|
Frankly, to me it seems a desperate move by an individual who, in the words of the WSJ, is "increasingly concerned about his legacy".
Dell did well with PCs. Unfortunately for Dell, PC shipments, according to the same WSJ article in print today, are down 13% year-on-year. As pointed out above, this is only 'traditional PCs' - no smartphones, no tablets, etc. But that is exactly where Dell is absent. In his own admission, Michael Dell failed to see the transformation in the industry coming - or, at least, underestimated the speed and depth of the shift. It's not just shipments. The real problem is profit margins.
So the question is - once they take the firm private, where do they go? The plan seems to be to become a 'business solution provider'. Which is a higher-profit margin niche than PCs. But it's not what Dell has expertise in. Are they positioned to be the new IBM? I think the market does look upon that as unlikely - which is why the stock price took a dive. Mr. Dell seems to think it's possible - and he is betting his own money on it. Perhaps that's why he is a 'visionary'. But the market disagrees.
Is taking firms private a new trend? On the margin, the benefits of public listing have decreased. SOX has made compliance and disclosure more expensive, while the crisis has led to a lack of liquidity that negates the primary advantage of a public listing - quick access to cheap capital. So yes, more firms are going private than ever before.
Is it a good idea? The way I see it, most of those firms are going private because someone feels the market is 'not understanding true valuation' and mispricing. More often then not, that is not the case. The share price of Dell is down because it's outlook is gloom. Micheal Dell thinks he knows better than the market. I believe in (weak) market efficiency. My bet is that it's a bruised ego, an emotional response - and a big mistake.
By the way, I am typing this on a Dell ;-)
|