|
????2005年初，瑪莎?斯圖爾特生活全媒體公司（Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia）的市值接近20億美元。當時公司創始人瑪莎?斯圖爾特已因內幕交易鋃鐺入獄，但瑞秋?雷尚未家喻戶曉，瑪莎?斯圖爾特生活全媒體公司與凱馬特公司（Kmart）的關系也還沒有變糟。 ????自那以來，這些年的日子并不好過。由于季度虧損擴大，息稅折舊攤銷前利潤為負值，銀行余額不到2,300萬美元，上周三，瑪莎?斯圖爾特生活全媒體公司開盤僅報209美元。因此，它做了任何一家絕望的公司都會做的事情——為自己尋找一個買家。 ????當然，不是正式的，而是以華爾街的隱晦方式。瑪莎?斯圖爾特生活全媒體公司宣布已聘請百仕通集團(Blackstone Group)的咨詢部門“尋求”各種不同的可能性。這包括回應“已表示有意與該公司合作或對該公司進行投資的各方，”但一位傳媒投行人士將此稱之為煙幕彈。 ????“這是招徠投資者的典型手法，”他說，“如果確實收到很多意向，可能無需公告。” ????不過，這并不是說短期內不會有求婚者敲門。上周四，我和幾家私募股權公司有過交流，他們表示尚未決定是否出手，但會在陣亡將士紀念日(Memorial Day，美國大多數州都要紀念的節日，時間原為5月30日，1971年以后，為保證聯邦雇員都能享有這一休息日，許多州將它改在5月的最后一個星期一——譯注)的周末后至少粗粗看一看。 ????“這和我們大多數人概念中的業績好轉故事不一樣，但看來該公司確實在努力挑戰自我，”West Coast私募股權的一位高管表示，“該公司的營業收入基本上與市值一樣。” ????潛在買家很多，大中型收購公司都能應對這樣的市值規模。有意方必須同時接受傳媒和商品業務(二者占2011年第1季度瑪莎?斯圖爾特生活全媒體公司營收的近20%)，但這只是一個小問題。更大的問題是瑪莎?斯圖爾特本人。 ????在5月25日的聲明中，斯圖爾特還表示，今年晚些時候美國證券交易委員會(SEC)的禁令到期后，她將重新加入公司董事會。這大致只是一種形式——投資者普遍相信現在瑪莎?斯圖爾特生活全媒體公司的很多重要決定也都是由斯圖爾特做出的——但一家私募股權投資公司長期而言將如何應對她呢？投資人會延續斯圖爾特生活全媒體公司的現有戰略，將斯圖爾特推在臺前，相信此人仍是公司的招牌嗎？或者，投資人會認為她的個人魅力已大減，沒有偶像，也能重塑品牌？ ????戰略收購者也必須要回答“瑪莎問題”，雖然方式不同。具體來說，她愿意為其他人工作嗎？如果愿意，能持續多長時間？她會要求阿里安娜?赫芬頓式的交易嗎(換言之，她基本上是需要以自身形象重塑另一家公司嗎)？ ????我的猜測是斯圖爾特將尋找一家私募股權公司，為其供類似于《花花公子》（Playboy）創始人休?赫夫納近期從密西根投資公司Rizvi Traverse獲得的交易。唯一的重要區別可能是斯圖爾特要確定出資人有相當的新媒體經驗，或至少知道如何不錯失下一輪電子商務浪潮(如秒殺銷售)。 ????“如果一家公司有意進行大規模重組，引入私募股權是有意義的，”企業咨詢公司SSA & Co.的總裁戴維?奈爾斯表示，“他們顯然需要對核心營運業務做出相當大的改變，解決瑪莎所謂的品牌呈現問題，進一步實施國際化擴張。私募股權完全有能力提供此類幫助。” |
????In early 2005, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia (MSO) was worth nearly $2 billion. This was after its doyenne namesake had served time for insider trading, but before Rachel Ray had become ubiquitous or the company's relationship with Kmart had soured. ????The intervening years have not been kind. Martha Stewart Living was valued at just $209 at yesterday's market open, thanks to expanding quarterly losses, negative EBITDA and less than $23 million in the bank. So it did what any desperate company does: It put itself up for sale. ????Not officially, of course, but in the coded parlance of Wall Street. Martha Stewart Living said that it had hired The Blackstone Group's (BX) advisory arm to "explore" various opportunities. This includes responding to "various parties that have expressed interest in potentially partnering with or investing in the company," although one media banker I spoke with called it a smoke screen. ????"It's a classic case of trying to drum up investors," he said. "If there really was significant inbound interest, then you probably don't do a press release." ????This isn't to say, however, that suitors won't soon be knocking. I spoke to several private equity firms today that said they are not yet engaged on the deal, but plan to take at least a cursory look after the Memorial Day weekend. ????"It's not a turnaround in the way most of us think about turnarounds, but it does appear to be batting below its weight," said one West Coast private equity executive. "Its revenue is essentially the same as its market cap." ????The universe of prospective buyers is actually pretty large, given that both mid-market and large-market buyout firms could handle the equity load. Interested parties would have to be comfortable with both the media and merchandising space (nearly 20% of MSO revenue in Q1 2011), but that's a small hurdle. The larger issue is Martha Stewart herself. ????As part of yesterday's announcement, Stewart said that she would rejoin the company board in once her SEC ban expires later this year. This is largely a formality -- Stewart is widely believed to call the company's important shots -- but how would a private equity owner handle her long-term? Would it continue the company's strategy of putting Stewart out front, believing that the person is the brand? Or would it decide that her personal popularity has waned, but that the brand itself can be reinvigorated without a flesh-and-blood mascot? ????Strategic acquirers also would have to answer the "Martha question," albeit in a different way. Specifically, would she be comfortable working for someone else. And, if so, how long would she be willing to do so? Would she require an Arianna Huffington-type deal, where she basically gets to reinvent another company in her own image? ????My guess, and it's only that, is that Stewart will seek out a private equity suitor that offers her something similar to what Playboy founder Hugh Hefner recently got from Michigan-based investment firm Rizvi Traverse. The only major difference may be that Stewart makes sure the sponsor has significant new media expertise, or at least ideas on how it can avoid missing out on the next e-commerce trend (e.g., flash sales). ????"Private equity makes sense if you assume that the company is interested in a large-scale reinvention," says Dave Niles, president of business consultancy SSA & Co. "They clearly need to make some pretty significant changes to their core operations, resolve what Martha means for brand presence and expand more internationally. Private equity is well-positioned to help with those things." |
相關稿件
最新文章