Showing posts with label Intel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Intel. Show all posts

Thursday, August 19, 2010

Intel Is Desperate for Growth

By Eric Jackson, Senior Contributor08/19/10 - 10:54 AM EDT


Stock quotes in this article:INTC, MFE, SYMC, MSFT, ORCL,GOOG

This morning's announcement that Intel(INTC) will purchaseMcAfee(MFE) for $48 -- a 60% premium over yesterday's close -- is a bit of a head-scratcher.

It's hard to understand the logic for why a chip company needs to own a pure-play software company protecting PCs from viruses. There has been speculation before about which companies eventually might swoop in and buy either McAfee or Symantec(SYMC), but it was usually other big software companies -- names like Microsoft(MSFT), IBM(IBM), orOracle(ORCL) were commonly mentioned. Even Google(GOOG) has been mentioned as they have tried to build up their Google Apps offering to more seriously compete against Microsoft.

To my knowledge, no one has ever mentioned Intel before as a potential buyer.

So, why are they doing it?

1. They have the cash. In their most recent quarter, they had more than $18 billion in cash burning a hole in their jeans. And, remember, this is atech company that's paying a decent forward dividend yield north of 3%.

2. They want to show more growth. This is likely more important in the eyes of Intel. This big-chip company's future success as a stock is based on its ability to continue to grow its top-line. With the PC market potentially set to take a pause, Intel's growth story is imperiled. Therefore, why not grab a high-margin software business that's running in a duopoly to pad the numbers.

I don't think it makes much strategic sense. It's likely that McAfee will be a bolt-on acquisition, where the stand-alone subsidiary continues to operate as it did as a stand-alone business with very little synergies with their new parent.

In fact, we might want to pencil in to our calendars five years from now, when Intel will likely spin-out the former McAfee division to "increase shareholder value."

So, this purchase is about Intel's desperation. But, more important in my eyes, is how this move might signal that many of those other large companies mentioned above might also start to act/react in the same way to the same problem.

We've talked about the living dead tech companies that are small and have no future without getting bought. We've also talked about all the cash the biggest companies have been stock-piling over the past couple of years. Yet, there hasn't yet been a big M&A consolidation.

We thought Oracle was going to lead the charge, but even they have cooled off of late. We could finally be ready to see some moves -- and they could be big and stupid moves like Intel's today.

........

[** This post is an excerpt of the full article, which is available on TheStreet.com by clicking here. Free Site.**]

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, November 04, 2009

What Galleon Teaches Us

By Eric Jackson
11/04/09 - 06:00 AM EST

Stock quotes in this article: AMD , INTC , IBM

The government's case against Raj Rajaratnam, founder of hedge fund Galleon Group, on the charge of insider trading alleges that the hedge fund manager's primary competitive advantage for investors was a web of connections close to or inside technology companies feeding him illegal tips on future directions of the companies' stock prices.

What's shocking is how Rajaratnam is accused of having, over at least 10 years, cultivated a network of insiders feeding him nonpublic information about future earnings announcements from public companies like AMD(AMD Quote) (including its former CEO), IBM (IBM Quote) Intel(INTC Quote) and some of their most prestigious advisers like McKinsey & Co.

Why would so many bright, high-ranking people at such successful companies get caught up in such activities? Perhaps they craved access to a man whom Forbes recently ranked as the 262nd richest American, worth $1.8 billion and in the top 40 of hedge fund managers.

In a recent PBS "Frontline" episode on Alan Greenspan, the program made the allegation that the former Federal Reserve chief and acolyte of free marketer Ayn Rand had once joked with former head of the CFTC, Brooksley Born, that the two of them would never get along because she believed in prosecuting capital markets crimes and he didn't. He supposedly went on to explain that his strong faith in free markets made him believe that it was unnecessary to go after white-collar criminals through any kind of enforcement program.

Instead, Greenspan believed that market participants would ferret out ill-gotten gains and punish those people for their crimes by starving them of future capital. Such efficiencies would likely occur before the governmental regulatory body even knew something nefarious was going on.

Although I'm a proponent of unencumbered free markets, this point of view, whether Greenspan held it or not, is laughable. Bernie Madoff has blown this argument out of the water. And now we have the case of Rajaratnam, his decade old hedge fund, and his alleged 10 years of generating alpha through profiting on illegal insider information.

As a hedge fund manager, I look positively on this development. If illegal activity is going on by fund managers, it deserves to be highlighted and prosecuted. Investors will learn to ask tougher questions as part of their due diligence, and capital will ultimately flow away from managers posting false performance numbers to those who are truly generating alpha.

The hedge fund industry has to be one of the most Darwinian industries of any in the world. You don't get to keep your job by being the boss' son or being friendly with the right managers above you. You get to keep your job (and paid well if you do it consistently) by beating the market. You lose your job otherwise.

Perhaps because of the big potential rewards for success, it shouldn't be surprising that some aspiring and existing managers would try to bend the rules to get or stay on top. What this case shows is that ethical managers and investors are better off with a strong enforcement office at the SEC. The industry itself is not going to highlight the next cheater and investors -- even very sophisticated ones -- cannot do this themselves.

I know many hedge fund managers who've expressed mixed feelings about the Galleon case. They're happy that illegal activities by their competitors are being halted, but they worry the case will inspire more unnecessary red tape and heavy-handed oversight. The SEC is faced with a challenge in keeping ahead of the latest and greatest tricks employed by some managers to gain a performance edge.

However, the agency appears to have been pretty creative in coming up with some ways of identifying and tracking alleged illegal behavior in the Galleon case. Hopefully, it will begin to hire more people in the enforcement division with real-world Wall Street experience and not just more bureaucratic lawyers, as was criticized by Harry Markopolos in the Madoff case.

There's been a lot of discussion of getting hedge funds to register with the SEC as an important way for the agency to keep tabs on the potential risk these funds pose to the financial system. It's important, therefore, to realize that Galleon was registered -- its assets under management at one point last year topped $3 billion. More budget resources targeted towards enforcement would be taxpayer money better spent than registration for registration's sake.

Finally, a word of caution on the Galleon case. Although criminality ought to always be prosecuted to the fullest extent, Galleon and Rajaratnam deserve the right to defend themselves in court. What if they are innocent, after having announced they would be winding down the firm two business days after news of the arrests first broke? Could they ever truly be made whole by the SEC if that happened? That Orwellian possibility should send shivers down the spines of hedge fund managers everywhere.

Mark Cuban has never run a hedge fund, but what if he had when the SEC came after him last year for purportedly trading on insider information in the small-cap stock Mamma.com? If he'd had a hedge fund at the time, it likely would have also had to be wound down when details of his arrest first emerged. The SEC later dropped the charges, although it recently made some noise about bringing them back.

Wrong-doing deserves to be regulated and prosecuted by the SEC. The government should devote more resources to enforcement with the best qualified people involved. A few correct convictions will have a ripple effect throughout the hedge fund industry and discourage illicit behavior.

However, the SEC needs to realize it is playing with people's lives and livelihoods here. Investors will -- understandably -- redeem first and ask questions later when the agency launches actions against a fund or fund manager. They have a responsibility to do their jobs to the best of their abilities, as do hedge fund managers and senior executives within public companies.

Jackson's fund holds no positions in the stocks mentioned.

Eric Jackson is founder and president of Ironfire Capital and the general partner and investment manager of Ironfire Capital US Fund LP and Ironfire Capital International Fund, Ltd.

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, May 06, 2009

Sue Decker's Next Move

Remember Sue Decker? She was formerly the next CEO of Yahoo! (YHOO). That was until a tough 18 months following Terry Semel's abrupt departure after shareholders voted against his re-election in large numbers at the 2007 annual meeting.

Decker came to Yahoo! from DLJ, as the Internet analyst who used to throw tough questions at Tim Koogle and Jerry Yang. She took over as CFO and, by all accounts, did a great job in that role.

When she got promoted to president, the problems started. She's very bright, but seemed to not grasp the technology as well as she might have and didn't manage the business as well as was required. She left under a cloud a few months ago when Carol Bartz was given the top job.

She's taken on a number of directorships over the years: Intel (INTC), Costco (COST) and Berkshire Hathaway (BRK-A). She'll be in Omaha this weekend for that annual fiesta. She got on to the Berkshire board, after serving with Charlie Munger on the Costco board and getting to know him.

She's serving time in the penalty box now after her Yahoo! experience, but there's no question she'll be back at a firm soon. However, I believe (and stated so after her departure from Yahoo!) that she's more likely to end up in a financial role (or financial firm) next than a tech firm.

I think Berkshire would be a good fit for her -- not to take over for Warren, but for an important senior role. Omaha's a little different from NYC or the Bay Area but I think she would love the opportunity to be part of the Berkshire team and prove to the world how good she is. I expect some kind of announcement in the next six months.

Position: None.

Originally published in RealMoney.com on 5/1/2009 4:39 PM EDT

To get Eric Jackson's real-time updates, subscribe to RealMoney.com

Sphere: Related Content