IBJNews

Salesforce slow to excite investors after $2.5B buyout of ExactTarget

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Almost a week after ExactTarget’s announced buyout by Salesforce.com, the $2.5 billion deal has yet to win over investors.

Shares of Salesforce were down about 64 cents Monday morning to $38.96 after closing Friday at $39.61 a share. Shares fetched $41.04 on June 3, a day before the two companies announced the acquisition.

The stock had dropped as low as $37.57 per share—an 8.5-percent slide—on the day of the announcement.

Salesforce, the San Francisco-based cloud computing giant, leads the market for consumer relationship management software. The company reported $3.1 billion in revenue for fiscal year 2013, which ended Jan. 31. It lost $270.4 million for the year.

Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff sparked speculation that he had his sights set on ExactTarget earlier this year when he told investors and analysts that his company needed to step into email marketing, which is ExactTarget’s forte.

Benioff and his team agreed to pay $33.75 per share—a 53-percent premium—for ExactTarget, which went public in March 2012.

The deal is expected to make a lot of money for ExactTarget’s shareholders and will likely pump millions of dollars back into Indianapolis’ technology sector in coming years.

On Salesforce’s end, the buyout has pitted Wall Street analysts against financial bloggers.

Critics have questioned the $2.5 billion price tag for the deal, which was Salesforce's eighth and largest acquisition in a year. The buyout will likely be the last for a while, Benioff told investors.

“Assuming this transaction receives regulatory approval, it will go down as one of the most expensive deals the cloud sector has ever seen,” commentator Richard Saintvilus wrote on TheStreet.com. “It's not just the fact Salesforce is spending $2.5 billion in the all-cash deal. But by paying $33.75 per share, which amounts to a 53 percent premium, there's no question Salesforce has overspent relative to similar deals.”

Oracle Corp.’s $871 million purchase of digital market Eloqua in December 2012 has been a common point of reference.

An article by poster Investometrica on SeeklingAlpha.com described Salesforce's offer as "too much" in light of continuous losses by ExactTarget.

Salesforce’s stock took a hit in late May after it reported a $67.7 million loss in its first quarter, compared to a $19.5 million loss a year earlier, even though revenue grew 28 percent, to $893 million.

ExactTarget has had a similiar experience in recent years as its losses have widened, despite growing revenue. The company has focused on growth over profit, leading to a $21 million loss in its 2012 fiscal year. Before last week's announcement, the company's shares generated small returns in its first year of trading.

Wall Street analysts project a rally in Salesforce's share prices over the next year, with average projections landing close to $48 a share, according to Yahoo Finance.

“We understand the strengths of the [ExactTarget] platform well, and this move could help sustain 30-percent-plus growth over a multi-year basis,” Raymond James analyst Terry Tillman wrote in a June 5 note to investors. He projected a $52.50 price target for Salesforce.

Jeff Houston, an analyst at Barrington Research, told IBJ the $2.5 billion price tag was reasonable when compared to the Oracle-Eloqua deal, based on sales forecasts—as opposed to bloggers' comparisons to previous sales.

Both buyouts were valued at roughly six times the sales forecasts for the following years, Houston said.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • 2.5 Billion is REAL...
    Indy has enough of a tech sector to warrant a 2.5 BILIION M&A of a Indy tech company. I haven't heard of too many 2.5 BILLION M&A's out of Austin, NYC, Silicon Alley, etc... in 2013, so Indy is doing "ok." Siliconnowhere@gmail.com, go back in the basement and look at your faded Obama poster, lol.
  • No Pump...
    Lol, siliconnowhere. I'm just joining the conversation. No dog in the fight. It just seems "kinda" early to judge this M&A. Investors these days are so impatient. Indy is not a laughingstock -- just a nice city.
  • Indy? Tech?
    Outside of John Moore, who's trying to pump a blog entry at Motley Fool that nobody has read, nobody cares about SFRCET at all. Nobody. Indianapolis is a laughingstock. We don't have a tech sector. We don't even have a nascent tech sector. We still listen to Journey and REO Speedwagon for crying out loud. It's still 1978 here, and it always will be. To suggest that because a handful of people got a windfall that they will reinvest it back into Silicon Nowhere is comical. Dream on, IBJ. Dream on.
    • Give It Time...
      This is a great deal that really needed to get done. Its not sexy (why CRM is not popping) but ExactTarget has the customers and roldex. ExactTarget has solid technonlgy, its not groudbreaking, but it works and is proven. Salesforce was smart to buy ExactTarget. I'm suprprised Facebook, Google or Mircosoft did not buy ExactTarget sooner. It surprised me that IBM was in the running to buy ExactTarget. Now Adobe, Mircosoft, IBM, Oracle, SAP, etc need to counter this M&A (Responsys or Constant Contact ) to keep up with Salesforce. - Read more here - http://goo.gl/INTKw , here - http://goo.gl/kTckt , and here - http://goo.gl/9m3Kw
      • ExactSpam
        You mean no one on Wall St is excited SFDC bought ExactSpam ?? Shocking.

      Post a comment to this story

      COMMENTS POLICY
      We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
       
      You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
       
      Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
       
      No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
       
      We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
       

      Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

      Sponsored by
      ADVERTISEMENT

      facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

      Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
      Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
       
      Subscribe to IBJ
      1. Those of you yelling to deport them all should at least understand that the law allows minors (if not from a bordering country) to argue for asylum. If you don't like the law, you can petition Congress to change it. But you can't blindly scream that they all need to be deported now, unless you want your government to just decide which laws to follow and which to ignore.

      2. 52,000 children in a country with a population of nearly 300 million is decimal dust or a nano-amount of people that can be easily absorbed. In addition, the flow of children from central American countries is decreasing. BL - the country can easily absorb these children while at the same time trying to discourage more children from coming. There is tension between economic concerns and the values of Judeo-Christian believers. But, I cannot see how the economic argument can stand up against the values of the believers, which most people in this country espouse (but perhaps don't practice). The Governor, who is an alleged religious man and a family man, seems to favor the economic argument; I do not see how his position is tenable under the circumstances. Yes, this is a complicated situation made worse by politics but....these are helpless children without parents and many want to simply "ship" them back to who knows where. Where are our Hoosier hearts? I thought the term Hoosier was synonymous with hospitable.

      3. Illegal aliens. Not undocumented workers (too young anyway). I note that this article never uses the word illegal and calls them immigrants. Being married to a naturalized citizen, these people are criminals and need to be deported as soon as humanly possible. The border needs to be closed NOW.

      4. Send them back NOW.

      5. deport now

      ADVERTISEMENT