Author: Brenon Daly

Navigating a decent exit

Brenon Daly

Contact: Brenon Daly

When we last checked in with Networks In Motion (NiM) two weeks ago, we noted that the turn-by-turn navigation vendor had just been stepped on by the not-so-gentle giant, Google. As it turns out, NiM’s valuation got stepped on a bit, too. The Aliso Viejo, California-based company sold itself Tuesday to TeleCommunication Systems for $170m. Terms call for TeleCommunication to hand over $110m in cash and $20m in shares, along with a $40m note. Raymond James & Associates advised TeleCommunication Systems while Jefferies & Co advised NiM on the transaction, which is expected to close by the end of the month.

The offer values NiM at 2.3 times 2009 revenue and 1.7x the company’s projected sales for next year, according to our understanding. NiM’s expectation of $100m in sales in 2010, representing 33% growth, strikes us as a bit aggressive. The reason? Google has started giving away a turn-by-turn navigation product for select Android devices that run on Verizon Wireless, the only network on which NiM currently offers its service. Although the threat of Google completely wiping away NiM’s business is grossly overblown, we suspect that it did put some pressure on the price of the company. NiM’s early focus on feature phones gave competitors such as TeleNav an early lead on smartphones such as BlackBerry and Windows Mobile. According to one rumor, T-Mobile and NiM had been close to a deal earlier this year. Without the ‘Google overhang,’ we could imagine that NiM would be selling for quite a bit more than the $170m that TeleCommunication Systems is slated to pay.

That said, it’s actually a decent exit for seven-year-old NiM. Although it’s getting an admittedly so-so multiple for its business, the company is providing a solid return for its backers, largely because it didn’t raise much money. It drew in a total of less than $20m, with Mission Ventures and Redpoint Ventures as early NiM backers and Sutter Hill Ventures joining in the third – and last – round of NiM funding in March 2006. (There was also some money from unnamed strategic investors.) Unlike rival TeleNav, NiM was unlikely to go public because of concerns about competition from Google. (TeleNav, which put in its IPO paperwork a month ago, isn’t immediately threatened by Google because the latter’s service isn’t yet available on TeleNav’s networks, AT&T and Sprint.) A solid (if not spectacular) trade sale of NiM in the face of growing competition from Google isn’t a bad bit of navigation for the startup at all.

A quiet end to the year

Brenon Daly

Contact: Brenon Daly

As we flip the calendar to the final month of 2009, it’s worth noting that December is almost always a quiet month for M&A. That was particularly true last December, which saw just $6bn of spending on tech acquisitions. The spending level represented a scant 2% of the total $301bn of spending on deals in 2008. (If the month had recorded its representative one-twelfth (8%) of the annual total, spending would have come in at roughly $25bn.)

Of course, last December was a pretty bleak time, with investment banks reeling and companies ratcheting back their financial projections for the coming quarters. But even in times of more robust dealmaking, December has been a below-average contributor to annual M&A spending. For instance, deals in the final month of 2007 and 2006 represented just 6% of the totals in both years.

So what does all that mean for M&A in the final month of this year? Assuming we return to a more normalized level of activity in which December accounts for about 6% of total annual spending, we’ll be looking at about $9bn worth of deals between now and year-end. Overall, that would put total spending for 2009 at just $151bn – exactly half the amount that we saw in 2008.

A month off

Year Total spending in December December spending as % of annual total
2008 $6bn 2%
2007 $26bn 6%
2006 $29bn 6%
2005 $38bn 10%

Source: The 451 M&A KnowledgeBase

Corel: ‘What a turkey’

Brenon Daly

Contact: Brenon Daly

As many of us get ready to sit down with friends and family for our annual Thanksgiving dinner on Thursday, our thoughts inescapably turn to poultry. When we look around at some of the deals out there right now, our thoughts also turn to poultry. For instance, whenever Corel comes up, we can’t help but think to ourselves, ‘What a turkey.’

By ‘turkey,’ we don’t just mean that Corel has been a second-rate software company and an even worse investment. (Although both are certainly true. Corel shares have never traded above the price at which they were spun off in mid-2006, and currently change hands at just one-quarter of that level.) But we also mean that since the grab-bag software vendor went private in mid-2003 with Vector Capital, Corel equity has been carved up like a Thanksgiving turkey. And now there’s a fight brewing over one of the drumsticks.

As we’ve chronicled in the past, Vector has been angling to repurchase the chunk of Corel that it spun to the public three-and-a-half years ago. Vector recently offered to repurchase the one-third of Corel shares that it doesn’t own at $4 each. While that was a bit higher than it initially offered in late October, the bid is substantially below its offer of $11 per share back in March 2008.

Vector’s effort received a new urgency this week when Corel warned that it runs the risk of falling below certain covenants and defaulting on its loans unless the sale to Vector goes through. The deadline for being in line with the covenants is November 30. The buyout shop contends, among other things, that the costs of Corel being a public company get in the way of making the necessary investments to keep the 24-year-old firm competitive. Corel’s investors aren’t necessarily buying that, at least not at the price offered by Vector. Corel shares have traded above the $4 bid for the past two weeks.

M&A ‘chatter’ around salesforce.com

Brenon Daly

Contact: Brenon Daly, China Martens

Official word from salesforce.com is that its recently announced Chatter product was developed in-house. And that would certainly be in keeping with the company’s history of staying away from M&A. Since it opened its doors a decade ago, salesforce.com has done just five tiny deals. The vendor certainly has one of the lowest ratios of total M&A spending (probably around $70m) to market capitalization ($7.7bn) of any of the big software vendors.

Nonetheless, there was some chatter (if you’ll pardon the pun) that salesforce.com may have acquired some technology from a small startup to shore up the recommendation engine portion of Chatter, a collaboration/social networking offering that’s slated to come out next year. The M&A speculation centered on a startup that perhaps provided some natural-language search capability. We would note that a small shopping trip by salesforce.com – if, indeed, there was one – to get some social networking/natural-language technology wouldn’t be without precedent. Rival CRM vendor RightNow tucked in HiveLive, which had just 25 customers, in a $6m deal last summer.

Whether or not salesforce.com went shopping for part of Chatter, it’s worth pointing out that the firm has used M&A as a way to go after Microsoft’s SharePoint in the past. In early 2007, the company picked up Koral, an early-stage content management startup that salesforce.com had effectively been incubating. (And on a smaller scale, several months after that, it quietly acquired a tiny social networking startup, CrispyNews.)

However, we’re guessing that those purchases, particularly the Koral deal, haven’t generated the returns that salesforce.com might have hoped. The vendor originally said that Salesforce Content – an add-on, extra-cost module based partly on Koral – could do to SharePoint (among other document management offerings) what salesforce.com did to Siebel in CRM. That hasn’t come close to happening. In fact, salesforce.com just announced that Content will be available free of charge to all customers.

NetApp: Single and lovin’ it

Brenon Daly

Contact: Brenon Daly

Jilted earlier this summer, NetApp is nonetheless doing just fine on its own, thank you very much. Shares of the storage giant are now changing hands at their highest level in more than two years, giving the company a market capitalization of a cool $10bn. (The stock tacked on 4% on Thursday after NetApp topped Wall Street expectations for its fiscal second-quarter results and indicated that its current quarter is shaping up stronger than investors initially projected. Shares closed up $1.21 at $30.83 Thursday in an otherwise down day for the market.)

Thursday’s move higher continues a recent bull run for NetApp shares since the firm got elbowed aside by EMC in the fight over Data Domain. In the six months since NetApp unveiled its unsuccessful bid for the data de-duplication specialist, shares of NetApp have soared 70%. (In comparison, the winner in the bidding war, EMC, has returned ‘only’ 40% over that period.) We mention the relative performance of the shares of the two vendors because originally, NetApp planned to use its equity to cover slightly more than half the cost of Data Domain. (With its deeper pockets, EMC always planned to pay all cash for Data Domain, as it did when it wrapped up the acquisition in late July.)

So, from the outset, we agree that our back-of-the-envelope calculation is a bit academic, given that the Data Domain deal has been done and dusted for nearly four months. (And we’ll acknowledge that it’s a bit inexact because NetApp never formally announced the precise amount of stock, or even the specific conversion price, that it planned to use.) Nonetheless, it’s pretty clear that Data Domain owners would have done pretty well if they had taken NetApp equity. (Of course, shareholders did just fine with the $33.50 in cash from EMC, which, at 7.4 times trailing sales, was the highest multiple paid for a US-listed public company since March 2008.)

With all of those disclaimers, here’s our math: When NetApp first announced the bid on May 20, its shares traded at about $17.30 each. Although it didn’t reveal the exact breakdown of cash and stock in its offer, which had an equity value of $1.75bn, we understand that NetApp was planning to hand over about $800m in cash and cover the remaining $950m in equity. Assuming that’s roughly the breakdown, that same chunk of NetApp stock would now be worth about $1.8bn – more than the full value of its initial cash-and-stock offer. Add the $800m in cash into the mix, and the total consideration for Data Domain (based on NetApp’s current share price) hits $2.6bn. That’s roughly $300m more than EMC ended up paying for Data Domain.

A thaw in the market

Brenon Daly

Contact: Brenon Daly

In recent weeks, there’s been a lot of talk about a thaw in the once-frozen M&A market. While that’s true for overall activity, it’s also turning out to be true for specific deals that for one reason or another found themselves on ice at some point. Whether the transaction originally froze because of financing, regulation or pricing, a few of the notable deals are now looking like they’ll get done. That warming trend in dealmaking stands in sharp contrast to the climate at the beginning of the year. The Ice Age that spanned the first few months of 2009 is the main reason why total M&A spending for this year is likely to come in at just half the level it was in 2008.

Among the transactions that have been reheated in recent weeks: JDA Software’s consolidation play for i2, the sale of once-hot-but-now-cold 3Com and Cisco Systems warming up to the shareholders of Tandberg, who had given the networking giant a Nordic brush-off in its first bid for the videoconferencing company. (Incidentally, the additional $400m that Cisco will kick in for Tandberg will deplete its overseas cash stash by a whopping 1.3%.) What’s interesting in this trio of deals is that all of them involve the target company pocketing more money than was offered in an earlier proposed transaction. That’s certainly a change in the climate from this time last year, when we were writing about bidders ‘recalibrating’ their offers lower.

A management ‘buy-under’ at Silicon Storage Technology?

Brenon Daly

Contact: Brenon Daly

In the third-quarter earnings report for Silicon Storage Technology at the end of October, chief executive Bing Yeh went out of his way to tout the vastly improving outlook for the flash memory vendor. Yeh noted that end-market demand had recovered and pricing had firmed up in what had been a pretty tough market. Third-quarter sales picked up sequentially and the company actually posted black numbers after three straight quarters of losses. The rebound was expected to continue in the fourth quarter, with a profit forecast for the period, as well.

And yet, the price that Yeh and his buyout partners at Prophet Equity bid for SST last week is actually lower than the vendor’s share price on the day Yeh made his comments about the rosy outlook for the company he heads. In fact, over the past two months, shares of SST have only traded below the proposed sale price of $2.10 in 11 of the 46 trading days. Looked at another way, the proposed management buyout (MBO) of SST represents a ‘take-under’ (rather than a takeover) when compared to the closing price in three out of four sessions since early September.

By their very nature, MBOs are fraught with conflict. In cases like SST, where executives plan to roll over their stakes in the company, the executives are effectively both buyers and sellers of the firm. (According to SST’s proxy, Yeh holds roughly 11% of all shares, making him the single-largest owner of the vendor.) The conflict emerges when we look at the basic economic self-interest on both sides of the transaction: The owners of SST (including Yeh) want to get as high a price as possible in the sale of their business, while the buyers (including Yeh) want to pay as low a price as possible to purchase the business.

Beyond the mismatch of motivation in MBOs, there’s also the thorny issue that executives almost certainly have insights on their business that aren’t available to other owners. We would guess that Yeh, who helped found SST 20 years ago and also serves as the chairman of the company’s board, probably knows more about the firm’s business and its prospects than anyone else on the planet.

At least one other insider at SST, however, didn’t share the support of the below-market MBO. Board member Bryant Riley, the founder of the Southern California investment firm B. Riley & Co., voted against the proposed buyout and then resigned from the board. (It’s worth noting that Riley got his seat in May 2008 only after agreeing to stop pestering the company about ‘strategic alternatives.’) Most SST investors – at least those who don’t stand to have a stake in the privately held company – have also voted against the deal. Shares have traded above the offer price since the bid was revealed November 12.

Google, the not-so-gentle giant, steps into mobile apps

Brenon Daly

Contact: Brenon Daly, Chris Hazelton

In order to grow and foster broad support, technology platforms need to be open and inclusive. Of course, that’s a sentiment that runs counter to M&A, which by definition is selective and exclusionary. (See our earlier report on how selecting a company to buy often means giving a ring to one while giving the finger to another.) The all-embracing aspect of platforms is one of the main reasons why platform providers (notably Apple and Salesforce.com) have not inked many acquisitions.

We’ve been musing on this in recent days as we’ve tallied up the valuation devastation brought on by Google’s announcement that it will give away free navigation services for certain mobile phones. One of the hardest-hit companies, Garmin, has shed some $1.8bn in market capitalization in the two weeks since Google announced its move. We also noted that Google Maps Navigation is likely to weigh on the IPO of TeleNav, even though the offering won’t hit the market until next spring. And pity poor Networks in Motion (NiM), which has built its business largely on Verizon Wireless, which just happens to be the network that will be the first to offer Google’s free navigation, albeit on a very limited basis. (Although a bit smaller and less profitable than TeleNav, NiM still has a solid business, likely finishing this year at $75m in revenue and hoping to hit $100m in 2010.)

So what does navigation software (whether free or fee) have to do with platforms? Well, remember that Google Maps Navigation is only available (for now at least) on devices that run Android, Google’s mobile OS that effectively serves as the vendor’s mobile platform. So rather than just be a platform provider and let startups develop software on top of that, Google has also stepped into the applications market with its turn-by-turn navigation offering. We would note that this product, which collectively generates hundreds of millions of dollars in fees each year, is one of the few mobile applications that subscribers are willing to pay serious money for.

So in strict economic terms, it’s easy to see why Google is willing to run roughshod over current and potential ISVs as it rolls out its own turn-by-turn navigation offering. Of course, to realize the full potential of the service (where Google infuses ads and paid search results into navigation, as it has done with wild success for Internet searches), the company will need to push it to other mobile platforms.

While most of the focus on Google’s mobile moves has been on that expansion, we can’t help but consider the subtler implications of what it’s already done. The key concern: We wonder whether Google Maps Navigation could undermine the company’s effort to attract other mobile application developers to the Android platform. Not that Google seems particularly worried about throwing elbows in the mobile software development market. After all, coincidentally or not, it timed the announcement of its turn-by-turn navigation product to come just two days before the maker of a rival product filed its IPO paperwork. That’s a curious bit of synchronicity from a vendor that has ‘don’t be evil’ as its informal motto.

Cavium’s quick moves on MontaVista

Brenon Daly

Contact: Brenon Daly, Jay Lyman

It was hardly surprising when embedded OS vendor MontaVista Software got snapped up earlier this week. In fact, my colleague Jay Lyman put MontaVista at the top of his hit list for targets in the market in his report back in August. After all, the company was a pioneer of the embedded space and was a clear leader among startups chasing this opportunity. MontaVista was running at about $30m in sales, and we understand that the vendor was targeting $40m and a few million dollars in profit in 2010. What did surprise some observers (including us, to some extent) was the buyer: Cavium Networks. Cavium will pay $50m ($16m in cash, $34m in equity) for MontaVista.

Along with much of the market, we expected IBM to reach for MontaVista as a way to match Intel’s acquisition of Wind River in June. Wind River stands as the giant in the embedded OS sector with revenue about 10 times higher than MontaVista. In a rather uncharacteristic transaction for Intel, the chipmaker paid $884m for Wind River. Several sources indicated that Big Blue, which was a heavy user of Wind River software for its embedded Power chip business, was the cover bidder for the company. Whether or not that’s the case, we understand that IBM’s interest in MontaVista was fitful and ultimately hinged on Big Blue being able to cobble together a coalition of other processor providers. As that effort dragged on, we understand that Cavium moved quickly and wrapped up the deal in about a month.

Profiting from the battle for the datacenter

Brenon Daly

Contact: Brenon Daly

Although the battle between Hewlett-Packard and Cisco Systems over outfitting datacenters is still playing out, some winners have already emerged. First and foremost, the shareholders of 3Com have benefitted tremendously from the turf war between the two tech titans. On Wednesday, HP said it is picking up 3Com for $3.1bn, bolstering its ProCurve lineup with 3Com’s switches and routers, which are Cisco’s core products.

Terms call for HP to hand over $7.90 in cash for each share of 3Com. That’s roughly 50% higher than 3Com shares garnered in an unsuccessful buyout two years ago and nearly four times the price of 3Com stock just one year ago. Additionally, it means that anyone who bought shares in 3Com over the past half-decade will be above water on their holdings when the sale to HP closes in the first half of next year. We can’t say that we’ve seen many situations like that in recent transactions. In most cases this year, the sale prices of public companies – particularly those that have faded in recent years, like 3Com – have been below the market prices they fetched back in 2007. And that was before any takeout premium.

But there are other parties that stand to come out ahead in the HP-3Com deal, as well. We have to imagine that the bankers at Goldman Sachs are glad (if not relieved) to have their client, 3Com, looking likely to have finally been sold. Goldman was advising the networking vendor back in 2007 on its proposed sale to Bain Capital and Huawei Technologies, which dragged on for a half-year before being scuttled due to national security concerns. There are success fees and then there are well-earned success fees.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the desk, Morgan Stanley also has reason to celebrate its work with HP. Not only is the pending purchase of 3Com the largest enterprise networking transaction since mid-2007, but the deal continues a strong recent run by Morgan Stanley. This week alone, the bank advised HP on its $3.1bn purchase of 3Com, AdMob on its $750m sale to Google and Logitech on its $405m acquisition of LifeSize Communications. Altogether, that means Morgan Stanley has had a hand in three of the four largest deals this week.