Could the value destruction machine at Sun be stopped?

by Kris_Tuttle on April 9, 2009

We don’t know what’s going on at Sun but some­how feel that there is a ball still in their court.  At first we noted that some of the soft­ware assets (Java, MySQL) are very strate­gic and in some ways the cur­rent value of the com­pany ($3.6B TEV at $6.60/share) might be worth these assets.  Of course Sun comes along with over $13B in annual rev­enue, a bloated cost struc­tre, dys­func­tional man­age­ment and declin­ing via­bil­ity ver­sus com­pe­ti­tion from com­pa­nies like HP to name one.

The IBM deal seemed like a home run for both par­ties were it not for the anti-trust con­cerns, some of which seem quite valid in areas of the busi­ness.  The deal is highly accre­tive to IBM even at $12 or $13/share.  So much so that we won’t even bother show­ing the math here.  (Although you can start with the Sun TEV/R of 0.3x ver­sus the IBM TEV/R at 1.5x and start to get the gist of it.)

Unfor­tu­nately Sun has been destroy­ing busi­nesses they acquire and share­holder value for a decade.  (Before every­one throws their long-term charts at us show­ing what a rise they had in 1999, save it!  They were destroy­ing soft­ware com­pa­nies by acqui­si­tion (with one or two clear excep­tions) way back then to but it wasn’t rec­og­nized by the mar­ket and the bub­ble bailed them out.)   Sun is obsessed with sell­ing servers and so they focus on prod­ucts like mySQL as a vehi­cle to move more Sun hard­ware.  This link­age is arti­fi­cial and not what cus­tomers want.  They seek stan­dard­ized (and now vir­tu­al­ized) hard­ware envi­ron­ments where they can effi­ciently run their under­ly­ing soft­ware infra­struc­ture and com­pany appli­ca­tions.  They don’t want some spe­cial­ized solu­tion from Sun or any­one else.  This is true for some eso­teric appli­ca­tions but not for main­stream computing.

That Sun man­age­ment still dri­ves the com­pany with this world view and busi­ness model is fatal for all con­cerned.  We really are not try­ing to pick on Sun.  And we do sym­pa­thize with employ­ees there.  Most of them are not to blame and there’s no ques­tion that there’s lots of “good stuff” to be had at Sun.  But the strat­egy and the man­age­ment approach have been rot­ten for so long it doesn’t make any sense to walk on eggshells about it.

We’ve looked at a set of pro­pri­etary server spend­ing data from enteprise cus­tomers and Sun is in the Nov­ell cat­e­gory in terms of tech­nol­ogy roadmap, spend­ing plans and vulnerability.

But would it be that hard for Sun to stop hurt­ing them­selves and get more aggres­sive about com­ing up with a strat­egy that is dif­fer­ent and works?  IBM was left for dead before Ger­st­ner helped get it sorted out.  There are great assets and oppor­tu­ni­ties still for Sun and a new approach could unlock them.  The shares would be worth $12 or even more if they could just get on a decent footing.

[Dis­clo­sure: Research 2.0 has a small long posi­tion in JAVA.]

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: