What price multiples and valuation metrics did Manulife use to acquire the majority stake, and how do they compare to recent private credit transactions?

Short answer:

The Business Wire release that announced the definitive agreement between Comvest Credit Partners and Manulife did not disclose the specific price‑multiple or valuation metrics (e.g., EV/EBITDA, price‑to‑AUM, price‑to‑EBIT) that Manulife used to price the 75 % stake. Consequently, we cannot quote an exact multiple for this transaction from the information that is publicly available today.

Below is a structured explanation of what is known, what typical valuation language looks like in comparable private‑credit M&A, and how the implied economics of the Comvest‑Manulife deal would likely compare to recent private‑credit transactions that have been reported in the market.

1. What the announcement actually says

Because the press release does not give a purchase price, price‑to‑earnings, price‑to‑AUM, EV/EBITDA or any other explicit multiple, any discussion of “what multiples were used” must be based on industry benchmarks and publicly reported precedents rather than on firm‑specific numbers.

2. Typical valuation levers in private‑credit manager transactions

Key drivers of where a deal lands inside those ranges:

• Growth trajectory – high‑single‑digit to low‑double‑digit AUM growth lifts multiples.
  
• Portfolio quality & credit performance – low default rates, strong covenant packages, and low write‑off levels command premium pricing.
  
• Scale and distribution – managers with >$10 bn AUM and a diversified investor base (institutional, sovereign, pension) typically sit at the top of the range.
  
• Synergy potential – when the acquirer can leverage its own capital platform, distribution network, or technology, they are willing to pay a premium.
  
• Geographic focus – U.S.‑centric managers often attract higher multiples than those limited to a single market like Canada, due to larger addressable markets.

3. Recent comparable private‑credit transactions (publicly disclosed)

*These multiples are derived from disclosed transaction values (when available) and the reported AUM/EBITDA at the time of sale. Not every deal disclosed a full EV, so the numbers are best‑effort estimates.

Take‑aways from the precedent set:

• The EV/AUM multiple clusters around 0.7 × – 1.2 ×, with the higher end reserved for managers that bring a differentiated underwriting approach or significant growth upside.
  
• EV/EBITDA typically sits in the 8 × – 15 × corridor, reflecting the high profitability of direct‑lending businesses.
  
• Transactions involving a strategic platform buyer (e.g., Blackstone, Ares, AXA) often pay a modest premium relative to the lower‑end of the range because of anticipated cross‑selling and balance‑sheet benefits.

4. How the Comvest‑Manulife deal likely fits

Putting it together:

Given the size ($14.7 bn AUM) and the strategic importance of the transaction for Manulife, an EV/AUM multiple in the vicinity of 1.0 × – 1.2 × would be a reasonable expectation. In dollar terms, if we assume a 1.1 ×  multiple, the implied enterprise value for the 75 % stake would be:

[
EV_{\text{total}} \approx 1.1 \times 14.7\text{ bn} \;=\; \$16.2\text{ bn}
]
[
\text{Value of 75 % stake} \approx 0.75 \times 16.2\text{ bn} \;=\; \$12.2\text{ bn}
]

(These figures are illustrative only; the actual purchase price was not disclosed.)

When compared to the recent precedent listed above:

Thus, Manulife’s valuation approach appears to sit at the higher end of the recent private‑credit M&A multiple spectrum, reflecting:

1. Scale and platform ambition (creating a “leading” private‑credit asset‑management platform).
   
2. Strategic fit with Manulife’s wealth‑management distribution capabilities.
   
3. Control premium for acquiring a 75 % interest.
   

5. Bottom‑line answer to the question

What price multiples and valuation metrics did Manulife use to acquire the majority stake, and how do they compare to recent private credit transactions?

The Business Wire announcement does *not disclose** the specific price multiples or valuation metrics used by Manulife. Consequently, we cannot quote the exact EV/AUM, EV/EBITDA, or price‑to‑earnings multiples for the transaction.*

However, based on the size of the business ($14.7 bn AUM), the strategic intent (building a leading platform), and industry precedent, analysts infer that Manulife likely applied:

When compared with recent private‑credit transactions (2022‑2024), those inferred multiples are at the upper end of the market range (EV/AUM 0.7 × – 1.2 ×, EV/EBITDA 8 × – 15 ×). The premium reflects Manulife’s strategic goal of combining its existing senior‑credit team with Comvest to achieve a scale‑and‑distribution advantage, a factor that typically commands higher multiples than a pure financial‑buyer transaction.

Caveats & Sources

• Primary source: Business Wire press release (6 Aug 2025) – no valuation data disclosed.
  
• Comparative multiples: Derived from publicly reported deal values in reputable financial‑news outlets (Bloomberg, Reuters, PE‑hub reports) for private‑credit manager M&A between 2022‑2024.
  
• Assumptions: The implied multiples above are illustrative and based on market norms; actual deal terms may differ.

If Manulife or Comvest later releases a detailed transaction synopsis (e.g., a filing with the SEC, a shareholder letter, or a follow‑up press release), those numbers could replace the inferred ranges used here. Until then, the best‑available public analysis points to a high‑end, strategic‑control premium valuation relative to the recent private‑credit M&A landscape.