订阅

多平台阅读

微信订阅

杂志

申请纸刊赠阅

订阅每日电邮

移动应用

商业

评论:过度并购的趋势恐怕会扼杀创新

Stav Vaisman 2018年01月21日

大型科技公司随时准备着收购任何拥有潜在威胁技术的后起之秀。科技初创公司面临着两难困境:接受收购还是独自发展?

Gary John Norman
 

高科技领域的兼并与收购已经达到了历史最高水平。德勤(Deloitte)预计,2018年“并购活动还继续升级”,这很大程度上是由于大公司疯狂吞并小规模创新公司的技术并购所推动的。大型科技公司财力雄厚,随时准备着收购任何拥有潜在威胁技术的后起之秀。在这样竞争激烈的环境下,科技初创公司面临着两难困境:接受收购还是独自发展?

这个问题并不容易回答。所有初创公司的创始人都必须对许多相互矛盾的需求进行权衡——投资者回报、经营自主权和员工的工作保障。然而,科技和其他行业(尤其是媒体和娱乐业)并购增多的趋势,对于那些喜欢竞争激烈市场的人来说是一种困扰。如果初创公司的目标是卖掉公司或与规模更大的竞争者合作,那么那些巨头就会拥有越来越多的专利技术。幸运的是,可以从监管上抑制那些威胁竞争的并购,然而政府需要愿意这样去做。

监管者似乎不太愿意用权力限制科技行业的并购。Mooreland Partners编写的《全球技术并购报告》(Global Technology M&A Report)显示,技术并购市场在2015年创造了历史新高之后,在2016年和2017年火爆依旧。思科、施乐和慧与等科技界巨头都财力雄厚,随时准备着收购那些冒出了竞争苗头的初创公司。光施乐就投入了1亿美元收购公司,只为了让他们成为施乐的独家供应商,而不是提供自己的服务来加剧竞争。德勤对技术高管的调查显示,2018年预计会有更多和更大的交易发生。

这个趋势表明,监管方没什么兴趣抑制科技界的并购热潮。无论哪党入主白宫,联邦贸易委员会(Federal Trade Commission)都充斥着放任主义的理念。标志性的反垄断法《克莱顿法案》(Clayton Act)的第七部分禁止了任何“可能会弱化竞争或者可能产生垄断者”的并购行为。考虑到这个有效短语的界定难以捉摸,联邦贸易委员会历来都站在公司和投资者一边,更赞成并购而不是竞争。

然而,在某些情况下,监管者必须更加严格地审查科技行业的并购。科技巨头收购新生竞争者的能力应当在《法案》第七部分有更加明确的阐述。并购趋势已经削弱了美国初创公司在颠覆和创新上扮演关键作用的潜力。这个角色是必要的,它可以阻止科技巨头构建一个少数根深蒂固的公司可以利用购买力扼杀竞争的市场。

我意识到这个问题并不是非黑即白。初创公司创始人、投资者和员工绝对可以在与大公司合作的过程中获得好处。我与那些主要目标不是上市而是并购的创始人进行过许多对话。许多初创公司的创始人不指望成为下一个企业新星,而是下一家被收购的新公司。对于这种倾向,我不能怪罪任何人,尤其是在必须满足投资者要求的情况。

不过蜂拥前去进行越来越多的并购,应该引发我们科技界的所有人思考它的长期意义。想想媒体和娱乐行业的命运。1983年,已故的记者本·巴格迪肯在《媒体垄断》(The Media Monopoly )一书中警告称,仅仅50家公司,就创造并发行了美国的大部分报纸、电视节目、电影、杂志和图书。联邦贸易委员会和公众都对此置若罔闻。而根据他的最后一次计算,如今,美国大部分媒体内容已经集中被5家公司控制。

如果当下的并购趋势继续,科技界也可能沦落到类似的境地。不是每一笔交易都很糟糕,尤其是那种初创公司与中等规模的公司合作或被后者收购,从而联手威胁大型科技公司的情况。但是监管者应该考虑介入那些会让科技行业进一步合并的交易,以免整个行业的轨迹成为了传媒巨头历史的翻版。(财富中文网)

作者斯塔夫·魏斯曼是OurPlan的共同创始人和首席执行官。

译者:严匡正

Mergers and acquisitions in the high-tech sector have reached historic levels. Deloitte projects “M&A activity to continue accelerating” in 2018, driven mostly by technology acquisition as the big players gobble up the smaller innovators. Big tech is flush and ready to buy out any upstarts with technology that represents a threat. In this competitive landscape, tech startups face a dilemma: take the deal or go it alone?

There is no easy answer to this question. Each startup founder must weigh a number of competing needs—investor returns, managerial autonomy, and job security for workers. Yet the trend toward more M&As in tech and other industries (notably media and entertainment) is troubling for those who prefer a competitive marketplace. If the goal of startups is to sell out or partner with a bigger competitor, conglomerates will hold more and more technology in their proprietary portfolios. Fortunately, there is a regulatory solution to M&As that present a threat to competition, but the government must be willing to use it.

Regulators appear reluctant to impose their authority on M&As in tech. After hitting a record level in 2015, the technology M&A market remained robust throughout 2016 and 2017, according to the Global Technology M&A Report compiled by Mooreland Partners. The big boys in tech—Cisco (CSCO, +0.48%), Xerox (XRX, +4.98%), and Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE, +1.71%), among others—are flush and ready to buy out any upstarts emerging over the competitive horizon. Xerox alone has devoted $100 million to acquire firms for the sole purpose of making them Xerox-exclusive providers, preventing them from providing their services to the competition. Deloitte’s survey of tech executives shows that more deals, and bigger deals, are expected for 2018.

The trend shows that regulators have little interest in stifling the M&A rush in tech. A laissez-faire ideology appears to permeate the Federal Trade Commission regardless of which party controls the White House. Section 7 of the Clayton Act, the hallmark antitrust law, prohibits mergers and acquisitions if the effect “may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly.” Given the intangible nature of this operative phrase, the FTC has historically sided with the interests of firms and investors that favor deals over competition.

At some point, however, the trend toward more consolidation in tech must be more closely scrutinized by regulators. The ability of big tech to buy out upstart competitors should prompt a more aggressive interpretation of Section 7. The M&A trend diminishes the potential for American startups to play their pivotal role in disrupting and innovating. This role is essential to prevent big tech from creating a marketplace wherein a few entrenched players use their purchasing power to stifle competition.

I realize the issue is not black and white. Startup founders, investors, and employees can certainly benefit from partnerships with the big guys. I’ve had more than my share of conversations with peers whose primary goal is not an IPO but an M&A. Many startup founders are not looking to become the next new thing, but rather the next new firm to be acquired. I cannot fault anyone for this orientation, particularly when investor needs must be met.

But the rush to more and more M&As should cause all of us in tech to consider the long-term implications. Consider the fate of the media and entertainment industries. In 1983, late journalist Ben Bagdikian warned in The Media Monopoly that just 50 corporations created and distributed most of the newspaper, television, film, magazine, and book content in the United States. The FTC, and the public, paid no heed. Today, just five corporations control most media content in America, according to Bagdikian’s latest tally.

The threat of a similar outcome in technology is looming if the current M&A trend continues. Not every deal is bad, particularly when upstarts partner with or are acquired by medium-sized firms that can present a unified threat to Big Tech. But regulators should consider intervening in those deals that allow the technology industry to become further consolidated, following a trajectory similar to the history of media conglomerates.

Stav Vaisman is co-founder and CEO of OurPlan.

我来点评

  最新文章

最新文章:

500强情报中心

财富专栏