The leveraged buyout of Dell would reportedly be the largest such deal since the global financial crisis that began in 2008. Leveraged buyout deals were in vogue in high tech in the middle of the last decade, when chip vendors Freescale Semiconductor and NXP Semiconductors were each taken private. Those deals saddled the companies with debt that they are still struggling with today.
Silver Lake was involved in the NXP buyout deal, which was worth about $8 billion.
"I believe this transaction will open an exciting new chapter for Dell, our customers and team members," said Michael Dell. "We can deliver immediate value to stockholders, while we continue the execution of our long-term strategy and focus on delivering best-in-class solutions to our customers as a private enterprise."
Michael Dell said the company has made solid progress executing on its strategy over the past four years, but said the realization of the company’s strategy will take more time, investment and patience. "I believe our efforts will be better supported by partnering with Silver Lake in our shared vision," Michael Dell said. "I am committed to this journey and I have put a substantial amount of my own capital at risk together with Silver Lake."
Dell said its board of directors agreed on the recommendation of a special committee of independent directors, which the company said unanimously approved the deal. Michael Dell, the company’s founder and chairman of its board of directors, recused himself from all board discussions over the deal, according to Dell.
Closing of the deal is subject to a number of conditions, including a stockholder vote, Dell said. Michael Dell first approached the board of directors about the deal last August, Dell said.
A similar move seemed to work for Seagate.
Despite Dell's acquisitions in networking, it seems it is still behind the curve in the post PC era. This move will give the once-retired Dell the breathing room to reshape his company into something that might survive the shifts.
Why go public? The very rich and the hedge funds control so much cash now, why bother with the rubes, and all the public and legal scrutiny it brings. The only reason anyone goes public any more is so that the insiders can cash out. By the time us schmucks can buy, the money has already been made.
It's always seemed to me that there are so many advantages to being a private company. Fewer regulatory requirements and you don't need to make quarterly results your sole focus. You can think long term.
It is interesting to watch these companies come and go. I'm not sure if Dell can ever get back to where they were. If I were Michael Dell, I don't think I would do that. But then, I guess that's why I'm not a billionaire.
The deal looks very lucarative for PEs and Mr. Dell and other parties - given the company has net cash of $5bn (debt of $9bn & Cash of $14bn. So with total purchase price of $24bn, they need to contribute ~19bn or slightly more, in form of debt and equity, of $2bn will come from MSFT. Given the fact, Dell generated FCF of $12bn in last 3 yrs (2010-12). With the av. FCF run rate of $2.5bn a year. PEs can leave firm with 24% return (on EV/EBITDA of 3.0x)after five years with minimal debt.
The numbers are really huge. You know I guess I would also want to go private. In times of financial instability there is no need for anyone to know the amounts like that. I mean I am curious where do they get billions of dollars while some have to obtain payday loans ( http://paydayloansat.com/ ) in order to buy some food for their families? Hopefully the deal is going to make sense, because it would be sad if all of those millions-billions are going to be wasted. I do not really see how this deal is going to help Dell itself? I see all of the advantages for shareholders and this is it so far. Thanx for the updates
Dell's computer is always more expensive than other brands. They offer big discount coupons - Lots of them listed at http://www.gogoshopper.com/Dell-com-Home-coupons.html . But even after the discount, their price is no cheap at all. Go figure at Costco or Sam's club: with a similar configuration, Dell is at least $100 more expensive than HP. Now they finally announced XPS 13 Ultrabook. But the price is again not acceptable.
It looks like a good deal for the shareholders. The question is whether Dell will *survive*.
The PC market is a commodity market with commodity pricing and paper thin margins. Given equivalent specs, it mostly doesn't *matter* whose name is on the box, and the purchase decision comes down to price, with lowest cost producer winning. Dell hasn't been the lowest cost producer, and it's not clear it *can* be.
The pressures that drove Dell to this are the same ones that saw IBM exit from the PC business they began, selling out to Lenovo, and had HP announcing an intent (later reversed) to get out of the PC business as well. You simply can't make money selling PCs.
Taking the company private relieves the pressure from the public markets, looking for revenue and profits Dell probably *can't* make. But it doesn't relieve the pressure period: the funds that put up the money to make these leveraged buyouts do so in expectations that the company can be turned around and made profitable, and that they can then sell their stake for more than they invested and make money on the difference.
I foresee interersting times for Dell as they try to turn around the business.
The only reason I see for the privatization is so that the core direction can be changed. Stockholders demand returns on their investment and as DMcCunney says, the PC is a commodity market with razor thin margins. With the declining sales of PCs towards phablets, the margins eventually won't cover fixed costs.
By going private, previous dividends can be redirected to R&D so that Dell can reinvent itself. Or maybe even sell the PC division? Too early to speculate.
Join our online Radio Show on Friday 11th July starting at 2:00pm Eastern, when EETimes editor of all things fun and interesting, Max Maxfield, and embedded systems expert, Jack Ganssle, will debate as to just what is, and is not, and embedded system.