What’s Your Five-Year Plan?

Many moons ago when I was still dating, a woman asked me to give her my five year plan.  At that stage in my life, I did not have a five month plan, much less a five year plan.  I have to admit that I was a bit taken aback by the pointed line of questioning, so I decided to have some fun with the situation and asked, “Why do you ask?  I mean, what I’ve done up to this point isn’t good enough?”  Her response was, “Yeah, it’s ok, but I need to know what to expect in the future before making a commitment to you.”  (Hah!  Just “Ok.”)

The moral of this blog post is to advise tech entrepreneurs not to fall into the earn-out trap.  Oh, the lovely earn-out.  It is a wonderful tool to get deals done, but it can be a spider’s web. Typically, companies are paid a purchase price and there is an implied multiple based on their trailing twelve months financial results.  As your investment banker, it would be my job to apply that implied multiple to your projected financial results, making the case that the the company’s historicals actually its projected year-end results.

Oftentimes, this opens the door to an earn-out situation, whereby the acquirer sees the opportunity to “bridge the gap” with an earn-out.  If an entrepreneur is not well-equipped with an advisor that can help them work through the details of an earn-out, they might find themselves committing to unreachable financial hurdles or, even worse, a situation where corporate expenses are allocated to their operating expenses lowering their operating cash flow.

An entrepreneur’s business is just that, his or her business, and it should be acquired on the merits of its market share, defensible product positioning in the market and historical financial results.  The purchase price of a transaction should never be based solely on future results.  The absolute maximum amount of the purchase price allocated to future results should never exceed 50% in addition to capping the out years at 25% per year for a maximum duration of two years.  Otherwise an entrepreneur would be better off keeping his or her business and selling it at a later date.

So, when a suitor asks for your five-year plan, treat this as a red flag warning and be prepared for them to try to tie you to an earn-out based on this forecast.  If you are not asked to project your business out five years when selling your company, then you will know the buyer is making a serious run for your company.  Always take the posture that you are selling your business and running it for the buyer.  Not the other way around, i.e. buying your own business with its future cash flows.


Posted in Investment Banking, M&A, Technology | Leave a Comment »

News Corp./Content Providers vs. Google, Round 394

Recently, Rupert Murdoch has public mused that News Corp. might start blocking its content from Google’s search results. As many of you already know, Google provides search results that link to content from News Corp. (and many, many, other providers), along with a brief summary of said content. Google gets ad revenue tied to these search results, and it keeps all of the money. However, Google contends that it drives significant traffic directly to the sites (on the order of 1 billion page views per month, according to Marissa Mayer), and it allows the content owners to then try to monetize this traffic in any way they deem feasible. Plus, content owners are free to block Google’s search engines from linking to their sites.

Everybody gains, right? Not so fast. The search results frequently contain enough content that viewers do not feel the need to click on the original news link. And, this system puts the control of the viewer in the hands of Google, not the news source, by disaggregating all of the news.

So what is the solution, if you are a content provider? You could do what News Corp. is contemplating, which is to pull your content. Would it really be worth it to News Corp to decrease its traffic in order to spite Google? Probably not, which is why nobody of note has done it yet. One solution that has been rumored is that News Corp. would partner with Bing, a Google competitor, in an exclusive arrangement: Bing gets increased traffic to its search engine, and News Corp. receives some compensation from Bing for this exclusive traffic. However, and this is a big however, many viewers would likely just continue to use Google and then go to non-News Corp websites for their information, except in cases where News Corp. has exclusive content. The only way that this would work is if all of the major news sites signed an exclusive arrangement with Bing (or whomever else). Then they would have a critical mass of content that drives users to a different search engine.

If push came to shove, would Google consider providing a split of some of its revenue to these providers to prevent them from joining the other side? Doubtful. My view is that there is so much news content out there, both from “professional” and “amateur (blogs, etc.)” sources that it would be very difficult to have a concerted effort large enough to make a dent to Google. Stay tuned…


Posted in Digital Media | Leave a Comment »

Morgan Stanley Took TARP Money

I noticed that Morgan Stanley has been sponsoring a substantial number of Green Tech conferences lately.  Pretty much all of them.  That’s good for the green tech conference sector as well as the hotel, podium and A/V industry.  But I want to be very clear that Morgan Stanley took TARP money.  TARP means troubled asset relief program, which means that their investment bank was about to go under unless they had help from the government.  This does not translate into a sound financial advisory practice.

While most business owners have weathered the storm, Morgan Stanley has been sponsoring conferences and throwing their weight around as the big cheese in the industry.  As the small fry in the crowd that did not take TARP money, I would like them to explain where all that platinum sponsorship money came from before they hit the podium.  There should be an asterisks next to their name as a sponsor or any sponsor that took TARP money and is now posturing as the clean tech financial oracle.

(Like a little dog tugging and nipping at your pant leg, MS you’re going to have some bruised ankles in 2010.)

Peachtree Green Advisors

Better Service, Lower Fees (no TARP money)


Posted in Investment Banking, M&A | Leave a Comment »

Which New Media Company Should I Acquire?

Eureka!  You have found your answer.  (Do not be ashamed for typing that phrase into your search browser, we’ve all been there!)  There you were, a big media executive, sitting in your office all alone staring at the all-knowing search browser.  You type in “Which interactive media company should I buy” and voila!   Here you are.

Acquiring a company today is almost like a kid being in Dylan’s candy store for the first time, but with only $5 and the entire store staring directly at you.   Not to mention the $5 is a loan from your big brother.  There are lots of choices and it can be overwhelming.  So, which media company should you buy? 

Well, I’m not going to answer that question in this post, because that’s why I get paid the big bucks.  I will take you back to the fundamentals of media though.  It starts with reminding mid-size and larger media companies to focus on what they are good at – creating content and selling advertising. 

As for 2009, the days of large-scale splashy Internet acquisitions are over (at least for now).  Tools, technology and applications are sexy acquisition targets that will put your company in the headlines, but can also land you in front of an investor firing squad.  Just imagine the A.I.G. grilling you will get from shareholders after you close on a $100 million acquisition that becomes obsolete in twelve months. 

Only grandmas and banks hold on to cash.  You’re a media company executive, it’s time to start investing in growth!  Use it or lose it.    ROI waits for no one.  With your VP of corporate development reduced to “Yes” man status in order to cover his rear end, you may want to start out with smaller brands that you can help grow and cross-promote within your own portfolio of Websites.   

The safest area to begin making online media acquisitions is in the niche consumer or business-to-business categories.  Niche categories represent smaller and safer environments for building online media brands.  If you are looking for a loyal and entrenched audience with a vested interest in promoting the Website, then niche community based Websites and social media companies are the way to acquire.  The people in these communities not only identify with Website brands, but are also content contributors by uploading videos, sharing photos and sharing experiences relevant to the community. 

There are significant buying opportunities at great prices.  Especially, since many of these companies are not able to raise venture capital because they are not generating obscene amounts of traffic.  These Websites can be picked up for small amounts of money and then introduced to the traffic of the parent brand - similar to ESPN’s acquisition strategy. 

Safe Target Acquisition Areas for 2009

 

In the chart above, I outlined what I believe is the safest area to begin acquiring.  You are probably going to get the most bang for your buck in the niche B2B or consumer arena.  Whether it is video, social media or just plain old information, non-evergreen content that is updated regularly is the way to go.  You will be able to grow traffic, cross-promote brands, add what I call smart-scale (already scaled down businesses) and leverage your existing sales infrastructures.  Sounds like a party to me.

Here are some examples of small strategic acquisitions that would be considered in the safe ROI zone for 2009 (and it is not a coincidence that the companies listed below were already acquired):

There are tons of small content companies out there that could play a strategic role in helping your company solidify relationships with advertisers.  Adding more of your core target demographic group is a safe way to go in this environment.  Everyone is skittish, even advertisers.  So, more bread & butter and less pizazz will serve to be accretive all the way from the ad pitch to the bottom line.


Posted in Digital Media, M&A | Leave a Comment »