Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘GOldman Sachs’

Article from SFGate.

Facebook investors Accel Partners and Goldman Sachs plan to sell as much as $1.8 billion in shares of the top social network, becoming two of the biggest sellers in the planned initial public offering.

Goldman Sachs is selling 13.2 million shares, worth as much as $461.6 million at the high end of the range outlined Thursday by Menlo Park’s Facebook. Accel Partners, an early investor in Facebook, intends to sell as much as $1.3 billion of shares.

Facebook unveiled plans Thursday to raise as much as $11.8 billion in the largest-ever Internet IPO. Executives including Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg and backers such as Digital Sky Technologies will sell a total of 157.4 million shares for as much as $35 apiece, according to a regulatory filing. None will unload their entire holding.

On Friday, Facebook received a buy recommendation from Wedbush Securities and a target price of $44, its first rating since announcing plans to sell shares in an initial public offering.

Facebook should benefit from its large, growing user base that will help it attract more spending by advertisers and boost revenue and earnings, Michael Pachter, an analyst at Wedbush in Los Angeles, said Friday in a note to investors. Mobile advertising could play an especially important part of the growth in advertising, Pachter said.

“More users should drive more usage, which in turn should drive increased advertising revenue share,” wrote Pachter. “Facebook will capture an increasing percentage of spending on offline advertising, while growing share of online advertising as well, as usage continues to increase and advertisers become more comfortable with the cost-effectiveness of online advertising.”

Facebook would be valued at more than $90 billion, and executive and investor sales would yield $5.5 billion. Existing shareholders paid an average of $1.11 a share for Facebook, the filing shows.

Facebook is offering 180 million shares to raise funds for general corporate purposes.

While Goldman Sachs is one of the IPO underwriters, it failed to win the lead role after scuttling a private sale of Facebook’s stock to U.S. investors last year. Facebook said in January 2011 that it raised $1.5 billion from Goldman Sachs and Digital Sky Technologies, valuing the company at $50 billion. Goldman Sachs, affiliated funds and Digital Sky invested $500 million, while non-U.S. investors in a Goldman Sachs fund bought $1 billion of shares.

Michael DuVally, a spokesman for Goldman Sachs, declined to comment on the plans to sell Facebook shares. Richard Wong, a partner at Accel Partners, declined to comment.

Zuckerberg will offer 30.2 million of his 533.8 million shares in the sale, bringing him as much as $1.1 billion. The majority of his net proceeds will be used to pay taxes associated with exercising a stock option.

Accel, the biggest outside holder, invested $12.2 million in Facebook in 2005 and owns 11.3 percent of Facebook’s Class B shares. At the high end of the proposed IPO price range, Accel’s remaining stake would be valued at about $5.7 billion.

Digital Sky is selling 26.3 million shares to yield as much as $919 million.

Selling may be smart for holders with large stakes who haven’t had a chance to diversify their assets, said Erik Gordon, a professor at the Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

Other selling stockholders include Elevation Partners, Greylock Partners, Microsoft, Zynga CEO Mark Pincus and LinkedIn Chairman Reid Hoffman. The investors are selling only parts of their Facebook stakes.

Read more here.

Read Full Post »

Article from SFGate.

“Three years from now, the data equivalent of every movie ever made will cross Internet networks every five minutes, according to Cisco Systems predictions. How to manage all that information is what will be driving technology mergers and acquisitions in 2012.

In a bid to transform that torrent into profits, a cash-rich industry is poised to surpass 2011’s almost $200 billion volume of announced mergers and acquisitions. Companies such as Cisco and IBM are searching for deals that will boost their capacity to provide new storage, analytics and security services to enterprise customers.

Big data, mobile and cloud technologies will lead to “bold investments and fateful decisions,” market research firm IDC said in a recent report. The volume of digital information may balloon from 2.7 zettabytes this year – the equivalent of filling 2.7 billion of Apple’s priciest iMacs to capacity – to 8 zettabytes by 2015, according to IDC.

“The speed at which technology innovation moves is such that you can’t miss a step,” said Jon Woodruff, the San Francisco co-head of technology investment banking at Goldman Sachs, the industry’s top adviser on deals last year. “Every tool has to be used for speed and nimbleness sake, and M&A is one of those significant tools.”

Abundant cash and investor pressure to jump-start sales growth will also propel deal-making. Cash levels have expanded 21 percent in the past year to $513 billion, based on holdings of the 35 companies that comprise the Morgan Stanley Technology Index.

Large companies will be leading the charge. Hewlett-Packard, Google and Microsoft led a 36 percent gain in technology deals last year, outpacing a 4.1 percent advance for all M&A worldwide.

In one of the biggest deals last year, HP agreed to buy Autonomy Corp. for $10.3 billion in a bid to build its software business and scale back on its PC manufacturing. Though viewed negatively by some investors, the move will enable Hewlett-Packard to offer database search services and other cloud-related services for business. CEO Meg Whitman said in November that the company doesn’t plan “large M&A” this year, though it may seek small software deals.

Cisco, which has made about 150 acquisitions in its history and has $44.4 billion in cash on the balance sheet, said in November that it will “continue to be aggressive in acquiring technologies.”

Bigger volume

“This year’s technology deal volume could be bigger than last year’s and 2007’s,” said Chet Bozdog, global head of technology investment banking at Bank of America.

Industry takeovers in 2007 reached $264.4 billion, the biggest year since 2000’s record high of $585.2 billion.

“Convergence between hardware, software and services will continue to add products to the same sales chains,” said Bozdog, who is based in Palo Alto.

Cloud computing, which allows companies to access information over the Internet from external data centers, and the shift from desktops to mobile devices, will continue to be “huge multiyear trends,” said Drago Rajkovic, head of technology mergers and acquisitions at JPMorgan Chase.

As part of this trend, SAP, the largest maker of business-management software, agreed to buy SuccessFactors for $3.4 billion in December to create a “cloud powerhouse,” co-CEO Bill McDermott said at the time.

Gaining patents

Google announced in August it would buy Motorola Mobility Holdings for $12.5 billion in its largest acquisition, gaining mobile patents and expanding in hardware. Microsoft purchased Skype Technologies for $8.5 billion in October, the biggest Internet takeover in more than a decade, in an effort to catch Google in online advertising and Apple in mobile software.

While Google and Microsoft paid in cash for their deals, the purchases didn’t put a dent in their funds. Microsoft’s cash and equivalents jumped 41 percent from a year earlier to $51.7 billion, based on its latest filing, while Google increased cash by 28 percent to $45.4 billion.

Apple, which has no debt and the most cash among technology companies at $97.6 billion, said Jan. 24 that it is discussing ways to spend its funds and would consider acquisitions.

“There’s more cash in technology than in any other sector and the low level of debt makes it very easy for companies in the industry to buy growth,” said JPMorgan’s Rajkovic, who is based in San Francisco.

Affordable targets

“As cash piles have increased, some potential targets have become more affordable. Shares of F5 Networks, whose software helps companies manage Internet traffic, lost 18 percent of their value in 2011 even as sales grew 31 percent. Riverbed Technology, a provider of equipment to boost networks’ speed, lost 33 percent while its revenue increased 32 percent. Shares of Acme Packet, a maker of devices that help networks transmit phone calls and video, dropped 42 percent last year while sales jumped 33 percent.

“You will see more M&A than last year, with some very strategic technology companies involved as valuations have become more reasonable,” said Larry Sonsini, who co-founded Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, the law firm that brought Apple public in 1980.”

Read more here.

Read Full Post »

Article from NYTimes.

“With a huge initial public offering on the runway, Facebook has shown that it pays to have friends. New investors will now have to decide what they are willing to pay to be friends.

The giant social network said in a filing on Wednesday that it was seeking to raise up to $5 billion through its I.P.O. Many close to the company say that Facebook is aiming for a debut that would value it between $75 billion and $100 billion.

At the top end of the range, Facebook would be far bigger than many established American companies, including Amazon, Caterpillar, Kraft Foods, Goldman Sachs and Ford Motor. Only 26 companies in the Standard & Poor’s index of 500 stocks have a market value north of $100 billion.

Already, Facebook is a formidable moneymaker. The company, which mainly sells advertising and virtual goods, recorded revenue of $3.71 billion in 2011, an 88 percent increase from the previous year. According to its filing, Facebook posted a profit of $1 billion last year.

“Facebook will have more traffic than anyone else, and they’ll have more data than anyone else,” said Kevin Landis, the portfolio manager of Firsthand Technology Value Fund, which owns shares in the privately held company. “So, unless they are impervious to learning how to monetize that data, they should be the most valuable property on the Internet, eventually.”

A lofty valuation for Facebook would evoke the grandiose ambitions of the previous Internet boom in the late 1990s. Back then, dozens of unproven companies went public at sky-high valuations but later imploded.

Investors are eyeing the current generation of Internet companies with a healthy dose of skepticism. Zynga, the online gaming company, and Groupon, the daily deals site, have both struggled to stay above their I.P.O. prices since going public late last year.

“We’ve seen thousands of investors get burned before,” said Andrew Stoltmann, a securities lawyer in Chicago. “It’s a high risk game.”

The potential payoff is also huge.

Consider Google. After its first day of trading in 2004, the search engine giant had at a market value of $27.6 billion. Since then, the stock has jumped by about 580 percent, making Google worth nearly $190 billion today.

Facebook is still a small fraction of the size of rival Google. But many analysts believe Facebook’s fortunes will rapidly multiply as advertisers direct increasingly more capital to the Web’s social hive.

Mark Zuckerberg, founder and chief executive of Facebook.

Mark Zuckerberg, a founder of Facebook and its chief executive, even sounded like his Google counterparts in the beginning. In the filing, Mr. Zuckerberg trumpeted the company’s mission to “give everyone a voice and to help transform society for the future” — not unlike Google’s plan: “don’t be evil.”

Investors are often willing to pay up for faster growth. At a market value of $100 billion, Facebook would trade at 100 times last year’s earnings. That would make the stock significantly more expensive than Google, which is currently selling at 19.6 times profits.

Newly public companies with strong growth prospects often garner high multiples. At the end of 2004, the year of its I.P.O., Google was trading at 132 times its earnings.

But investors have less expensive options for fast-growing technology companies. Apple made nearly $1 billion a week in its latest quarter, roughly the same amount Facebook earned in all of 2011. At a recent price of $456, Apple is trading for roughly 16.5 times last year’s profits.

Investors now have to try to ignore the I.P.O. hype and soberly sift through the first batch of Facebook’s financial statements to gauge the company’s potential.

Online advertising is a prime indicator. At Facebook, display ads and the like accounted for $3.15 billion of revenue in 2011, roughly 85 percent of the total. With 845 million monthly active users, advertisers now feel that Facebook has to be part of any campaign they do.

“When you have an audience that large, it’s hard not to make a lot of money from it,” said Andrew Frank, an analyst at Gartner, an industry research firm.

For all the promise of Facebook, the company is still trying to figure out how to properly extract and leverage data, while keeping its system intact and not interfering with users’ experiences. On a per-user basis, Facebook makes a small sum, roughly $1 in profit.

The relationship with Zynga will be especially important. The online game company represented 12 percent of Facebook revenue last year, according to the filing. However, estimated daily active users of Zynga games on Facebook fell in the fourth quarter, from the third quarter, the brokerage firm Sterne Agee said in a recent research note — a trend that could weigh on the social networking company.

Facebook also faces intense competition for advertising dollars, something it acknowledges in the “risk factors” section of its I.P.O. filing. While advertisers will likely choose to be on both Facebook and Google, they will inevitably compare results they get from both. Some analysts think Google may have the edge in such a competition.

Google users tend to be looking for something specific. This makes it easier for advertisers to direct their ads at potential customers, analysts say. “Visually, Facebook ads are eye-catching, but in terms of accuracy of targeting, they are not even close to Google’s ads,” said Nate Elliott, an analyst at Forrester Research. “A lot of the companies we talk to are finding it very hard to succeed on Facebook.”

However, the high level of interaction on Facebook could prove valuable to advertisers. “At Facebook, you are looking at people’s interests, and what they are sharing,” said Gerry Graf, chief creative officer at Barton F. Graf 9000, an advertising agency in New York that has used Facebook for clients. If Facebook becomes a place where people recommend, share and buy a large share of their music and movies, such a business could generate large amounts of advertising revenue, as well as any user fees.

“Facebook has become the biggest distribution platform on the Web,” said Daniel Ek, the founder of Spotify, a service that accepts only Facebook users.”

Read original article here.

Read Full Post »

Article from SFGate.

“Facebook has sold about $6.6 million worth of its shares to the investment fund GSV Capital Corp. as the company is believed to be preparing for an initial public offering next year.

GSV said Monday that it had purchased 225,000 shares in the world’s most popular social network at an average price of $29.28 per share. The investment makes up about 15 percent of the publicly traded fund’s total portfolio.

On its website, GSV describes itself as a way for its investors to access “dynamic and rapidly growing” companies ahead of their IPOs.

The investment fund did not say how large its stake in Facebook is, compared with the company’s overall ownership, and did not offer clues to the overall valuation of the social network.

A $500 million investment in the Palo Alto company by Goldman Sachs and Digital Sky Technologies in January valued the company at $50 billion, though some anticipate the IPO will push the company to a valuation of as much as $100 billion.”

Read more here.

Read Full Post »

Article from NYTimes.

“For Reid Hoffman, the chairman of LinkedIn, it took less than 30 minutes to earn himself an extra $200 million.

With the hours ticking down to his company’s stock market debut, Mr. Hoffman dialed into a conference call from San Francisco’s Ritz-Carlton hotel as his chief executive, Jeff Weiner, and a team of bankers raced up from Silicon Valley in a black S.U.V. to meet with potential investors.

Demand for shares was intense, and they decided to raise the offering price by $10, to around $45.

When trading began on May 19, LinkedIn did not open at $45. Or $55. Or $65. Instead, the first shares were snapped up for $83 each and soon soared past $100, showering a string of players with riches and signaling a gold rush that has not been seen since the giddy days of the tech frenzy a decade ago.

Now there are signs that a new technology bubble is inflating, this time centered on the narrow niche of social networking. Other tech offerings, like that of the Internet radio service Pandora last week, have struggled, and analysts have warned that overly optimistic investors could once again suffer huge losses.

That enthusiasm was on full display in the blockbuster debut of LinkedIn, which provides a window into how a small group — bankers and lawyers, employees who get in on the ground floor, early investors — is taking a hefty cut at each twist in the road from Silicon Valley start-up to Wall Street success story.

“The LinkedIn I.P.O. will be used very powerfully over the next year as these companies go public and bankers deal with Silicon Valley,” said Peter Thiel, the president of Clarium Capital in San Francisco and an early investor in PayPal, LinkedIn and Facebook. “It sets things up for the other big deals.”

The sharp run-up after the initial public offering set off a fierce debate among observers about whether the bankers had mispriced it and left billions on the table for their clients to pocket. But the pent-up demand for what was perceived as a hot technology stock set the stage for easy money to be made almost regardless of the offering price.

Naturally, Wall Street is enjoying a windfall. Technology I.P.O.’s have generated nearly $330 million this year in fees for the biggest banks and brokerages, nearly 10 times the haul for the same period last year, and the most since 2000.

Besides the $28.4 million in fees for LinkedIn’s underwriting team, which was led by Morgan Stanley, Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase, there were also a few slices reserved for specialists like lawyers and accountants. Wilson Sonsini, the most powerful law firm in Silicon Valley, collected $1.5 million, while the accounting firm Deloitte & Touche earned $1.35 million.

Mr. Hoffman founded LinkedIn in March 2003 after making a fortune as an executive at PayPal, the online payments service, but even as LinkedIn grew and other employees and private backers got stakes, Mr. Hoffman retained 21.2 percent, giving him more than 19 million shares when it went public. He has kept nearly of all them, so for now his $858 million fortune — it was $667 million before the last-minute price hike — remains mostly on paper.

Mr. Weiner arrived more recently, in late 2008, after working at Yahoo and as an adviser to venture capital firms, but his welcome package included the right to buy 3.5 million shares at just $2.32. And they are not the only big winners who secured shares at levels far below the I.P.O. price.

For example, when LinkedIn raised cash in mid-2008, venture capital firms including Bessemer Venture Partners and Sequoia Capital, scooped up 6.6 million shares at $11.47 each in return for early financing. They have held on to the stock, but Goldman Sachs, which got 871,840 shares at $11.47, sold all of it for a one-day gain of nearly $30 million.

Scores of fortunate individuals also managed to profit.

Stephen Beitzel, a software engineer, worked at LinkedIn from its founding until March 2004, but kept his stock when he left. His shares are now worth $17 million, and he sold $1.3 million worth in the offering.”

Read the complete article here.

Read Full Post »

Article from NY Times.

“After getting off to a strong start in 2011, the market for initial public offerings has started to cool as a result of global uncertainty caused by the disaster in Japan.

In the last week, several companies have either tempered their expectations or delayed their offerings. On Wednesday, Lagardère, the French media conglomerate run by Arnaud Lagardère, said it would put off the initial public offering of its stake in Canal Plus France, the pay-television company.

“Due to the scale of the disaster in Japan, and thereof to the extreme volatility of the markets, the Lagardère Group has decided to postpone” the offering of Canal Plus France, the company said in a statement.

The private equity firm Apollo Global Management, which appeared to be on track to submit plans for its market debut to regulators, is “now waiting for a better time,” Reuters reported on on Tuesday.

There is also speculation that Glencore, the giant commodities trader, may delay filing its paperwork with regulators. The company had been talking with investors for several weeks about a potential offering that could value the company at $60 billion. Glencore, which has never publicly discussed an offering, declined to comment.

Any reticence is understandable, given the volatility in the stock markets. Most of the major United States indexes were down on Wednesday, with the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index dropping 1.95 percent, to 1,256.88. The S&P 500 is essentially flat for the year.

“If the nuclear problems in Japan stabilize immediately, and U.S. markets recover, the I.P.O. market will go back to the schedule it was on a week ago,” said Jay Ritter, a professor of finance at the University of Florida. “If there’s a further sell-off, a lot of deals will be postponed.”

Before the disaster in Japan, the I.P.O. market was on track for a banner year. In the United States, the volume of new offerings topped $12 billion through early March. It was the best start since 2000 and six times stronger than the same period in 2010, according to Thomson Reuters data. Much of that activity came from private-equity-backed companies like HCA, the hospital chain that raised $3.8 billion in its offering.

But new public companies are often considered riskier than well-established blue chips, making them more sensitive to market upheavals.

“I.P.O.’s tend to be perceived as high-risk investments,” Professor Ritter said, “and when there’s a flight to quality, they get hammered most. In 2007, the S.&P. was at an all-time high. At the beginning of 2008, I.P.O.’s started to dry up well before the big collapse in September.”

At least one major deal appears to be on track. The ISS Group — the Danish financial services company that is being listed in a $2.5 billion offering by its private equity owners, Goldman Sachs and EQT of Sweden — is moving forward with its planned offering.

The company is closing its offering on Thursday, said a person with knowledge of the matter who was not authorized to speak publicly, after having received orders for all of the shares. The person acknowledge that the markets were volatile right now, but said that ISS was already far along in the process before the disaster in Japan.

“Obviously, it creates some questions from people,” the person said.”

Read orginial posting here.

Read Full Post »

Putting cash into unhealthy business has long been understood as a bad deal. With the Bailout programs and the TARP initiative, some might have thought that the problem was solved – think again. Poor business remain poor business.

Here are some good quotes taken from NY Times.

“The results of the bank stress tests have been trickling out for days, from Washington and from Wall Street, and the leaks seem to confirm what many bankers feel in their bones: despite all those bailouts, some of the nation’s largest banks still need more money.

But that does not necessarily mean the banks will get that money from the government. The findings, to be released Thursday by the Obama administration, suggest that the rescue money that Congress has already approved will be enough to fill the gaps. If so, the big bailouts for the banks may be over.But hopes that the tests will be a turning point in this financial crisis electrified Wall Street on Wednesday and some overseas markets the next day. Financial shares soared, lifting the broader American stock market to its highest level in four months. The Dow Jones industrial average rose 101.63, or 1.2 percent, to close at 8,512.28 Wednesday, while Japan’s Nikkei index rose more than 4 percent by midday Thursday.”

Good news indeed, but…

“After news this week that Bank of America and Citigroup would be required to bolster their finances again, word came Wednesday that regulators had determined that Wells Fargo and GMAC, the deeply troubled financial arm of General Motors, would need to do so as well. But regulators decided that American Express, Capital One, Bank of New York Mellon, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and MetLife would not need to take action. The official word is due at 5 p.m. Thursday.

The results so far seem to suggest that the 19 institutions that underwent these exams will need less than $100 billion in additional equity to cope with a deep recession, far less than some investors had feared. The question now is, where will banks get that capital?”

Read the full article here.

Other helpful sources on this issue can be found here: Huffington Post, Barrons Blogs, Wall Street Journal, Seeking Alpha, 24/7 WallStreet

Read Full Post »