Beginning of the end happened before that because most healthy companies don’t need private equity unless they need a lot of cash for an expansion.
Part of the reason they got in that position is that they were charging to little to make money. It only follows that prices will go up and probably service down as the company stressed customer service in the hopes of attracting better future capital.
I'd assume the most common reason is that the owner wants to do something else, like retire or start another company. You can't really do that without selling, you can hire a CEO but you can never fully delegate the responsibility.
Too many companies end up in a leveraged buyout by PE that is ultimately based not on unprofitability, but just insufficient profitability to satisfy shareholders (some of which are buying in just to force the issue and then unload the stock before the bill comes due for the short-term thinking).
Bob founds a company that makes widgets. Bob sells the company to a PE company. The PE company runs the company into the ground. That opens a gap in the market for (a new) Bob to open a new company that makes widgets.
If shareholders or private equity or private equity's debtors are willing to subsidise Bob this way, who are we to complain?
Part of the reason they got in that position is that they were charging to little to make money. It only follows that prices will go up and probably service down as the company stressed customer service in the hopes of attracting better future capital.