Why Non-Promoter Companies Command Cool Valuations?

It has been an inconclusive debate. Which is better of the two: Family-run businesses or professionally managed companies? In today’s world, the business dynamics have changed quite drastically.  So much so, private equity firms have come to play a dominant role in driving the destiny of any business. When a business entity aspires for growth, a quick one at that, a trade-off becomes inevitable. The founders, nay promoters, don’t hesitate to sell a perception and project to the world at large that their enterprises are professionally-managed. This statement attracts PE players in hordes and in the process drives up valuations. Hence, it has come as no surprise when Zomato founders declared that they aren’t the promoters as their holding dropped below 25%. Ditto: Paytm. The oldest example of a company without a promoter is that of L&T, an Indian multinational conglomerate which is professionally managed. In the case of ITC, it is 29.4% owned by UK-based BAT, again no owners but a professionally managed company. Likewise is Hindustan Unilever, a subsidiary of British company Unilever. Being a promoter does not entail benefits nor liabilities. But, in case of any eventualities – like we saw with Vijay Mallya or Mehul Choksi – the buck stops there. Giving up the promoter‘s tag to attract global PE players may be a new trend but will it last?