JP Morgan’s Upgraded Assessment of EQT AB Raises Questions
On 9 December 2025, JP Morgan announced an upgrade of its rating for the Swedish private‑equity firm EQT AB from neutral to overweight, coupled with an upward revision of its target price. The same day, the bank reiterated the overweight recommendation and further raised the target price, signaling a more bullish stance than previously expressed.
While the upgrade is ostensibly based on EQT’s recent strategic moves, a closer examination of the company’s activity during the week reveals a series of portfolio adjustments that warrant scrutiny. EQT announced the divestiture of its stake in the French nursing‑home operator Colisée through its Infrastructure V fund—an action that coincides with a recapitalisation effort orchestrated by the company’s lenders. Additionally, EQT’s investment vehicle, EQT VIII, entered into an agreement to sell a substantial block of shares in the Swiss dermo‑cosmetic group Galderma to L’Oréal, as part of a broader transaction in which L’Oréal is increasing its holding in Galderma.
These developments raise several questions about the motivations behind the recent rating upgrade, the potential influence of private‑equity activity on financial research, and the broader implications for stakeholders.
1. Timing and Potential Conflicts of Interest
The proximity of EQT’s portfolio moves to JP Morgan’s rating revision invites speculation about possible conflicts of interest. Private‑equity firms routinely engage in rapid, large‑scale transactions that can significantly alter the market perception of their holdings. If JP Morgan’s analysts were aware of EQT’s impending divestiture of Colisée and the Galderma sale, the rating upgrade could be seen as an attempt to pre‑emptively cushion the market reaction or to align the bank’s narrative with the company’s strategic direction.
Moreover, the Infrastructure V fund’s divestiture of Colisée coincides with a recapitalisation effort led by the firm’s lenders. Lenders often have an incentive to maintain or enhance the valuation of their collateral. If JP Morgan’s rating upgrade was influenced by lender expectations—whether directly or indirectly—the bank’s independence could be called into question.
2. Forensic Analysis of Financial Data
A forensic review of EQT’s recent financial statements and transaction disclosures shows a pattern of rapid asset turnover, with multiple sales and purchases executed within a narrow time frame. The sale of Colisée through Infrastructure V reduced the firm’s exposure to the French healthcare sector, potentially improving liquidity metrics. Simultaneously, the sale of Galderma shares to L’Oréal—an industry leader—could signal an effort to align EQT’s portfolio with large, stable corporate partners, thereby reducing volatility.
However, the financial impact of these moves on EQT’s overall valuation is less straightforward. The divestiture of Colisée removed a significant income‑generating asset, yet the recapitalisation led by lenders may have injected fresh capital, partially offsetting the loss. The Galderma transaction, while generating proceeds, also transferred a potentially appreciating asset to L’Oréal. The net effect on EQT’s book value and earnings is ambiguous, suggesting that the target price revision may be based more on projected future earnings than on current asset performance.
3. Human Impact of the Transactions
While private‑equity activity is often framed in terms of capital efficiency and returns, the human ramifications of these transactions cannot be ignored. The divestiture of Colisée raises questions about the future of French nursing‑home employees and residents. A change in ownership can lead to restructuring, cost‑cutting, or changes in service standards, all of which affect vulnerable populations. Similarly, the Galderma sale to L’Oréal may alter employment conditions within the Swiss dermo‑cosmetic group, potentially impacting a workforce that relies on stable corporate governance.
4. Questioning the Official Narrative
JP Morgan’s upgrade is presented as a response to “strong fundamentals” and “positive outlook” for EQT. Yet the timing suggests that the bank’s narrative may be influenced by the company’s internal strategy rather than by independent analysis. By highlighting the divestitures and sales as evidence of “portfolio optimization,” the rating upgrade could be reframed as a validation of EQT’s strategic choices, rather than an objective assessment of market prospects.
5. Call for Transparency
Given the potential for conflicts of interest and the unclear financial effects of EQT’s recent transactions, there is a pressing need for greater transparency from both the bank and the private‑equity firm. Detailed disclosures regarding the timing of the rating change, the sources of data used in the assessment, and the influence of lender expectations would help clarify whether the upgrade reflects independent research or a coordinated narrative with EQT’s strategic moves.
In the absence of such transparency, stakeholders—including investors, employees, and regulators—must remain vigilant. The alignment of private‑equity portfolio shifts with financial research raises important questions about the integrity of market analysis and the protection of those whose livelihoods may be affected by rapid corporate restructuring.
