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. I'm a CPA who works with a wide range of companies (through my firm K.B.Parrish & Co.); however, we work with quite a few car dealerships, so I'm fairly interested in Fatwin (mentioned in the article). Does anyone have much information on that, or a link to such information? Thanks.

      2. Historically high long-term unemployment, unprecedented labor market slack and the loss of human capital should not be accepted as "the economy at work [and] what is supposed to happen" and is certainly not raising wages in Indiana. See Chicago Fed Reserve: goo.gl/IJ4JhQ Also, here's our research on Work Sharing and our support testimony at yesterday's hearing: goo.gl/NhC9W4

      3. I am always curious why teachers don't believe in accountability. It's the only profession in the world that things they are better than everyone else. It's really a shame.

      4. It's not often in Indiana that people from both major political parties and from both labor and business groups come together to endorse a proposal. I really think this is going to help create a more flexible labor force, which is what businesses claim to need, while also reducing outright layoffs, and mitigating the impact of salary/wage reductions, both of which have been highlighted as important issues affecting Hoosier workers. Like many other public policies, I'm sure that this one will, over time, be tweaked and changed as needed to meet Indiana's needs. But when you have such broad agreement, why not give this a try?

      5. I could not agree more with Ben's statement. Every time I look at my unemployment insurance rate, "irritated" hardly describes my sentiment. We are talking about a surplus of funds, and possibly refunding that, why, so we can say we did it and get a notch in our political belt? This is real money, to real companies, large and small. The impact is felt across the board; in the spending of the company, the hiring (or lack thereof due to higher insurance costs), as well as in the personal spending of the owners of a smaller company.

      ADVERTISEMENT