Why the three levers differ in reliability
The three return levers are not created equal. Debt paydown is the most mechanical: as long as the company generates free cash flow above interest expense, equity value grows automatically. EBITDA growth requires genuine operational improvement — pricing power, cost reduction, revenue expansion. Multiple expansion is the most speculative: it depends on market conditions at exit that the sponsor cannot control. A disciplined LBO analysis stress-tests the deal with zero multiple expansion.
Building equity proceeds from the inputs
Equity Proceeds = Exit EV − Remaining Debt = (Exit EBITDA × Exit Multiple) − Remaining Debt
Ranking the drivers in a worked deal
| Return Driver | Worked Example ($0.5B equity in) | Relative role in the return |
|---|---|---|
| Leverage + debt paydown | $400M debt repaid; equity value grows mechanically even with flat EBITDA | Largest driver |
| EBITDA growth | EBITDA grows from $150M to $195M (+30%) over 5 years | Second — needs real operating improvement |
| Multiple expansion | Exit at 11x vs. entry at 10x — one-turn improvement | Smallest — and the least controllable |
| Total | Equity: $0.5B → $1.545B | MOIC: 3.1x | ~25% IRR |
Stress-testing zero multiple expansion
Stress test: what happens if the exit multiple compresses from 11x back to 10x (no multiple expansion)? Equity proceeds drop to $1.35B (EV of $1.95B minus $0.6B debt), IRR falls to ~22%. The deal still works, because leverage and EBITDA growth carry the load. Now stress zero EBITDA growth AND exit at 10x: equity proceeds = $1.5B − $0.6B = $0.9B, IRR ≈ 12.5%. Still positive, but well below the 20%+ sponsor target. This is why debt paydown alone is insufficient — sponsors need at least one of growth or multiple expansion to hit institutional return thresholds.
Model a deal and compress the exit multiple
The value bridge in dollar terms
| Value-Bridge Driver | Computation | Dollar Contribution |
|---|---|---|
| EBITDA growth | EBITDA gain ($195M − $150M = $45M) revalued at the 10x entry multiple: $45M x 10 = $450M | $450M |
| Multiple expansion | One extra turn priced on exit EBITDA: 1 x $195M = $195M | $195M |
| Debt paydown | $1,000M − $600M = $400M of entry debt repaid from the company's own cash flow | $400M |
| Total value created | $450M + $195M + $400M = $1,045M | $1,045M |
| Check: exit equity minus entry equity | $1,545M − $500M = $1,045M — the bridge ties exactly | $1,045M |
Reconciling the bridge to equity created
The bridge above decomposes this module's worked deal — $500M of equity in, $1,545M out, MOIC of $1,545M / $500M = 3.1x — into the standard three drivers, and the dollar rows sum exactly to the equity value created: $450M + $195M + $400M = $1,045M, which matches exit equity minus entry equity ($1,545M − $500M = $1,045M). One honesty note on the buckets: pricing the one-turn multiple gain on exit EBITDA folds the cross-term into the multiple line — the extra $45M of EBITDA revalued at the extra turn is 1 x $45M = $45M. Price the turn on entry EBITDA instead and multiple expansion is 1 x $150M = $150M with an explicit $45M interaction line — the same $1,045M total under different labels. This is the same method-dependence caveat flagged in the quiz explanation: the decomposition order moves dollars between buckets, so treat any attribution split as directional, not precise.
Sit with the ideas.
A PE sponsor pays 10x EBITDA on $150M EBITDA (EV = $1.5B), funded with $1.0B debt and $0.5B equity. Five years later EBITDA is $195M (+30%) and the sponsor exits at 11x (EV = $2.145B). Through the hold, $400M of debt is repaid, leaving $600M. What is the approximate equity IRR, and what drove it?