carry its own qualifications if each tracked figure is stored with:
- the definition in force for that period, and the date it changed;
- the companies and months included, with any missing submissions named;
- whether the figure traces to records or rests on a submitted total;
- whether the comparison being shown is supported, supported with a stated limitation, or not supported.
With those recorded, a plan variance shows its coverage, a series shows its breaks, and a peer comparison shows which companies can be ranked together. Without them, every tracked figure looks equally reliable.
What this paper does not claim
- That KPI tracking is misleading by nature. Many tracked figures are compared correctly. The exposure lies in the exceptions, which are not marked.
- That every KPI needs this treatment. The measures that warrant it are those behind capital allocation, covenant compliance, valuation and incentive pay.
- That tracking should wait for perfect data. A figure reported with its limitation stated is more useful than one withheld, and more useful than one presented without it.
Implication
KPI tracking answers whether a figure has moved. Whether the movement is real depends on assumptions the tracking does not check. A platform that records those assumptions alongside each figure turns its tracking from a record of what was reported into a record of what can be relied on.
In Goverisyn, every figure carries an evidence state: Substantiated, Qualified, Limited or Not Available. What each state means → For the broader distinction between monitoring and comparability, see Private equity portfolio monitoring and the comparability question.
Goverisyn’s Portfolio Measurement Review examines the tracked measures leadership relies on most. The first step is a free 60-minute Portfolio Review, which needs no data in advance.
Start with a Portfolio Review.
60 minutes. No data needed in advance.
By Derwin Lucas, founder of Goverisyn, with nearly three decades in management and information systems in home services. Published . About Goverisyn →