Re: SSA Global acquired by Infor

On 5/17/06, Frederick C Davy <fcdavy@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Al,

Your concerns are well stated, and I am sure echo several of the other
members of this forum. It seems the mode of operation of corporations is
to "acquire" their competition, rather than spend the same amount of money
to improve their own product.

Done properly, this is a better business solution .. eliminate a
competitor, increase your customer base and improve your product.
Done poorly, it is a disaster, as any PRMS customer throught he dark
days of CA ownership can attest.

I agree that government has "turned a deaf
ear" toward this practice (what was the compelling reason for Oracle to
purchase PeopleSoft, other than one man's ego) that reflects that business
has a "free reign", as long as they keep the books in order.

And this is as it should be.  History has demonstrated that
command-style economies where government directs what companies can
and cannot do fail abysmally.  The market and the shareholders will
reward or punish Larry Ellison depending on whether the PeopleSoft
fiasco works or doesn't.  Those Oracle shareholders not comfortable
with the situation are free to sell.

IMHO the current anti-trust enforcement w.r.t. mergers and
acquisitions is about right; leave it alone unless there is a
compelling case that the harm to consumers or US interests is
dramatic.

I am
concerned that in this case we have 37,000 customers that now know that
the cost of this acquisition and the resulting restructuring will come at
the cost of reduced innovation, product development, and possibly
increased (OGS) support contracts.

Are you suggesting that the government should step in and protect
these customers?

Any customers who don't like the current situation can vote with their
feet and dollars.  There are tons of alternatives, and it is likely
that the vendors will be happy to help and reduce the financial pain
involved.

That's the down side. On the positive side, let's remember that when SSA
was originally sold there was a lot of speculation that the Gores brothers
were "bottom feeders" that would strip down and sell off portions of the
company and then dump the skeleton. That didn't happen. What did happen
was that a financially unstable company got put back on its feet, and
setup for new investors to take a chance on building that company into a
portfolio of ERP choices for their customers. We will always gripe about
the cost of support, but I have had some very positive "helpdesk"
incidences resolved in the last year (I guess this is really my concern
now. Will that change?) with people that really knew the product.

Which brings us back to some questions:

Do we think this is going to be good or bad for BPCS customers?

Should current customers (particularly those of us on old releases)
use this as the trigger to switch systems?

Conversely, is there anything to be gained by getting current with BPCS?

At a
time when business is struggling with global competition and soaring
energy costs, we need more focus on agile, lean, and extremely flexible
support systems, not less choices, less innovation, higher support and
purchase costs for products that have become loosely integrated to try to
patch several different products purchased by a vendor to eliminated the
competition.

At whose expense?  Should SSA be required to stay in a business they
no longer want to be a part of?  Should SSA's shareholders be deprived
of the returns from the deal?

As an aside:  SSAG closed yesterday at $19.08, and the buyout is
$19.50 in Q3.  On Friday it was under $16, and it's 52 week low is
$10.52.  This is a good deal for the SSA shareholders.

Take care ...