spendmatters
 

February 09, 2012

 

Gartner to Acquire AMR Research: Supply Chain and Procurement Analyst Game Over?

Earlier this morning, Gartner announced that it was acquiring AMR Research. For those who are not familiar with AMR, the firm, for the longest time, has been the most influential analyst outfit focused on supply chain and procurement. While it has technology research and practices in many other areas -- and Bruce Richardson, its gregarious uber-analyst, is well regarded in ERP circles -- its true strengths have always been at the intersection of supply chain technology, process and innovation. For many years, there were rumored on-again / off-again discussions between AMR and its Cambridge-neighbor, Forrester. Clearly, George Colony, Forrester's leader, who we know is friends with Tony Friscia, AMR’s President and CEO, will be disappointed that they lost the bidding on this one (I have no doubt that AMR’s bankers would have included them in the discussions). But where does this deal leave Gartner, not to mention the broader industry analyst landscape?



First, let’s analyze the numbers. The above-linked WSJ summary gives some specifics on the deal, noting that Gartner’s “$64 million agreement to acquire fellow data provider AMR Research … will expand its range of offerings. AMR, which is projected to have nearly $40 million in revenue this year, serves supply-chain management and information-technology professionals. Gartner said the purchase would also complement its consulting and events businesses and 'enhance Gartner's ability to further penetrate the vast market opportunity for syndicated research'." Clearly, for Tony and Bruce, the dynamic duo leading AMR would have liked for things to have ended differently.

A number of years ago, I recall that AMR filed its S-1 agreement hoping to go public. At the time, if memory serves, the SEC filing showed materially higher revenue than their current estimated $40 million in 2010 (I need to track this down and will share what I find). I believe that the valuation of this deal, at just under 1.5X current year revenue, is quite low given AMR’s brand cache not to mention AMR really is the only analyst game in town with any scale in the supply chain and procurement arena. Perhaps this speaks to the perceived value of traditional analyst models today, at least from a financial perspective.

In good supply chain and cost reduction form, the announcement also suggests that “an undisclosed amount of cost savings are expected.” But I doubt that much of the cost reduction will come from a reduction in the analyst and consulting workforce. However, given the coverage overlap between AMR’s Mickey North Rizza and Gartner’s Debbie Wilson in procurement, they’ll clearly need to divide and conquer different areas of Spend Management if they’re to collectively cover this corner of the enterprise world in particular. In my view, AMR's practice in the procurement space is stronger than Gartner's (and I'm not alone in this view).

However, I am already telling my clients on both the vendor and practitioner side of the fence that they should exercise caution in renewing Gartner and AMR agreements until the deal closes (which Gartner suggests will happen before the year is up). At that point, when the dust begins to settle on how the joint practice and coverage areas will work, the combined value proposition to clients should become more clear. Check back for additional commentary on this story throughout the day. As the story develops and we learn more facts, we will plan to share our findings and analysis on Spend Matters.

- Jason Busch


Commodity Edge Conference

TweetBacks
Comments
lurker's Gravatar So what does this mean for Spend Matters? Is this an analyst model?
# Posted By lurker | 12/1/09 8:06 AM
Jason Busch's Gravatar In short: NO. Spend Matters is a publishing-based business model vs. a paid research one. We are doing something entirely new here and will never pursue a model that sells research. I think there are room for multiple business models in this sector. What matters at the end of the day are the people behind them and the quality of work they produce.
# Posted By Jason Busch | 12/1/09 8:14 AM
Rob Bois's Gravatar AMR still had a number of analysts with coverage outside of "core" supply chain, where there will be quite a bit of overlap with Gartner's existing analysts (I know, I used to be one of them). It will be interesting to see if they are redeployed, added to the existing teams, or if they are just viewed as overhead. Even in core manufacturing, there is some overall (for instance both have analysts actively covering Trade Promotions Management).
# Posted By Rob Bois | 12/1/09 8:25 AM
Raj Mirchandani's Gravatar Jason, good post. I have noticed that in a couple of your posts, you have indicated that a company's valuation is 1.5X of their revenue. In my experience in M&A, enterprise value is usually a multiple (8-12X) of trailing EBITDA. Are things different with procurement-focused companies?
# Posted By Raj Mirchandani | 12/1/09 9:32 PM
Jason Busch's Gravatar Raj,

I am involved in a transaction at the moment where potential suitors for a company are looking at revenue multiples vs. cash flow (odd, I know). We should be concerned with free cash flow, WACC, terminal value, etc. But revenue multiples seem one way that companies in technology seem to simplify/dumb-down initial valuation calculations. Not always, but if you look at the way Gartner positioned this deal, it's clear that the revenue multiple played a role -- and of course that it will be accretive to 2010 earnings.
# Posted By Jason Busch | 12/2/09 4:36 AM
Thomas Kase, Sr. Mgr. Sourcing Solutions's Gravatar Jason,

I don't think that using revenue multiples is that odd - depending on the vertical and the company's growth stage of course. Some firms simply don't have any EBITDA worth talking about - but they might have a proven business model with a few contracts under their belt and/or sit on unique intellectual property.

What would you have paid Thomas Edison for his company on January 28, 1880 - i.e. the day after he received his patent on the light bulb?

"Comparable acquisitions" is another approach - unimaginative as it is.

"Terminal value" is a nice concept - but how do you agree on "reasonable growth" assumptions? How would you have valued Microsoft around 1982?

I think I made my point - it is difficult to handle valuation of these types of firms: early stage, companies in rapidly changing markets, those with unique IP rights. Witness what happened when all factors converged during the '90s...

Ultimately, the right price is what the buyer pays and the seller agrees to...
# Posted By Thomas Kase, Sr. Mgr. Sourcing Solutions | 12/2/09 6:51 AM
About Us | Advertising and Sponsorships | Advisory Services | Contact Us    © 2004-2012 Azul Partners, Inc. and Spend Matters. All Rights Reserved.