谷歌（Google Inc.）并购负责人唐•哈里森周二表示，谷歌可能很快会与私募股权公司合伙收购其他公司。

    但有没有更好的选择呢？比方说，在谷歌内部的企业开拓团队中增加一些私募股权资深人士，就像雅虎（Yahoo）那样？

    《彭博商业周刊》（Bloomberg Businessweek）对哈里森给出的解释做了一番解读，具体如下:

    收购公司可以协助买方，提供所需的融资，或者就收购完成后如何重组或分割收购目标提供建议。虽然谷歌也许只是将现金进行投资以获取一些回报，但它也可能会参与交易收购资产。

    首先，很难理解为什么谷歌需要“融资”帮助。这家搜索引擎巨头在一季度末拥有超过150亿美元的现金，如果将“短期投资”计算在内，这个数值会进一步增至500亿美元。这家公司的股票也是相当有价值的硬通货，周三的开盘价达到了901.30美元。

    因此，只剩下获取“建议”这部分的帮助。如果谷歌需要一些懂得如何管理复杂交易或将被收购公司的非核心资产价值最大化的人才，为什么不直接聘用这些人呢？这样，谷歌不仅能够获得需要的专业技能，也能对更传统的交易有不一样的认识。

    基本上雅虎（Yahoo）就是在这么干。

    去年9月，雅虎聘请杰奎琳•雷瑟斯担任首席发展官，她的职责之一就是负责并购。雷瑟斯过去在私募股权公司Apax Partners工作过十年，曾担任该公司美国媒体业务部负责人。

    而且雷瑟斯也不是单枪匹马。今年，她从私募股权界招了两名副总裁：T.R.•纽考布【前泛大西洋资本集团（General Atlantic）雇员】和伊安•维因加顿【曾效力于私募公司戈尔斯集团（Gores Group）和私人股本投资机构阿波罗管理公司（Apollo Management）】。她还借力雅虎董事哈利•威尔森；威尔森目前经营着一家小型重组公司，过去曾是信用投资公司银点资本（Silver Point Capital）的合伙人。

    但在谷歌这一边，看起来没有一位企业发展高管拥有丰富的私募股权经验（有几位曾在职业生涯初期担任职位较低的分析师）。

    需要澄清的一点是，我并不认为谷歌需要私募股权资深人士来促成好的交易。我也不是说，对于收购一家现金流不高（如Tumblr）的公司，私募股权经验有多么重要。

    事实上，我只是想指出，如果谷歌认为，具备私募股权专长与眼光能让它获益，它无需通过与其他私募股权公司合作来分摊风险与回报。直接与私募股权公司的（前）合伙人合伙就可以了。（财富中文网）

    Google Inc. may soon partner with private equity firms to acquire other companies, according to comments made yesterday by Google mergers and acquisitions chief Don Harrison.

    But isn't there a better option? Like adding private equity veterans to Google's (GOOG) in-house corporate development team, like Yahoo (YHOO) has done?

    Here was Harrison's explanation, as paraphrased by Bloomberg Businessweek:

    Buyout firms can assist an acquirer by providing needed financing or advice on how a target could be restructured or carved up after a deal closes. While Google may invest cash to get a return on the investment, it may also take part in a deal to acquire an asset.

    For starters, it's hard to understand why Google would ever be in need of "financing" assistance. The search giant had more than $15 billion of cash on hand at the end of Q1, which expands to $50 billion once "short-term investments" are taken into account. It also has a pretty valuable currency in its own stock, which opened trading today at $901.30 per share.

    So that leaves the "advice" piece. If Google just wants people who know how to manage complicated transactions, or maximize value from non-core assets of acquired companies, why not just hire them? Not only would Google get the desired expertise, but it also could get a different perspective on more traditional deals.

    This is basically what's happened over at Yahoo.

    Last September the company hired Jacqueline Reses as chief development officer, where her responsibilities include overseeing M&A. Reses previously spent ten years with private equity firm Apax Partners, including as head of its U.S. media group.

    And Reses hasn't been going it alone. Already this year she has hired two new vice presidents from the private equity world: T.R. Newcomb (ex-General Atlantic) and Ian Weingarten (ex-Gores Group/Apollo Management). She also leverages Yahoo board member Harry Wilson, who currently runs a turnaround and restructuring boutique and used to be a partner with credit-oriented investment firm Silver Point Capital.

    Google, on the other hand, does not appear to have any corp dev executives with significant private equity experience (a few spent time as lower-level analysts early in their careers).

    No be clear, I'm not arguing that Google needs private equity veterans in order to do good deals. Nor am I saying that private equity experience matters too much when acquiring a company that has insignificant cash flow (i.e., Tumblr).

    Instead, just pointing out that if Google believes there are opportunities out there that could benefit from private equity acumen, it needn't dilute its risk/reward by partnering with private equity firms. Just partner with their (former) partners.