Interesting People mailing list archives
Re: acquisitions
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 11:29:33 -0500
Begin forwarded message: From: Edward Vielmetti <edward.vielmetti () gmail com> Date: January 19, 2009 10:19:37 AM EST To: dave () farber net Subject: Re: [IP] acquisitions 30% of acquisitions are success! That's amazing. Especially considering that most startup companies are failures. thanks Ed On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 4:20 AM, David Farber <dave () farber net> wrote:
Begin forwarded message: From: Date: January 14, 2009 8:17:40 PM EST To: dave () farber net Subject: acquisitions ***please anonymize*** Dave, for IP if you wish, but ***please anonymize*** I spent some time in Silicon Valley in the go-go days, and saw several acquisitions, one from the acquiring side (part of the due diligence team), one from the acquired side, and others as a bystander. After having been acquired, then doing due diligence on the next acquisition, I was in a leadership training gig in the home country of the acquiring major telecom company -- which I believe to be very wellmanaged, it's a good and well-respected company in our industry. One ofour speakers was the company's veep in charge of acquisitions. Heasked, "Has anyone here ever been involved in an acquisition?" I stuckmy hand up. "What did you think of the process?" "Ya really wanna know?" "Yes." "I don't think the acquisition model is working very well for us." He nodded. "Industry-wide, seventy percent of acquisitions are ultimately declared to be failures." Seventy percent!!! Across the industry! And there are *enormous* pressures inside a big company *NOT* to declare an acquisition to be afailure -- having to write down a lot of costs (hundreds of millions ofdollars, often) really hurts the quarterly bottom line, not to mention the career of the veep who championed the acquisition. So, by themeasures of disinterested parties, the failure rate is probably quite abit higher.The perception is that it's difficult for big companies to think outsidethe box and do the things that will ultimately destroy/reinvent their industry. BUT, if it's going to be done, SOMEONE will do it, somehow,someway, and if you're the big company you're better off being in on thecannibalization of your own industry than passively watching. The thirty percent or less of acquisitions that are successes are simply deemed to be worth it. You put in a BIG pot of money, and keep buying until you find the right ones. I'm sure some companies are ultimately better at it than others. Perhaps Cisco is good and Nortel not. But I would caution watchers, especially those who were involved, from drawing too sweeping a conclusion based on only one or a few datapoints. ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
-- Edward Vielmetti Ann Arbor, MI +1 734 330 2465 ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Current thread:
- acquisitions David Farber (Jan 19)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: acquisitions David Farber (Jan 19)