Rocket Software Inc., of Newton, has sold nearly $92 million in stock, according to documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. They did not say who purchased the stake. But peHUB, a unit of Thomson Reuters that tracks the private equity industry, identified the investor as Court Square Capital Partners, a New York private equity firm once affiliated with Citigroup. ..etc
So, Rocket buys U2 then sells $92m of stock to a 'private equity' firm. What could this mean? Is this good? bad? indifferent?
> Rocket Software Inc., of Newton, has sold nearly $92 million in stock, > according to documents filed with the Securities and Exchange > Commission. They did not say who purchased the stake. But peHUB, a > unit of Thomson Reuters that tracks the private equity industry, > identified the investor as Court Square Capital Partners, a New York > private equity firm once affiliated with Citigroup. > ..etc
> So, Rocket buys U2 then sells $92m of stock to a 'private equity' > firm. What could this mean? Is this good? bad? indifferent?
If the market is at a peak (again) and poised to lose half its value (again) this shows brilliant timing on Rocket's part.
> Rocket Software Inc., of Newton, has sold nearly $92 million in stock, > according to documents filed with the Securities and Exchange > Commission. They did not say who purchased the stake. But peHUB, a > unit of Thomson Reuters that tracks the private equity industry, > identified the investor as Court Square Capital Partners, a New York > private equity firm once affiliated with Citigroup. > ..etc
> So, Rocket buys U2 then sells $92m of stock to a 'private equity' > firm. What could this mean? Is this good? bad? indifferent?
They had to find some way to finance the purchase.
<address.is.in.po...@removethis.com.invalid> wrote: > Looks like another PickAxe deal. Here we go again.
> >So, Rocket buys U2 then sells $92m of stock to a 'private equity' > >firm. What could this mean? Is this good? bad? indifferent?
I don't see it that way. I think Rocket really will continue to enhance the software. I don't think Susie and co would have picked them otherwise. So, I don't feel gloom and doom about it...yet. I'm guessing Rocket didn't have enough cash on hand to pay outright for U2 (is the purchase price public, will it be?) so it makes sense to have investors. If owners see no reason to enhance the software and just sit on it as a cash cow to finance other matters until it dwindles down to almost nothing, well then that would be another story (the Pick/D3 story?)
We'll see. I just tried to download the trial version of Universe for Windows off their site (Rocket software) and it asks for a serial number which of course I don't have. So I tried to call their phone number listed on that download page, and I get a recording that it's disconnected....
Well marketing and technical services don't seem to be talking to each other these days!
[Disclaimer: assume all of my declarative statements are prefaced with "it's possible that". I don't have any knowledge of what people are doing with Rocket or IBM - your guess is as good as mine.]
>On Oct 23, 6:32 am, Tony Gravagno wrote: >> Looks like another PickAxe deal. Here we go again. dawn wrote: >I don't see it that way. I think Rocket really will continue to >enhance the software.
That's not what I was implying at all, and it's obvious that perceptions differ on exactly what the situation with PS/RD/TL was and is.
My intent was that this seems like another scenario where everything related to the product is guided by investors, venture capitalists, and individual people who control major blocks of stock in what is on paper a "public" company. And then of course the VC people hire their buddies to sit on the board and take management positions to make decisions about what's best for the platform, when they have no idea of what the platform is, what it's capable of, or how to get it to compete with relational platforms.
>I don't think Susie and co would have picked them otherwise.
In customer/vendor trades, the customers do the picking. C'mon. The platform was sold to whomever could come up with the most cash above some defined minimum in the shortest amount of time. Susie and Co didn't own the software. IBM was selling it, they determined the price and time table, and IBM management didn't hold out for a company that would do well by the products.
There's nothing wrong with the way any of this is playing out, but let's acknowledge how business really works.
>So, I don't feel gloom and doom about it...yet. I'm >guessing Rocket didn't have enough cash on hand to pay outright for U2 >(is the purchase price public, will it be?) so it makes sense to have >investors.
Hmmm, if they didn't have the money the purchase wouldn't have been authorized. A single company dumping $92M into this enterprise at this point in time seems more like a purchase than an investment, but they couldn't have done so before a sale was announced. IMO, the jury is still out on who the players are here and their motivations.
>If owners see no reason to enhance the software and just >sit on it as a cash cow to finance other matters until it dwindles >down to almost nothing, well then that would be another story (the >Pick/D3 story?)
A few days ago I suggested that CDP was dead, at least as a technical resource, though perhaps not as a social forum. This has been a steady trend over the last several years. If the trends here in any way coincide with the fiscal health of the market, and I think they do, then it seems obvious that the DBMS vendors are seeing the trends and taking steps to preserve their investments in whatever way possible. It's sort of tough to substantiate the implication that a dying market is funding someone's cash cow.
If asset reallocation that means investing in other businesses so be it. These people are not in business to sell databases or to do what's best for the products, they're in business to earn money. Any product that doesn't support itself becomes a cash cow to support something else that allows the owners to continue working on their bottom line.
As I said in my blog, if U2 were selling as well as people say it does then IBM wouldn't have wanted to unload it. Same with PS/RD/TL and their own "asset reallocation".
So - by "Here we go again" I'm just saying I see another situation where the product line may not be performing, and people are calling in external investors to turn it around. That's a bad sign.
We shouldn't keep talking about this like it's about management and investors - this is about people using the software and vendors selling new systems. If VARs aren't keeping up with trends and selling software, we'll continue to see more "Here we go again"s.
<address.is.in.po...@removethis.com.invalid> wrote: > [Disclaimer: assume all of my declarative statements are prefaced with > "it's possible that". I don't have any knowledge of what people are > doing with Rocket or IBM - your guess is as good as mine.]
> >On Oct 23, 6:32 am, Tony Gravagno wrote: > >> Looks like another PickAxe deal. Here we go again. > dawn wrote: > >I don't see it that way. I think Rocket really will continue to > >enhance the software.
> That's not what I was implying at all, and it's obvious that > perceptions differ on exactly what the situation with PS/RD/TL was and > is.
> My intent was that this seems like another scenario where everything > related to the product is guided by investors, venture capitalists, > and individual people who control major blocks of stock in what is on > paper a "public" company. And then of course the VC people hire their > buddies to sit on the board and take management positions to make > decisions about what's best for the platform, when they have no idea > of what the platform is, what it's capable of, or how to get it to > compete with relational platforms.
> >I don't think Susie and co would have picked them otherwise.
> In customer/vendor trades, the customers do the picking. C'mon. The > platform was sold to whomever could come up with the most cash above > some defined minimum in the shortest amount of time. Susie and Co > didn't own the software. IBM was selling it, they determined the > price and time table, and IBM management didn't hold out for a company > that would do well by the products.
> There's nothing wrong with the way any of this is playing out, but > let's acknowledge how business really works.
Of course there is a typical business exchange going on. However, my impression based on a few highly relevant exchanges is that there were multiple suitors so that IBM was in a position to shop it around for both a good price and a good fit. In other words, I do think Susie and co had some say in this transaction.
> >So, I don't feel gloom and doom about it...yet. I'm > >guessing Rocket didn't have enough cash on hand to pay outright for U2 > >(is the purchase price public, will it be?) so it makes sense to have > >investors.
> Hmmm, if they didn't have the money the purchase wouldn't have been > authorized. A single company dumping $92M into this enterprise at > this point in time seems more like a purchase than an investment, but > they couldn't have done so before a sale was announced. IMO, the jury > is still out on who the players are here and their motivations.
Yes, I do agree on you there. I was thinking it was likely that one of the other MV players was in the mix. Do you have a hunch on this?
> >If owners see no reason to enhance the software and just > >sit on it as a cash cow to finance other matters until it dwindles > >down to almost nothing, well then that would be another story (the > >Pick/D3 story?)
> A few days ago I suggested that CDP was dead, at least as a technical > resource, though perhaps not as a social forum. This has been a > steady trend over the last several years. If the trends here in any > way coincide with the fiscal health of the market, and I think they > do,
You might be right about that, but it might just say more about D3 than about MV in general.
> then it seems obvious that the DBMS vendors are seeing the trends > and taking steps to preserve their investments in whatever way > possible. It's sort of tough to substantiate the implication that a > dying market is funding someone's cash cow.
> If asset reallocation that means investing in other businesses so be > it. These people are not in business to sell databases or to do > what's best for the products, they're in business to earn money.
Sure, businesses want to earn money, but not all businesses have that as their sole purpose. For some money is a means to stay in business and continue making contributions to society.
> Any > product that doesn't support itself becomes a cash cow to support > something else that allows the owners to continue working on their > bottom line.
> As I said in my blog, if U2 were selling as well as people say it does > then IBM wouldn't have wanted to unload it. Same with PS/RD/TL and > their own "asset reallocation".
U2 never fit into the way IBM sells software. First, IBM sells to big dogs directly and U2 sells more to the mid-sized market through VARs. When I was in a meeting with Cognos folks and others earlier this year, it was very clear that U2 doesn't fit the IBM model. The margin isn't there for the high prices IBM has on their related products (check out the pricing for Cognos sometime). U2 is playing in a different ball game, a different league.
> So - by "Here we go again" I'm just saying I see another situation > where the product line may not be performing, and people are calling > in external investors to turn it around. That's a bad sign.
You might be right about that. I'm not sure that you are hitting the nail on the head with this analysis, however.
> We shouldn't keep talking about this like it's about management and > investors - this is about people using the software and vendors > selling new systems. If VARs aren't keeping up with trends and > selling software, we'll continue to see more "Here we go again"s.
The two largest UniData VARs from days gone by were Epicor and Datatel. Many Epicor customers have moved to Progress, and most new Datatel customers are choosing SQL Server, while some existing customers are moving there too (although that is a solution with UniData in the middleware). I don't know how the largest of the UniVerse VARs are doing, but I'm sure that VAR moves to other platforms have been troubling too. --dawn
dawn wrote: >I was thinking it was likely that one of >the other MV players was in the mix. Do you have a hunch on this?
I'd be Very surprised if a competitor was investing in the U2 business in any way. I would Not be surprised if one of the other MV platforms was purchased by one of their competitors.
>> A few days ago I suggested that CDP was dead, at least as a technical >> resource, though perhaps not as a social forum. This has been a >> steady trend over the last several years. If the trends here in any >> way coincide with the fiscal health of the market, and I think they >> do,
>You might be right about that, but it might just say more about D3 >than about MV in general.
I didn't want to go into that too deeply, but yeah, in one sense this is an open MV forum, and yet in another sense there do seem to be more D3 people here than those with other platforms. So CDP is in some ways like a D3 forum, and reflective of that market than others. And one may draw some conclusions about the D3 market from CDP participation, more than about the market in general. The TigerLogic forum for D3/mvBase is just as dead as this one, so there's some correlation. I blame that on lack of marketing as well as lack of market interest. I think D3 people are as interested in their products and future as anyone else, but there's no leadership from the upline. I'm hoping TL will address some of this at their conference.
>> These people are not in business to sell databases or to do >> what's best for the products, they're in business to earn money.
>Sure, businesses want to earn money, but not all businesses have that >as their sole purpose. For some money is a means to stay in business >and continue making contributions to society.
Other companies can be more altruistic, but we're not talking about other companies. I said "these people", not "business owners" in general.
>> Any >> product that doesn't support itself becomes a cash cow to support >> something else that allows the owners to continue working on their >> bottom line.
>> As I said in my blog, if U2 were selling as well as people say it does >> then IBM wouldn't have wanted to unload it. Same with PS/RD/TL and >> their own "asset reallocation".
>U2 never fit into the way IBM sells software. First, IBM sells to big >dogs directly and U2 sells more to the mid-sized market through VARs. >When I was in a meeting with Cognos folks and others earlier this >year, it was very clear that U2 doesn't fit the IBM model. The margin >isn't there for the high prices IBM has on their related products >(check out the pricing for Cognos sometime). U2 is playing in a >different ball game, a different league.
But any profitable line of business does fit the model for their bottom line. I can't believe that U2 would be dropped if it competed profitably with DB2, just not in a way that IBM manager preferred. "Sure we're making tons of money, but it doesn't fit the way we usually make money, so we're going to have to unload it." Uh, no.
I could see some "lack of fit" if DB2 management saw this non-DB2 product fitting into places where they thought they should be selling. Self preservation could have been a motivation for keeping U2 at a distance as the ugly step-twins. Then again, I don't see IBM trying to unload Informix yet.
Once again this leads me to lack of performance as being a motivation for IBM being more willing to let go of this asset. And I put that squarely on the heads of Pick people who use Universe and Unidata, who are the same Pick people who were on other platforms. It's not the products that are at fault here, it's the people who develop and sell the platforms, thinking their market will live forever simply because it's the best. The reality is that these products will only continue to be supported by upline, fiscally-oriented businesses, if VARs continue to sell software into new sites. Entrepreneurs buy up these assets thinking they're going to make a profit with technical innovation (or some other motivation), and they do nothing to change the thinking of the channel that actually generates the revenue. Don't change the software, change the thinking of the people who sell it. Then we'll see more sales to end-users, less sales of DBMS platforms to new VC - and more participation in forums.
>> So - by "Here we go again" I'm just saying I see another situation >> where the product line may not be performing, and people are calling >> in external investors to turn it around. That's a bad sign.
>You might be right about that. I'm not sure that you are hitting the >nail on the head with this analysis, however.
>> We shouldn't keep talking about this like it's about management and >> investors - this is about people using the software and vendors >> selling new systems. If VARs aren't keeping up with trends and >> selling software, we'll continue to see more "Here we go again"s.
>The two largest UniData VARs from days gone by were Epicor and >Datatel. Many Epicor customers have moved to Progress, and most new >Datatel customers are choosing SQL Server, while some existing >customers are moving there too (although that is a solution with >UniData in the middleware). I don't know how the largest of the >UniVerse VARs are doing, but I'm sure that VAR moves to other >platforms have been troubling too. --dawn
That dove-tails with my above statements - the DBMS providers need to reassure the channel that the MV platform is worthy of their continued investment - and get new people who understand modern technology to take interest in the platforms. This is a people business but DBMS corporates keep missing that point. They're trying to sell technology to people who don't want it, and they aren't offering MV technology to the outside world.
I will give Susie and her team some kudos here - I don't see any other MV DBMS provider talking about SOA, SAAS, or other modern concepts with their MV channel, but I have seen Susie out there speaking the language with conviction. I attribute some of the success of U2 to that leadership, and expect that will continue from Rocket. Other DBMS vendors should get some hints.
<address.is.in.po...@removethis.com.invalid> wrote: > dawn wrote: > >I was thinking it was likely that one of > >the other MV players was in the mix. Do you have a hunch on this?
> I'd be Very surprised if a competitor was investing in the U2 business > in any way. I would Not be surprised if one of the other MV platforms > was purchased by one of their competitors.
> >> A few days ago I suggested that CDP was dead, at least as a technical > >> resource, though perhaps not as a social forum. This has been a > >> steady trend over the last several years. If the trends here in any > >> way coincide with the fiscal health of the market, and I think they > >> do,
> >You might be right about that, but it might just say more about D3 > >than about MV in general.
> I didn't want to go into that too deeply, but yeah, in one sense this > is an open MV forum, and yet in another sense there do seem to be more > D3 people here than those with other platforms. So CDP is in some > ways like a D3 forum, and reflective of that market than others. And > one may draw some conclusions about the D3 market from CDP > participation, more than about the market in general. The TigerLogic > forum for D3/mvBase is just as dead as this one, so there's some > correlation. I blame that on lack of marketing as well as lack of > market interest. I think D3 people are as interested in their > products and future as anyone else, but there's no leadership from the > upline. I'm hoping TL will address some of this at their conference.
> >> These people are not in business to sell databases or to do > >> what's best for the products, they're in business to earn money.
> >Sure, businesses want to earn money, but not all businesses have that > >as their sole purpose. For some money is a means to stay in business > >and continue making contributions to society.
> Other companies can be more altruistic, but we're not talking about > other companies. I said "these people", not "business owners" in > general.
> >> Any > >> product that doesn't support itself becomes a cash cow to support > >> something else that allows the owners to continue working on their > >> bottom line.
> >> As I said in my blog, if U2 were selling as well as people say it does > >> then IBM wouldn't have wanted to unload it. Same with PS/RD/TL and > >> their own "asset reallocation".
> >U2 never fit into the way IBM sells software. First, IBM sells to big > >dogs directly and U2 sells more to the mid-sized market through VARs. > >When I was in a meeting with Cognos folks and others earlier this > >year, it was very clear that U2 doesn't fit the IBM model. The margin > >isn't there for the high prices IBM has on their related products > >(check out the pricing for Cognos sometime). U2 is playing in a > >different ball game, a different league.
> But any profitable line of business does fit the model for their > bottom line. I can't believe that U2 would be dropped if it competed > profitably with DB2,
Are you sure it is not IBM putting in the investor dollars? Maybe they know it is a good thing and also that it does not fit their sales model and target audience for their database software. That is just one of the thoughts I have regarding the mystery investor, but thought I'd share it even though I have no basis for suggesting it.
> just not in a way that IBM manager preferred. > "Sure we're making tons of money, but it doesn't fit the way we > usually make money, so we're going to have to unload it." Uh, no.
> I could see some "lack of fit" if DB2 management saw this non-DB2 > product fitting into places where they thought they should be selling. > Self preservation could have been a motivation for keeping U2 at a > distance as the ugly step-twins. Then again, I don't see IBM trying > to unload Informix yet.
> Once again this leads me to lack of performance as being a motivation > for IBM being more willing to let go of this asset. And I put that > squarely on the heads of Pick people who use Universe and Unidata, who > are the same Pick people who were on other platforms. It's not the > products that are at fault here, it's the people who develop and sell > the platforms, thinking their market will live forever simply because > it's the best.
You are referring to VARs, primarily? It seems to me to be the opposite -- they think it will not last forever, so they have moved to SQL-DBMS or other non-MV toolsets.
> The reality is that these products will only continue > to be supported by upline, fiscally-oriented businesses, if VARs > continue to sell software into new sites. Entrepreneurs buy up these > assets thinking they're going to make a profit with technical > innovation (or some other motivation), and they do nothing to change > the thinking of the channel that actually generates the revenue. > Don't change the software, change the thinking of the people who sell > it. Then we'll see more sales to end-users, less sales of DBMS > platforms to new VC - and more participation in forums.
> >> So - by "Here we go again" I'm just saying I see another situation > >> where the product line may not be performing, and people are calling > >> in external investors to turn it around. That's a bad sign.
> >You might be right about that. I'm not sure that you are hitting the > >nail on the head with this analysis, however.
> >> We shouldn't keep talking about this like it's about management and > >> investors - this is about people using the software and vendors > >> selling new systems. If VARs aren't keeping up with trends and > >> selling software, we'll continue to see more "Here we go again"s.
> >The two largest UniData VARs from days gone by were Epicor and > >Datatel. Many Epicor customers have moved to Progress, and most new > >Datatel customers are choosing SQL Server, while some existing > >customers are moving there too (although that is a solution with > >UniData in the middleware). I don't know how the largest of the > >UniVerse VARs are doing, but I'm sure that VAR moves to other > >platforms have been troubling too. --dawn
> That dove-tails with my above statements - the DBMS providers need to > reassure the channel that the MV platform is worthy of their continued > investment - and get new people who understand modern technology to > take interest in the platforms.
Yes, and I don't see much of that.
> This is a people business but DBMS > corporates keep missing that point. They're trying to sell technology > to people who don't want it, and they aren't offering MV technology to > the outside world.
> I will give Susie and her team some kudos here - I don't see any other > MV DBMS provider talking about SOA, SAAS, or other modern concepts > with their MV channel,
> but I have seen Susie out there speaking the > language with conviction. I attribute some of the success of U2 to > that leadership, and expect that will continue from Rocket. Other > DBMS vendors should get some hints.
> The TigerLogic > forum for D3/mvBase is just as dead as this one, so there's some > correlation. I blame that on lack of marketing as well as lack of > market interest. I think D3 people are as interested in their > products and future as anyone else, but there's no leadership from the > upline. I'm hoping TL will address some of this at their conference.
Hey we agree again. Is this going to become a habit? :-) Peter McMurray <snip>
On Oct 26, 2:00 am, "Peter McMurray" <excalibu...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> "Tony Gravagno" <address.is.in.po...@removethis.com.invalid> wrote in > messagenews:upf9e5lnnojbpq0hkiqk0rod27oj4nr6lb@4ax.com... > <snip>> The TigerLogic > > forum for D3/mvBase is just as dead as this one, so there's some > > correlation. I blame that on lack of marketing as well as lack of > > market interest. I think D3 people are as interested in their > > products and future as anyone else, but there's no leadership from the > > upline. I'm hoping TL will address some of this at their conference.
> Hey we agree again. Is this going to become a habit? :-) > Peter McMurray > <snip>
"My sources say no" said the magic 8 ball. smiles. --dawn
> "Tony Gravagno" <address.is.in.po...@removethis.com.invalid> wrote in > messagenews:upf9e5lnnojbpq0hkiqk0rod27oj4nr6lb@4ax.com... > <snip>> The TigerLogic > > forum for D3/mvBase is just as dead as this one, so there's some > > correlation. I blame that on lack of marketing as well as lack of > > market interest. I think D3 people are as interested in their > > products and future as anyone else, but there's no leadership from the > > upline. I'm hoping TL will address some of this at their conference.
> Hey we agree again. Is this going to become a habit? :-) > Peter McMurray > <snip>
"My sources say no" said the magic 8 ball. smiles. --dawn
Hi Dawn In Australia and UK where "Little Britain" reigns rhe appropriate expression is more likely to be "computer says No" try googling above expression for a lighter moment. :-) Peter McMurray
> > "Tony Gravagno" <address.is.in.po...@removethis.com.invalid> wrote in > > messagenews:upf9e5lnnojbpq0hkiqk0rod27oj4nr6lb@4ax.com... > > <snip>> The TigerLogic > > > forum for D3/mvBase is just as dead as this one, so there's some > > > correlation. I blame that on lack of marketing as well as lack of > > > market interest. I think D3 people are as interested in their > > > products and future as anyone else, but there's no leadership from the > > > upline. I'm hoping TL will address some of this at their conference.
> > Hey we agree again. Is this going to become a habit? :-) > > Peter McMurray > > <snip>
> "My sources say no" said the magic 8 ball. smiles. --dawn
> Hi Dawn > In Australia and UK where "Little Britain" reigns rhe appropriate expression > is more likely to be > "computer says No" > try googling above expression for a lighter moment. :-)
I watched a youtube clip. Thanks for the laugh. --dawn
|
