Hmm...everything I'm interested in is relatively insignificant..

As someone who will get a Finance concentration from the Chicago GSB, I've done my fair share of assignments/projects involving valuing companies. (Note: I'm not claiming expertise, merely experience:)) A number of factors make this complicated (hence the need to actually learn it, and the excuse to still struggle with it) but essentially the value of a company is the expected value of its future cash flows.

Acquisitions by companies are a simple way to understand not just what a company is valued at, but also a sense of how much revenue it might generate in the future, in a sense how "big" a part of the economy it currently is.

I tend to be interested in, and get excited by, tech and media stuff, and tend to focus on reading about these sectors. I've always known at the back of my head that I'm ignoring other sectors that may in fact be much larger, and today was a stark reminder of that.

So I've been thinking for the last couple of days: "Google acquired DoubleClick for $3.1 billion. Wow! That has to be huge"
Well sure....for a tech deal it is. But looking at the deals being talked about just today, on one randomly picked day, in the Journal, that completely dwarf the size of this deal, I realize just how relatively small what I think of as the tech sector, still is when compared to the entire economy.
Just today, the deals being talked about:
  • KKR-led consortium is offering $21.2 billion for Alliance Boots (never heard of em until today)
  • Interpool (??) is buying Fortress Investment funds (ok..) for $2.4 billion.
  • Japan Tobacco bought Gallaher Group (which makes the Benson & Hedges cigarettes) for wait for it....$15 billion (apparently not everyone agrees that smoking is hazardous yet)

Comments

shmoo said…
I don't get this Google acquisiton. Google must think DoubleClick will make them more than $3.1 billion, otherwise they wouldn't buy. DoubleClick's owners must think they would've made less than $3.1 billion, otherwise they wouldn't sell. One would think DoubleClick would know themselves better than Google does. Can Google run DoubleClick better than it could've been run alone?
Satyajeet said…
This is where the complications come in
- DoubleClick was owned by a PE firm, which needed to flip it.
- There's always the "revenue synergy" argument. The Big G is able to get more revenue synergies than anyone else.
- There's additional value to Google in keeping DoubleClick out of the hands of Msft.
shmoo said…
Okay, so:

1) That semi-explains why they were willing to be sold.

2) Um... okay, I guess...

3) That assumes that Microsoft has that "revenue synergy" also, or else DoubleClick owned by Microsoft wouldn't be any more of a threat than DoubleClick alone.
Satyajeet said…
Sure.
Its reasonable that DoubleClick+Msft will be a more competition, than the two separately, especially since MS is having trouble kicking off their a business, and there are some scale advantages in the business. No?

Popular posts from this blog

Measure f-ing everything, and assume f-ing nothing!! - Or how mentoring ruined lives :-(

Yup - humans still lack humanity

Materials from my Product Management workshop