Free Newsletters

   All InfoWorld Newsletters
Open Sources | Rodrigues & Urlocker » More on the Novell private equity exit...

May 30, 2007 | Comments: (0)

More on the Novell private equity exit...

An old friend from Novell sent me her own analysis of the viability of a Novell private equity exit (following on my own half-baked effort). I asked her permission to post, and she agreed. I think it's a solid starting point for anyone thinking through how to help Novell out of its legacy past so that it can focus on the future.

I don't know who you talked to about the buy-out, but that's exactly right. I've done the math differently than you, but the result is the same. It's a victimless crime. If you assume the $2.5b market cap (@$7.30/share) with a 30% premium, that's $3.25b less $1.8b in cash and cash-like things for a total of $1.45b.

One of our challenges has been to manage a portfolio business; Novell is really holding three distinct businesses (legacy stuff, open source, and identity) with different characteristics. Novell is:

  • 33% legacy: Groupwise and Netware (and parts of Zenworks?). Valued at 3-5 years DCF; sell GroupWise to Messaging Architects or open source it and build the business around technical services; but focus and clarity here would help a lot. This is a transactional low-touch sale, no expensive sales force necessary. A classic cash cow. Could be sub-divided further.

  • 25% Identity Management: Sell to SAP (valued as going concern) or keep independent, in which case it retains the Novell name. This is a viable stand-alone business, profitable, with normal R&D investment required. Open sourcing it I suppose is an option, but customers I talk to don't really care how the sausage is made as long as it's tasty. This is a high-touch sale, with a lot of consulting involvement, both Novell consulting and partners. [Matt note: I believe 80% of Novell's consulting business is around Identity Management. Novell's consulting team is top-notch and could continue to build value around IM.].

  • 33% Services: Principally NTS (Novell Technical Services), but also consulting and training; cleave off with their respective other pieces, easy to do with minimal disruption. So you end up with a legacy business (or two), an identity business, and a Linux distribution, each with a services arm.

  • 7% Linux: branded as Suse with some Zenworks elements (ZLM, Orchestrator); taken back as a stand-alone public company trading at Red Hat-like multiples. [Btw, I talked with an old friend from SUSE not long ago, and we both agreed that SUSE probably would have done better on its own, left to fend for itself, than it has under Novell. It's not that Novell is a bad company, but rather that Novell's legacy has confused its future....]
I estimated, at some point, the disaggregation costs at $20m but the real story is how easy it would all be; there's very little coordination right now between, say, GroupWise and Orchestrator. The disruption would be at Waltham, principally, and to a lesser degree with the sales force(s). (I wouldn't weep for Waltham....)

The percentages come from our financials:

Zen 15%
Identity 11%
Linux 7%
Netware (and OES) 23%
Groupwise 10%
Services (NTS, consulting, training) 33%
Anyway, the question is not if this is a good idea; obviously, it is. The question is: why hasn't it been done already? I know that it's been pitched internally before but it didn't go anywhere. Is there a horrible poison pill that makes this less appealing? Was the private equity community put off by the backdating scandal? Is there some deal with IBM? (All senior management, it is worth noting, are former IBM, and all new hires.)
A far more elegant and reasoned argument for why Novell makes sense as a private equity target than I put forth. Reading my friend's analysis, it really is surprising that this hasn't been done. Put Chris Stone back in charge of the Linux business, strip away all the baggage, and let SUSE really compete with Red Hat and Ubuntu again. The only thing Novell has to lose is its chains....

Posted by Matt Asay on May 30, 2007 01:11 PM


RATE THIS ARTICLE:





 

  •  
  • COMMENTS




The problem is now the trasition, but the loss of focus and tactless alienation. Bear in mind that I was a SUSE fan at a time when it was probably the at top as far as the desktop goes.

To quote part of my interview with Jeremy Allison:

"I’m sad because I don’t think we needed to do this [Microsoft] deal]. We were gaining a lot of traction with SuSE Linux desktop, and from my perspective (admittedly not high up in the company hierarchy with views on revenue) we were winning. We had a good product, I was always extremely busy with new customer requirements, and was personally involved in winning new customers for SLED and SLES. It just feels to me like snatching defeat from the jaws of victory."

Posted by: Roy Schestowitz at May 31, 2007 01:58 AM

The value of splitting up Novell would depend on an evaluation of what percentage of sales occur through cross-selling to existing Novell customers and figuring out how much the Novell brand name plays a part in the decision to buy. If a large number of their Linux, Zenworks, and IDM customers are legacy customers they could really be shooting themselves in the foot spinning everything off. When buying Linux support from a company that is not RedHat (the market leader) or deploying something complex like IDM, what role does the Novell brand play in giving companies piece of mind that they are buying from a large capable company which can actually deliver?

Linux is obviously key to Novell's future but a big part of the Linux plan is to keep as many of those Netware legacy clients as possible and migrate them to OES which is the Netware to Linux migration path. In the financials I see some evidence that Netware and OES abandonment is slowing which is good news and with OES becoming Linux based that translates to return on Novell's Linux investment. Revenues from Netware and OES are three times greater than non-OES Linux afterall.

I think there is value when it comes to sales and marketing in having all these products under one roof. I don't think many people would deny the advantage Microsoft has had in selling desktop and server applications due to cross-selling and bundling. With OES 2, Groupwise, and Zenworks a company can migrate a large portion of their server room to Linux while desktops continue to run Windows (without the Novell client) and MS Outlook in a more manageable way. There is value in the cross-selling of that solution.

I don't think Messaging Architects would want to buy Groupwise. Surely they or some other company would buy it if Novell was adamant they were going to dispose of it, but the reality is that other than Novell customers, most IT people have no idea who Messaging Architects or Gwava is. If Groupwise is a hard sell with Microsoft Exchange and IBM Lotus Notes as the competitor, it will be a much harder sell without the Novell brand.

In summary, while I agree that splitting up a company and selling the parts could make a lot of money for shareholders over the short term as is often the case with large companies, over the long term I think it would be disadvantageous. Of course the realized potential of the various Novell components depends on how well Novell runs its business. Perhaps that is where most of the split-up-Novell sentiment comes from, a fear that the Novell performance of the past mirrors the performance of Novell that can be expected in the future.

Posted by: John Yorke at June 1, 2007 11:45 AM

Matt, Matt, Matt.
Your "friend" needs a calculator. Last I looked Novell's financials from the "cash cow" exceed those of Red Hat's Linux revenue. Also, the deals that were MS related were already on the table with Novell and Novell used MS to close them. Revenue is revenue, right?
7% linux? Uh...comparables would show closer to 25% since apples to apples comparisions would include support.
And...if you would read the details...Novell has a poison pill and simply isn't for sale from what Ron keeps saying.
Matt...your facts keep getting more and more off the wall. Journalism at it's best - and we call it "blogging" for a reason.


[NOTE: CxO Trainee's IP address is 130.57.22.201. Look it up. It's a Novell IP address. Next time give your name, as I give mine.]

Posted by: CxO Trainee [Novell Employee] at June 5, 2007 02:55 PM

Well, I guess working inside Novell for so long, maybe her facts have gotten a little awry. Thanks for setting her (and me :-) straight.

Seriously, the one thing you don't note, CxO Trainee, is the trajectory of Red Hat's (or Microsoft's, for that matter) revenues and Novell's. Novell's = flat to declining (precipitously in some cases). Red Hat's are all on the incline. Which business would you rather have? Would you like to spend the next ten years trying to preserve the remnants of past glory (as Novell has for the past ten years), or would you like to start afresh and build it into a real competitor again?

I thought so.

See, even people in the company disagree with you. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any that wouldn't jump at the chance to jettison their slow-moving legacy for a more nimble future. I used to be there, and participate in the discussions. No one at Novell wants the rot that Wall Street makes the company continue to juggle. Going private is a way out. Not easy, by any stretch, but it's definitely a viable option.

Posted by: Matt Asay at June 5, 2007 08:33 PM

Microsoft Mini Spotlight
  • Get Started
  • Port 25 Blogs
  • OSS News
  • Join a Project

{Open Source} Heroes Happen Here

Start today and order your own Hero Hack Pack – which includes Getting Started with Open Source, Windows Server 2008 and Visual Studio 2008 Trial. Each pack is a chance to win a free pass to OSCON 2008.







Technology White Papers

 

InfoWorld Technology Marketplace

» Technology White Papers Library

Technology White Papers by Topic

Technology White Papers E-mail Alert

Find out when the latest white paper is available:
 
 
» BUY A LINK NOW

Sponsored Technology Links