BMC Going Private In $6.9 Billion Deal 49
itwbennett writes "In a much-anticipated move, IT infrastructure management software vendor BMC has agreed to be acquired for $6.9 billion by a private investment consortium headed up by Bain Capital and Golden Gate Capital. The deal is expected to close this year."
Re: (Score:2)
...of which each spinoff component will be more efficient than the whole.
Re: (Score:1)
And that is less efficient? Apparently, in that case, the IP was the only thing of value. Keeping a failing company open only delays the inevitable. Destroying it quickly allows for reallocation to happen more quickly.
Efficient? Never in a LBO. (Score:5, Informative)
The buyers will pay themselves huge "consulting" fees and borrow at least three times the company's value/worth, spending none of it on growth and everything on themselves and their premier shareholders. The hollowed out shell will be saddled with impossible debt as jobs are wiped out, shipped away, and a fragile shell of a company will pretend as long as it can that it's still viable, scrrewing everyone and everything in its past.
You can watch their m.o. in the histories of Kay-Bee Toys, Dunkin Donuts, and Continental Bakeries just to name a few off the top of my head.
Re: (Score:2)
I applied to BMG a few years ago. Thank dog I didn't get the job (they weren't "ready" to hire, but were "ready" to interview)...
And now all those people will be on the street in a few-18 months.
*cackle*
Better check my 401k and make sure none of it holds NASDAQ:BMC. That thing is going to drop like a rock.
Re: (Score:1)
What about the "going private" part don't you understand? You bet your ass that your 401k won't hold any BMC. It's not going to drop either - it's going to disappear.
Again? (Score:4, Funny)
I thought Leyland had already bought BMC.
Apologies to Roger Stirling (Score:2)
"From one john's bed to the next!"
Re: (Score:2)
I just checked, and it looks like BMC is still owned by Springer [biomedcentral.com].
Re: (Score:3)
romney is not a neo-con
he happens to be a former republican governor of a liberal state where he passed a government health care law that became the model for the current ObamaCare
Re: (Score:3)
Make no mistake, romney is a neo-con.
Neo-con: a conservative who supports a strong-pro-Israel middle easy policy. I don't think Romney had a position either way on that - he was pretty focused on domestic stuff. "Neo-con" doesn't mean "those guys I hate" - you can still just say "those guys I hate", it's OK.
Re: (Score:2)
Neo-con: a conservative who supports a strong-pro-Israel middle east policy. I don't think Romney had a position either way on that
His whole foreign policy page was *titled* "American Century" and he gave a speech on a "New American Century."
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-10-07/politics/35277977_1_clarity-of-american-purpose-mitt-romney-isolationist-shell [washingtonpost.com]
He didn't think of that on his own. His foreign policy page and speech echoed the Project for a New American Century and its descendant the Fore
Re: (Score:2)
Make no mistake, romney is a neo-con.
Neo-con: a conservative who supports a strong-pro-Israel middle easy policy. I don't think Romney had a position either way on that - he was pretty focused on domestic stuff. "Neo-con" doesn't mean "those guys I hate" - you can still just say "those guys I hate", it's OK.
As a devout Mormon, he most likely did have a pretty strong Israel policy.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, ObamaCare's model is from a Bush I/Clinton-era plan. Bush submitted the individual mandate as a proposal, then in 1993 the conservative Congress tried to pass a variant as the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act, which was -- like Obamacare -- an individual mandate with penaties for non-compliance. (See the third paragraph of this section [wikipedia.org] in Wikipedia's ObamaCare article.) Romney's plan was considered important because it was the first time it was actually enacted, thus demonstrating that
Re: (Score:2)
Must be a New Footprints Version coming out. (Score:2)
Every Time Footprints [numarasoftware.com] Up's a version, The Company gets bought out.
So far...
BMC
Numara
Unipress
Footprints Software
And I'm probably missing a company or two in there.
Goodbye BMC! (Score:3, Interesting)
I was on the receiving end of a Golden Gate Capital acquisition, management was gutted and everything that made our company a success for over 40 years was thrown to the wind.
Those of us that were left had to pick up the slack with inexperienced management and shaky client relationships. It wasn't long before most of the senior developers in our branch hit the eject button making things worse.
Then they took away benefits and put on a wage freeze, it became apparent by the end that really they just wanted the clients we had but not our business.
Which was sad, for a time we had something great.
Time to begin your migrations... (Score:2)
Patrol -> Nagios
Control-M -> ????
before the licensing costs go through the roof.
(I predict that they'll be laying off software developers once Bain starts "improving" the business.)
Bad price to potential debt ratio (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the sad fate in store for companies that are relatively cheap to buy compared to how much debt they can still take on.
Some vulture capital [realclearpolitics.com] firm will swoop in, borrow a bunch of money to take them over, then force the poor company to pay them back for the takeover costs, plus every other last cent the victim is now capable of borrowing. They make millions (sometimes) billions without risking a cent once the takeover is complete.
Everybody wins. Well, except perhaps for the banks and their investors when the companies go backrupt. And the workers who thought they were dedicating their toil to making products people wanted, not creating temporary paper value for rich folks to come in and loot.
This is why they call themselves "job craters". They don't spell it that way in print of course, but we all know what they mean when they say it.
Re: (Score:1)
And the workers who thought they were dedicating their toil to making products people wanted
Having been involved in implementing a big pile of BMC stuff here at work, I've gotta say that I don't think any of those are at BMC.
Re: (Score:2)
Your post contains a lot of contradictions.
First, private equity firms do invest a lot of their own money in the firms they buy (hence the name. They invest private money (that of their owners/shareholders) into equity by buying firms). If they didn't banks would be rightly suspicious of the deal since the private equity firm would get paid no matter what happened.
Second, because of this, it is in the interests of the private equity firm that the company do well. In theory, if the PE firm bought a cont
Re: (Score:2)
First, private equity firms do invest a lot of their own money in the firms they buy (hence the name. They invest private money (that of their owners/shareholders) into equity by buying firms). If they didn't banks would be rightly suspicious of the deal since the private equity firm would get paid no matter what happened.
Not exactly. They invest some "own" money and borrow the rest from a bank. The bank has no conscience either, so it is also in it. It is a kind of slavery where the slaves have to pay for their own chains.
Second, because of this, it is in the interests of the private equity firm that the company do well. In theory, if the PE firm bought a controlling share (say 51%) they would be in a position to screw over the remaining 49%, for example by selling the firm's assets to some other company owned by the PE firm, at a discount rate. This would most likely be illegal. Apart from this mechanism, the interests of the PE firm are exactly the same as the remaining shareholders: to get as much money from the firm as possible.
Now you contradict yourself. The goal is to squeeze as money as possible out of the victim. That is not the same as having that firm run well. On the contrary. The victim is squeezed dry, and the predators go on to the next victim.
Finally, if it is more profitable to sell a companies assets and fire all its workers, then this is a good thing. If you don't already believe this then I don't have space to prove it in this post, but the general idea is that labor and capital are just like any other commodity, and so a company whose share price today is less than the value of its in place assets, is like a giant inefficient machine that consumes capital and labor for what is effectively negative profit.
Capital is just a number typed in a computer if a bank is part of the robber
Re: (Score:2)
First, private equity firms do invest a lot of their own money in the firms they buy
They "invest" that money, then take every penny back from the company coffers the instant they take it over. The only way any of that initial money is at any kind of risk is if either they fail to take over the company (and their run at it didn't drive up the stock price before they bailed), or if it turns out the company can't borrow enough money to cover their nut once they take it over. Assuming they did their homework right, there is very little risk there, and it is very breif.
it is in the interests of the private equity firm that the company do well
To a certian extent this
Re: (Score:2)
This is not vulture capitalism. Vulture funds, like the birds, feed off dead corpses. I don’t think BMC is dead or dying company. I am not saying that Bain doesn’t do this stuff – but this is not the case.
As for vulture capitalism themselves – do they harm dying companies by restructuring them? Is a slow death better then chopping off the dead flesh so a smaller, healthier, company can emerge? I mean, look at what the vulture capitalist Warren Buffet did with broadcloth make Berkshir
That's not what people mean (Score:2)
Moreover, the narrative we're being sold is that you buy a company because you want it to succeed. This is why we allow "job creators" to have so much wealth. It's the justification we're given for wealth inequity that investors will risk their capi
Re: (Score:2)
That is just plain sloppy use of language – it like lumping all football players together – no matter if they are a striker or a quarterback.
In your context, covers the whole private capital / hedge fund. I would just be simpler – and more accurate - to drop the vulture and just derided capitalism.
However, in the private capital / hedge fund world, vulture capital means something else.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/vulturefund.asp [investopedia.com]
Sure, they like to go by fancy names, such as distress
Re: (Score:2)
This is like complaining that you don't like the way everyone else in the world uses the word "hacker". You may have a bit of a point, but human language is about communication, so majority really does rule. Sorry. I hate what the same process has done to the words "hacker" and "enormity", but I only get one vote.
In this case, I don't think its that bad though. Essentially, "Vulture Capital Firm" has come to mean something a bit different than "Vulture Fund". A "Vulture Capital Firm" is simply a supposed
Re: (Score:2)
seems appropriate (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Bane of my existence also, utterly awful stuff.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
hooray! (Score:2)
three cheers for asset-stripping vulture capitalist scumbags.
they'll get richer gutting and eventually killing off BMC, but that's a small price to pay for the death of BMC Remedy.