Art Penn
Analyst · KBW. Please go ahead.
Yes, in general, since many of our deals are kind of buy and build and our debt capital is strategic capital to make that buy and build happen. We feel as though in general, if we believe in the growth of the company, having some form of equity participation makes sense for the debt, because after all, we're helping to drive that value. We should or why wouldn't we have some participation in that upside. So by and large, it is something we do and may be a differentiator versus some of our peers. I think, it's particularly important in the buy-and-build growth here types of deals, which is primarily what we're doing these days, right? So, it is important. Rarely, is it a trade-off, hey you can get the co-invest if you take less yield or you take less OID, usually it's just kind of baked in and part of the understanding that we have with the private equity sponsor, that this is how we do business and it's not a trade-off situation. In certain cases, they want to limit us or not let us have it in which case we sometimes were like okay, the debt is so good. We don't need the equity. In some cases, we're kind of like, okay, the equity is not that attractive. That's fine. In other cases, it may be a situation, where we walk from the deal, because we think the equity is a really important part of our package. So we try to look at each deal in each part of the capital structure on their own two feet, such that in some cases the debt is really good. We may not be so excited about the equity and that's fine. In other cases, we may be really excited about the equity and try to get more. So, case by case, each piece of the capital structure needs to stand on its own two feet, but rarely is it kind of a trade-off scenario.