Tech buyers shop locally

-by Yulitza Peraza, Brenon Daly

Although the Delaware Court of Chancery was slated to rule this week on Emulex’s poison pill, the court punted on the decision. In postponing the ruling on the poison pill, which has been a key part of Emulex’s defense against the unwanted advances of Broadcom, the judge indicated that the two sides may well be able to work out a deal over the next week. Broadcom, which took its bid public on April 21, recently extended the deadline of its tender offer until July 14. The extension came as Broadcom also raised its bid to $11 per share for Emulex, up from $9.25. That added about $150m to the price of Emulex, which is currently valued at some $912m. As we noted earlier, Broadcom’s initial offer essentially valued Emulex where it was trading last October.

Unsolicited offers for tech companies, while increasing, are still relatively rare. However, in one regard, Broadcom’s bid for Emulex is rather typical. Scouring our data, we noticed a significant trend among California tech vendors: they tend to shop locally. That’s certainly true for these two southern California firms, which are only about 10 miles from one another. In the last seven years, about half of total tech M&A spending by California-based buyers went toward acquiring other Golden State tech companies. We would add that the ‘shop local’ trend isn’t limited to California, which stands as the most-developed tech region in the world. It’s also true on the other side of the country, where tech vendors based on the East Coast have spent more on acquiring neighboring tech firms than they have on companies from anywhere else.

There are a number of reasons for this trend, both formal and informal. For starters, the two sides are more likely to have a number of connections, sharing financial backers or board members, for instance. Additionally, executives at the companies may belong to the same local tech organizations or business groups. (Or, more informally, they may frequent the same restaurants or belong to the same clubs.) In some ways, our finding flies in the face of the oft-repeated notion that the world is flat, with business flowing around the globe without regard to borders or geography. That may well be true in some aspects. But when it comes to M&A, business is still largely done locally.

Geographic tech M&A, 2002-2009

Acquirer state/region Target Number of deals Percentage of total deals Total value Percentage of total value
California All 2,389 100% $247bn 100%
California California 879 37% $126bn 51%
East Coast All 2,391 100% $282bn 100%
East Coast East Coast 758 32% $83bn 30%

Halfway through a rough year

Brenon Daly

Contact: Brenon Daly

Since we’re at the midpoint of 2009, we thought we’d tally what we’ve already seen in M&A this year and project what we’re likely to see for the remainder of the year. First, the look back at the first two quarters of 2009: The $58bn in announced and estimated deal spending so far this year is the lowest level of January–June tech shopping in a half-decade. More dramatically, spending on deals in the first two quarters of 2009 is only about one-quarter the amount spent during the comparable period in any of the past three years. June was a particularly slow month, after there were a flurry of deals in April and May.

As to what the rest of 2009 will look like, we suspect it will closely resemble the second half of last year. For the record, the announced spending from July–December 2008 hit just $72bn. Obviously, it’s difficult to predict a lumpy business like M&A. But the way the economy is dragging along right now, we’re inclined to think that big buyers will look to take small bites for the rest of the year. That’s what they did in the second half of 2008. Indeed, it wasn’t that the traditionally busiest buyers in tech took themselves out of the market altogether. Rather, they just scaled back their purchases, despite holding tens of billions of dollars in cash. For instance, the largest transactions inked in the back half of last year by tech giants such as McAfee, Oracle, IBM, Google and Microsoft – among many other companies – were all less than a half-billion dollars.

Q1-Q2 tech spending

Year Deal volume Deal value
2009 1,400 $58bn
2008 1,557 $228bn
2007 2,005 $294bn
2006 2,019 $268bn
2005 1,388 $162bn
2004 999 $111bn

Source: The 451 M&A KnowledgeBase

Data Domain: Battle at Centre Court

Brenon Daly

Contact: Brenon Daly

A long, drawn-out battle – with back-and-forth volleying – to claim a coveted prize. We could be talking about the amazing men’s final at Wimbledon over the weekend, but since we’re back in the office, we’re actually referring to the ongoing fight over Data Domain. On Monday, EMC served up what it hopes will be an ace. It raised its existing all-cash offer for the data de-duplication specialist to $33.50 per share.

EMC’s latest bid values Data Domain at roughly $2.3bn, richer than its previous offer as well as the one from original suitor NetApp. Recall that NetApp served first, offering $1.75bn in cash and stock for Data Domain on May 20. EMC returned that with a $2.1bn bid of its own a week and a half later. And now, EMC has knocked a shot that, honestly, we feel NetApp will have trouble stretching to get. Our view: Advantage EMC.

A ‘paper’ windfall in LogMeIn IPO

Brenon Daly

Contact: Brenon Daly

One of the investment banks that profited the most from Wednesday’s strong debut of LogMeIn wasn’t even on the prospectus. Instead, it was in the prospectus. McNamee Lawrence, an advisory shop with no underwriting business, realized a tidy little $2m windfall from the IPO.

Heading into the offering, McNamee Lawrence held some 99,000 shares in LogMeIn that it picked up in late 2004 for helping to place the startup’s series A funding round, as well as other advisory work. McNamee Lawrence took a small amount of money off the table, selling some 21,000 shares at the $16 initial pricing of LogMeIn. That netted the bank about $336,000. It still holds some 78,000 shares, which had a paper value of about $1.6m, based on the price of LogMeIn shares on Thursday afternoon.

Granted, the holdings of McNamee Lawrence are only a tiny slice of the overall 21.4 million LogMeIn shares outstanding. And the firm’s stake is a fraction of the major owners of LogMeIn, Prism Venture Partners and Polaris Venture Partners. Prism holds shares worth about $80m, while Polaris, which sold $7.4m worth of shares in the offering, still owns a chunk valued at about $59m.

Still, the shares represent a nice windfall for McNamee Lawrence. (In addition, some of the firm’s partners put money individually into LogMeIn in the company’s seed round in early 2004.) Of course, the practice of taking paper as payment was pretty common across all kinds of service providers back in the Bubble Era, when startups routinely handed out options and warrants to cover bills from banks, lawyers and even landlords. After so many people got burned by taking worthless options and warrants in the early 2000s, however, cash returned as the currency of choice.

Q2 ends with a whimper

Brenon Daly

Contact: Brenon Daly

The second quarter is in the books, and we would suggest that the M&A tally is a bit deceptive. Yes, both the number of tech deals and the announced deal values hit their highest levels in a year. But lurking behind that rebound is the fact that M&A tailed off dramatically in June. In fact, the final month of the quarter accounted for just 16% of the total M&A spending in the period. The breakdown of the overall $48.4bn in the second quarter: April-May spending hit $40.7bn, while June spending was a scant $7.7bn.

We noted recently how June saw the return of gun-to-the-head sales of many tech companies, both large and small. That is reflected in the dramatic change in average deal size over the course of the quarter. (Granted, average deal size is a crude measure, but it is illustrative nonetheless.) In the April-May period, the 517 deals had an announced deal value of $40.7bn, yielding an average purchase price of $78m. In June, the average sale was less than half that level: 233 deals with an aggregate spend of $7.7bn, for an average of $33m. That’s a worry trend as we head into the second half of the year.

Overall tech M&A

Period Deal volume Deal value
Q2 2009 750 $48bn
Q1 2009 646 $9bn
Q4 2008 723 $40bn
Q3 2008 737 $32bn
Q2 2008 721 $173bn

Source: The 451 M&A KnowledgeBase

Sparxent bullish on M&A

-by Thomas Rasmussen, Jay Lyman

As indicated in the results of our recent corporate development survey, companies once again have an M&A appetite. Some firms even need a second helping of deals. That’s the case with Salt Lake City, Utah-based Sparxent. The IT services vendor wrapped up three acquisitions recently and says it is hungry for more.

In terms of the deals it has closed, Sparxent picked up Russian firm Arbyte Group – along with its Rikkon subsidiary – at a steep discount. We estimate that the company paid just south of $20m, which amounts to a valuation of roughly 0.5x trailing 12-month revenue. This is in addition to its purchase of XAware in May, which we estimate cost Sparxent about $7m, and its pickup of NetworkD last August. According to our understanding, Sparxent is currently generating approximately $70m in pro forma revenue and intends to double that by next year, primarily through M&A. The company tells us that it is currently running a process on a half-dozen or so deals, one of which could well be announced later this week. What vendor might Sparxent be reaching for?

Top among potential targets, based on the fact that both Sparxent and XAware had board membership and investment from vSpring Capital, is another vendor in the venture firm’s portfolio: Penguin Computing. Penguin, which is reaching out to a larger business market with its high-performance computing software and services, fits Sparxent’s preference for open-source-based software combined with commercial licensing. Another vSpring-funded company that may be a target is Infusionsoft, which is focused on automated sales and marketing software for the SMB and midmarket, where Sparxent is aiming to expand. Additional possibilities include PS’Soft with its IT asset and services management software and Sybrant Technologies, an application and product development services firm catering to midsize customers that includes open source in its offerings.

Imaging an alternative exit for LogMeIn

Brenon Daly

Contact: Brenon Daly

With LogMeIn set to price its IPO later today, the next ‘buyer’ of the company will be public market investors. The on-demand vendor will sell 6.7 million shares in an offering that’s being led by JPMorgan Chase and Barclays Capital. LogMeIn set an initial range of $14-16 per share, implying a market capitalization of $300m-340m. It will likely price above that range, and we expect strong demand for LogMeIn shares once they start trading under the ticker ‘LOGM’ on the Nasdaq.

As the company gets set to realize that exit (after more than 17 months on file with the US Securities and Exchange Commission), we thought about where it might have looked had it opted for the other possible exit, a trade sale. We’re not suggesting that LogMeIn was dual-tracking by any means. In fact, although it kept its S-1 alive while so many other tech companies pulled their IPO paperwork, that move wasn’t driven by desperation. LogMeIn doesn’t actually need the proceeds. It is heading into the offering with no debt and $27m in cash on its books, having generated cash for the past nine quarters. Even on a GAAP basis, the firm has been profitable for the past three quarters.

Thus, LogMeIn doesn’t need the offering any more than it needs a trade sale. And to be clear, we hadn’t heard that the company was pursuing anything other than an IPO. Nonetheless, as we did some blue-sky thinking, we quickly came up with two deep-pocketed companies that would have been very smart to nab LogMeIn before it went public. Keep in mind, too, that the two primary rivals to LogMeIn are GoToMyPC and WebEx Communications, firms that have been snapped up by tech giants Citrix and Cisco, respectively.

So here’s our hypothetical short list of possible buyers for LogMeIn. Symantec already has several products that compete with LogMeIn (notably, PC Anywhere), but it is a key partner for LogMeIn. And Big Yellow has shown that it is ready to go shopping to bolster its software-as-a-service business. It paid $695m, or almost 5x trailing 12-month sales, for MessageLabs last October, its largest deal in more than a year and a half. Alternatively, Dell knows all about picking up companies just before they go public. It paid a double-digit multiple for its push into storage with the $1.4bn EqualLogic purchase in November 2007. However, Dell has also done a quartet of deals to build out its services offerings, some of which are offered by LogMeIn and others that are complementary. In addition, the customer profiles of the two vendors would synch pretty well, since LogMeIn gets roughly 80% of its revenue from the SMB market.

June gloom

Brenon Daly

Contact: Brenon Daly

Whether or not the rebound got ahead of itself, the market has certainly tightened up this month. And no, we’re not talking about the equity market. (Although the sentiment is applicable there, as well, with the Nasdaq recently dipping to its lowest point in a month.) Instead, we’re talking about the M&A market. After a furious start to the second quarter, dealmaking has slipped back to the sluggish pace we saw in the first few months of 2009.

A quick glimpse at the numbers: In both April and May, we saw some 250 deals worth about $20bn in each month. So far this month, we’ve had about 205 deals worth a scant $8bn. With just three business days to go in June, we’re looking at spending being down about 60% from what it was in each of the first two months of the quarter.

We’ve also noticed the recent return of a trend that we saw more often in the opening months of 2009: the involuntary sale. In both large and small transactions, sellers have increasingly found themselves forced to take any offer that comes in. We noted that this week in the startup world, as LucidEra was turned over to a workout firm to sell its carcass. And on a larger scale, bankrupt Nortel Networks gave up on ever emerging as a viable company and began the painful process of liquidation sales. The first deal gives some sign of the resignation: Nortel sold its most valuable unit for what is likely to be less than 1x cash flow.

Second-quarter deal flow

Period Deal volume Deal value
April 2009 263 $21bn
May 2009 242 $19bn
June 2009 205 $8bn

Source: The 451 M&A KnowledgeBase

UPDATE: Borland gets higher bid

Brenon Daly

In a note sent out to clients before the market closed Thursday, we speculated that Borland was likely to get a bid that topped its existing agreement with Micro Focus. (See the full post.) Shortly after the market closed, Borland indicated an unidentified suitor (Company A) raised its bid to $1.25 for each share of Borland, eclipsing the $1.15 per share that the boards of both Borland and Micro Focus have agreed to. Borland shareholders had been scheduled to vote on the deal, which was originally announced May 6, on July 22. The identity of Company A wasn’t revealed. In our earlier post, we noted our suspicions that the bidder might be Embarcadero Technologies, a portfolio company of Thoma Cressey Bravo. However, one informed source has subsequently told us that is not the case.

A new bid for Borland?

Brenon Daly

Contact: Brenon Daly

Nearly a month after Micro Focus and Borland announced their planned combination, a pair of after-the-fact bidders pushed Micro Focus to reach a little deeper into its pockets for the application lifecycle management vendor. Now we’re hearing that one of the mystery suitors may well come back with a higher offer. As it stands, Borland shareholders are set to vote on Micro Focus’ bid of $1.15 in cash for each Borland share, or a total of some $92m, on July 22.

However, several sources have indicated that one unidentified party that previously floated a range of $1.10-1.20 per Borland share may well be preparing a bid that would top the existing offer from Micro Focus. The identity of that suitor has never been revealed, and is referred to as ‘Company A’ in the proxy filings. (We suspect, but have not confirmed, that Company A could be Embarcadero Technologies, which went private two years ago in a $200m buyout by Thoma Cressey Bravo. Following a split, TCB now goes by the name Thoma Bravo.) The proxy adds that Company A originally approached Borland with an unsolicited offer in June 2008, and has been more or less present during the process since then. Borland has dismissed several rounds of interest by Company A because of questions about its ability to pay for the deal.

While Company A may or may not come back with a higher offer, the other suitor that emerged after Micro Focus and Borland agreed to their deal – an unnamed private equity firm referred to as ‘Company E’ – will not be dusting off its bid, according to the proxy. Company E has never been identified, but we have a pretty strong suspicion that it could be a recently launched investment firm in the Boston area called 2SV Capital. Calls to the firm weren’t returned.

Certainly, a number of signs point to 2SV Capital as one of Borland’s mystery bidders. Two of the three partners in the firm certainly know the Borland business well, having worked together on the sale of Segue Software in early 2006 to Borland. (As we noted in a recent report on the pending sale of Borland, the Segue business is essentially the main reason why Micro Focus is interested in Borland.) 2SV Capital founder Richard Vieira, who was then working for Jefferies & Co, advised Segue, which was at the time headed up by Joe Krivickas, on the sale to Borland. (Krivickas recently joined Vieira at 2SV Capital.) If indeed 2SV Capital were interested, we suspect the buyout shop wouldn’t have needed to spend too much time on due diligence, given their understanding of the business.