Maneuvering Continues For Control of Dell
An anonymous reader writes "Just as Carl Icahn's months-long, high-profile bid for control of Dell seemed to have run its course, came the announcement that Dell's board had postponed a shareholder's vote on the bid from Michael Dell and investment firm Silver Lake Partners, to take private the company that Dell had started in a University of Texas dorm room twenty nine years ago. The postponement indicated that Dell was not confident that their $24.4 billion ($13.65 per share) deal had the necessary votes. Icahn and his main ally, Southeastern Asset Management, claim that the proposed deal undervalues the company and its upside potential; Icahn's latest proposal is to keep the company public, but to offer $14 per share plus upside warrants, for every share tendered by stockholders. The latest wrinkle is apparent tension within the Dell/Silver Lake team; Silver Lake reportedly feels entitled to the $450 million buyout fee specified in the deal's language, if any alternative bid from Icahn succeeds within a year; Dell and the board feel that Silver Lake would only be entitled to expenses in that case, perhaps amounting to a few tens of millions USD. The Bloomberg story also reports that Michael Dell has at times been unable to reach his Silver Lake counterpart (a longtime friend) on the phone to discuss possibly sweetening the bid."
I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders.
I also feel entitled to $450 million for doing nothing.
Gimmee!
You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders.
Ironically that is exactly what Apple did with iBonds. Foolishly for exactly the same reasons pursuit of short term profits over market share (long term profits).
Its odd that Apple fans remember this but fail to remember the young Jobs scathing comments regarding this very strategy when it was still a computing company...and then proceeding to follow the same path in his reinvention of Apple as an electronics company.
Does anyone else think this whole sage would be much simpler if the media consistently referred to people:dell or company:dell?
Virtually serving coffee
I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders.
Ironically this was from a time when Apple had failed while wintel had won. Leaving Jobs begging to Microsoft resulting in a settled lawsuit a few million in the bank...and a crippled office port. It only sounds stupid in retrospect because Apple from that dark time (A time I repeatedly point out its returning to), by reinventing itself, doing exciting things, leading in new markets. It became something different...better.
The World has changed since then Wintel are bleeding the PC industry dry with Microsoft & Intel cashing on on 70% gross profit margins...in the Desktop Apps(The Desktop destroyed by Microsoft...living on only in name...Windows) market that is not sustaining it...and Dells slice of the pie (and the Pie) is shrinking...The Days of Dell earning more money than Microsoft are long gone.
This move is about Dell reinventing itself doing exciting things, leading in new markets without the quarterly shareholder distractions (allegedly) , Something Apple is going to learn from in 2 days time.
Hopefully they will have the good sense not to be remain reliant on Wintel.
I am usually skeptical when people want to take a company away from the person who founded it. For more fun stories about private equity, look here http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/12/15/dividend-recaps-how-private-equity-is-sucking-the-life-out-of-g/
Meanwhile, the employees are asked to rearrange the deck chairs.
Anyone wanting to buy Dell should have to set up and use one of their awful products for 1 day and then call tech support once. There would be zero buyers. Seriously, buying Dell is like buying a car just based on the company's marketing and image without actually looking under the hood to find out it's a complete piece of crap (in other words a Saturn or Kia). Except Dell is more like a Yugo on craigslist with a flashy paint job and astroturfed reviews. They're 2nd to last in laptop quality, dead last in support quality, and no business with an IT purchaser who has any kind of clue even considers them as a vendor anymore.
So if you're reading this and thinking "hey, I buy from Dell all the time!" first of all, look at your hardware failure numbers. Secondly, fire yourself. Third, note that last time a business I was contracted to work at for a computer replacement project ordered 120 Dell laptops ($800 models btw), 20 were RMAed right out of the box with hardware defects. I guarantee that cost Dell more than it would have to simply build them all with good parts in the first place.
All that is missing from your troll post is some neon pink hair. You already have the orifice for being useful as a pencil topper.
Now Mikey knows how the rest of us feel when we try to call him.
Anyone wanting to buy Dell should have to set up and use one of their awful products for 1 day
Ignoring the usual awful *car* analogy...I mean why describe one industry secondary I do understand with an analogy of one I don't. I bought a Dell monitor recently. It is a no frills,with money off trade in...and was head and shoulders cheaper than anything else in the market, and on the whole perfect.
That said every single person. I have ever spoken at Dell, was unpleasant and wanted to transfer me to someone else as soon as possible. Now here is the thing. that has become the behaviour of *every* company I deal with today.
What exactly is the future of Dell, anyway?
Kill off all of the consumer business and focus solely on the business market (presumably excluding the very large enterprise market where Dell can't complete with traditional consulting companies like Accenture or highly integrated solution providers like IBM)?
It seems like the consumer market is what is collapsing more so than the business market. Tablets may replace or string out the lifecycle of consumer PCs, but they're an adjunct if used at all in businesses.
Dell has made some moves towards enterprise IT (Equallogic, Compellant) but its products lack integration and awareness and in some ways compete against each other (Equallogic SAN modularity makes a strong claim for extensive scalability, risking overlap with the Compellant product at the lower end).
There seems to be some future for a company who can supply an IT solution (switching, storage, cpu, services) at the mid-large market space. Plus, there's money to be made even at the SMB level, too, since not everything they do can be "clouded" nor are many interested in hazy cloud commitments.
Why the hate for iBonds? Is it a general dislike of debt or is there something specific?
Why would I hate that? Peoples language has just got so weak. iBonds were simply a way of limiting the damage of its falling knife share price. It has been fairly stable since...although we will see what happens after this quarters announcement in a couple of days time.
The reality is though I would have rather have seen Apple doing something interesting with their money instead of giving it back to shareholders (and attracting unwanted Government attention for not even paying token tax). Like in context of this article buy Dell and flood the market with good value iMac clones going straight for Microsoft throat just as it treats its hostages to its new tablet interface on the Desktop.
Apple took the safe option...my response is meh, but then this New Apple is all about meh...the magic(best drinking game ever) whether you fell for it or not is dead.
Steve Jobs was responsible for Apple's 2013 bond issue? They've got better tech than I thought.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/richkarlgaard/2012/12/10/steve-jobs-warns-apple-dont-be-greedy/ Steve Jobs 1995 "What ruined Apple was not growth They got very greedy Instead of following the original trajectory of the original vision, which was to make the thing an appliance and get this out there to as many people as possible they went for profits. They made outlandish profits for about four years. What this cost them was their future. What they should have been doing is making rational profits and going for market share.”
Apple is now in a market where its competitors have better products; in larger selections; at better prices, and its response...
Designed by Apple in California http://www.apple.com/designed-by-apple/
So yeah when I say its revenues; profits; market share; technical edge; brand value; market cap are all down I tend to lay that responsibility square on Steve Jobs. Who should have embraced american manufacturing, made large sensible Acquisitions, planned for the maturing markets of its products...on the off chance it wasn't able to break into another new market, at an opportune time.
IBonds were a quick fix to its plummeting share price...the corporate rot is still there. Later I may be blaming the new Steve "I got rid of manufacturing" Cook for not stopping the rot, and squandering Billions too late.
At least you have the iPad Mini.
I've had over ten years of watching you and I know exactly where you're fucking up.
You switched horses in the middle of a race (Home-based vs portable)
You should have established dominance in the PC market, then used that to make a PC-based tablet.
But you didn't wait for said dominance, and now you're floundering.
I told you six years ago. Should I release those e-mails to embarrass you further?
I'm waiting, Dell.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.