Rocket Software sells stock for $92m
dmm
different... <grin>
from: http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2009/10/13/rocket_software_sells_stock_for_92m/
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?
Tony Gravagno
eppick77
The last one went so "well".
Eugene
frosty
If the market is at a peak (again) and poised to lose half its
value (again) this shows brilliant timing on Rocket's part.
--
frosty
The moderator
"dmm" <sto...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:29d9f441-8783-4444...@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
They had to find some way to finance the purchase.
dawn
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?)
--dawn
wjhonson
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!
Will Johnson
Tony Gravagno
"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.
T
dawn
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
>
> T
Tony Gravagno
>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.
T
dawn
OK
>
> >> 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.
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,
Well, there's InterSystems Cache'. cheers! --dawn
Peter McMurray
"Tony Gravagno" <address.i...@removethis.com.invalid> wrote in
message news:upf9e5lnnojbpq0hk...@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.
Peter McMurray
<snip>
dawn
> "Tony Gravagno" <address.is.in.po...@removethis.com.invalid> wrote in
> messagenews:upf9e5lnnojbpq0hk...@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
Peter McMurray
"dawn" <dawnwo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1383a6bc-1eb8-42cc...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
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
dawn
> "dawn" <dawnwolth...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I watched a youtube clip. Thanks for the laugh. --dawn
> Peter McMurray