China banks eclipse US rivals
By Patrick Jenkins in London
Published: January 10 2010 22:32 | Last updated: January 10 2010 22:32
Chinese banks have cemented their position as the most highly valued financial institutions, taking four of the top five slots in a ranking of banks’ share prices as a multiple of their book values.
China Merchants Bank, China Citic, ICBC and China Construction Bank lead the table, followed by Itaú Unibanco of Brazil, all with a price-to-book multiple of more than three.
Over the past six years, the average price-to-book value of the biggest 50 banks has halved from two to one.
This means that investors believe the average bank is worth no more than the value of its balance sheet. Most western banks are trading at well below their book value.
But investors are attaching a growing premium to emerging markets banks, led by China Merchants, the most highly rated of the biggest 50 banks by market capitalisation, on a multiple of 4.3, according to Bloomberg data.
At the start of the last decade, the US dominated the rankings. The top five were Bank of New York Mellon , Lloyds of the UK, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and Wells Fargo.
Only last year US Bancorp topped the table and Wells Fargo was in the top 10.
The changes, which have seen the top-rated Chinese banks double in valuation over the past year as western rivals have been derated, reflect growing confidence in emerging markets, particularly China and Brazil.
They indicate concerns about the profitability of western institutions stemming from toxic assets and the drive to force banks to increase capital and liquid funds.
Even western investment banks that have thrived over the past year have been left behind in the price-to-book league table. Goldman Sachs is ranked 22nd and JPMorgan 31st.
“Western markets generally are experiencing their worst prospects for 20 years, and that’s in the valuations,” Robert Law, banks analyst at Nomura, said.
“China in particular is a region that is perceived as less vulnerable to global downturn.”
Although Chinese bank valuations were hit by investor nervousness in 2008, the limited fallout they suffered – combined with positively received government stimulus measures – have allowed them to bounce back.
Some fringe developed economies with a reputation for tough regulatory controls and limited direct or indirect exposure to the subprime problem at the root of the crisis have benefited.
Canadian and Australian banks in particular climbed the price-to-book rankings.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2010. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.
Monday, 11 January 2010
Saturday, 9 January 2010
The process of innovation
The process of innovation
THINK ASIAN
By ANDREW SHENG
Thomas Edison used to say that invention is 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration. What he really meant was that the 99% perspiration was spent on the process of innovation and perhaps only at the last minute could he have a mental breakthrough to create something new.
We are truly living in the age of innovation, where technology has created new ways of living and communicating that we could not have envisaged. Thirty years ago, when the TV series Star Trek began, we saw Captain Kirk flip his communicator and speak to the Starship Enterprise. Travelling in the Moluccas in the Spice Islands this Christmas, I was amazed how in the most remote islands of Indonesia, young people were communicating with their friends using the latest Blackberrys.
Yet, at Saumlaki airport, two bikers had to go out to the runway first to chase away the cows before our plane could take off. How do we create something new? The management guru Peter Drucker said that he had to learn a new craft every three years to obtain new insights into old problems. For example, he studied Japanese literature to gain understanding of how Japanese thought about problems. According to him, every innovation comes from the cross-fertilization of ideas from different fields.
INSEAD professors Kim and Mauborgne put it very elegantly by saying that you need to move out of traditional, heavily competitive areas like the Red Sea to explore Blue Oceans where there are few competitors. This is easier said than done, because breaking out of old mindsets is very painful. We would all like to play tennis like Roger Federer, but I don’t have the patience or the willpower to diet, exercise rigorously, practice and compete day in, day out.
Innovation is a process, a cycle of steps that must be rigorously followed to achieve what you set out to achieve. First you must have a Strategy or goal what you want to achieve. This is the search and browse function. It is like shopping in a supermarket. Some people begin with very clear ideas of what they want. Others browse by looking to see what attracts them.
Genghis Khan mausoleum in Inner Mongolia, China. The ancient ruler must be one of the greatest of institutional innovators, because he created innovative teams of warriors out of individualistic nomad rabble.
The second step is to Prioritise, because we must narrow down our choices. Many people have difficulty making up their minds, because they want everything and end up doing nothing. Success comes from having focus.
The third is to Incentivise. If you set a goal, you must create the incentives to achieve that, either to reward yourself or your colleagues. Incentives mean both the rewards and the punishments. People tend to forget that we fail mostly because the incentives are wrong. If you reward failure, you will get failure.
The fourth is to set the Standards. Success or failure must have benchmarks. Are you aiming for the Olympics or just the Asian Games, the local market or the global market? A small country like the Danes can create badminton champions because they start their children young and train them through competitive leagues, using world champion trainers.
The fifth is the Structure. People think that innovation comes from individual genius, forgetting that genius can only create if the ecology is right. Michelangelo grew up in an age of great artistic creativity. He learnt from great masters and had inspired pupils, as well as rich patrons. If he was Robinson Crusoe on a lonely island, no one would appreciate or discover his genius.
It also takes passion and leadership to create the right ecology for genius and originality to thrive. Most bureaucracies stifle creativity because they want everyone to think alike. The greatest universities encourage their professors and students to think out of the box.
Sixth, you have to have Process. The word ‘process’ is so boring, whereas Innovation is so sexy. This is because most people associate Innovation with Product innovation, whereas the greatest achievements have been in Process Innovation and Institutional Innovation. Henry Ford did not create the motorcar, but he revolutionised manufacturing by inventing the assembly line process of production. The Japanese improved on this by creating the Just-in-Time assembly process, without famous engineers but through workers on the shop floor.
In my view, Genghis Khan must be one of the greatest of institutional innovators, because he created innovative teams of warriors out of individualistic nomad rabble. His teams invented new methods of mobile warfare and siege techniques. He destroyed the old order and conquered all the way to Europe, forcing the Europeans to respond through their cultural and scientific Renaissance.
Seventh, you have to execute or implement what you want to achieve. Most of us make New Year wishes, but by the middle of the year, we would have forgotten to execute that wish, because it was too difficult, inconvenient or we got distracted by something more exciting. Execution is tough, because it creates what Schumpeter called “creative destruction”.
There is no gain without pain. No wonder most of us do not achieve what we desire. The “last mile” problem is the most difficult and painful. We all want to be Olympic Marathon runners, but we cannot finish the last mile. As Napoleon used to say, execution is everything.
Finally, we must Review our achievements, be honest where we went wrong and change for the better. The cycle of innovation begins anew. As a habit, I have always made a year-end review of what I achieved and where I failed. In 2009, I am grateful that my book From Asian to Global Financial Crisis was published. But this year, I failed in spending more time with my family.
My New Year wish for 2010 is to write a new book and spend more time with my family. Time is what we spend like water when we are young and treasure every moment when we are old. That is the cycle of change.
Happy 2010, everyone.
● Andrew Sheng is Adjunct Professor at the University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur and Tsinghua University, Beijing.
THINK ASIAN
By ANDREW SHENG
Thomas Edison used to say that invention is 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration. What he really meant was that the 99% perspiration was spent on the process of innovation and perhaps only at the last minute could he have a mental breakthrough to create something new.
We are truly living in the age of innovation, where technology has created new ways of living and communicating that we could not have envisaged. Thirty years ago, when the TV series Star Trek began, we saw Captain Kirk flip his communicator and speak to the Starship Enterprise. Travelling in the Moluccas in the Spice Islands this Christmas, I was amazed how in the most remote islands of Indonesia, young people were communicating with their friends using the latest Blackberrys.
Yet, at Saumlaki airport, two bikers had to go out to the runway first to chase away the cows before our plane could take off. How do we create something new? The management guru Peter Drucker said that he had to learn a new craft every three years to obtain new insights into old problems. For example, he studied Japanese literature to gain understanding of how Japanese thought about problems. According to him, every innovation comes from the cross-fertilization of ideas from different fields.
INSEAD professors Kim and Mauborgne put it very elegantly by saying that you need to move out of traditional, heavily competitive areas like the Red Sea to explore Blue Oceans where there are few competitors. This is easier said than done, because breaking out of old mindsets is very painful. We would all like to play tennis like Roger Federer, but I don’t have the patience or the willpower to diet, exercise rigorously, practice and compete day in, day out.
Innovation is a process, a cycle of steps that must be rigorously followed to achieve what you set out to achieve. First you must have a Strategy or goal what you want to achieve. This is the search and browse function. It is like shopping in a supermarket. Some people begin with very clear ideas of what they want. Others browse by looking to see what attracts them.
Genghis Khan mausoleum in Inner Mongolia, China. The ancient ruler must be one of the greatest of institutional innovators, because he created innovative teams of warriors out of individualistic nomad rabble.
The second step is to Prioritise, because we must narrow down our choices. Many people have difficulty making up their minds, because they want everything and end up doing nothing. Success comes from having focus.
The third is to Incentivise. If you set a goal, you must create the incentives to achieve that, either to reward yourself or your colleagues. Incentives mean both the rewards and the punishments. People tend to forget that we fail mostly because the incentives are wrong. If you reward failure, you will get failure.
The fourth is to set the Standards. Success or failure must have benchmarks. Are you aiming for the Olympics or just the Asian Games, the local market or the global market? A small country like the Danes can create badminton champions because they start their children young and train them through competitive leagues, using world champion trainers.
The fifth is the Structure. People think that innovation comes from individual genius, forgetting that genius can only create if the ecology is right. Michelangelo grew up in an age of great artistic creativity. He learnt from great masters and had inspired pupils, as well as rich patrons. If he was Robinson Crusoe on a lonely island, no one would appreciate or discover his genius.
It also takes passion and leadership to create the right ecology for genius and originality to thrive. Most bureaucracies stifle creativity because they want everyone to think alike. The greatest universities encourage their professors and students to think out of the box.
Sixth, you have to have Process. The word ‘process’ is so boring, whereas Innovation is so sexy. This is because most people associate Innovation with Product innovation, whereas the greatest achievements have been in Process Innovation and Institutional Innovation. Henry Ford did not create the motorcar, but he revolutionised manufacturing by inventing the assembly line process of production. The Japanese improved on this by creating the Just-in-Time assembly process, without famous engineers but through workers on the shop floor.
In my view, Genghis Khan must be one of the greatest of institutional innovators, because he created innovative teams of warriors out of individualistic nomad rabble. His teams invented new methods of mobile warfare and siege techniques. He destroyed the old order and conquered all the way to Europe, forcing the Europeans to respond through their cultural and scientific Renaissance.
Seventh, you have to execute or implement what you want to achieve. Most of us make New Year wishes, but by the middle of the year, we would have forgotten to execute that wish, because it was too difficult, inconvenient or we got distracted by something more exciting. Execution is tough, because it creates what Schumpeter called “creative destruction”.
There is no gain without pain. No wonder most of us do not achieve what we desire. The “last mile” problem is the most difficult and painful. We all want to be Olympic Marathon runners, but we cannot finish the last mile. As Napoleon used to say, execution is everything.
Finally, we must Review our achievements, be honest where we went wrong and change for the better. The cycle of innovation begins anew. As a habit, I have always made a year-end review of what I achieved and where I failed. In 2009, I am grateful that my book From Asian to Global Financial Crisis was published. But this year, I failed in spending more time with my family.
My New Year wish for 2010 is to write a new book and spend more time with my family. Time is what we spend like water when we are young and treasure every moment when we are old. That is the cycle of change.
Happy 2010, everyone.
● Andrew Sheng is Adjunct Professor at the University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur and Tsinghua University, Beijing.
Charting the Real-Time Web
Charting the Real-Time Web
Now social media has the equivalent of the Times Square "deficit clock."
By David Talbot
Today the Web is bursting with social media content and a burgeoning supply of (and demand for) "real-time" information. This information is created as people open new Facebook and other social media accounts, churn out Tweets and other microblogs, post photos and videos, and tirelessly text one another. But getting a grip on exactly how much is happening--and what the primary sources are--is a slippery task, especially since web companies often jealously guard their metrics.
The new social media counter. Credit: Gary Hayes.
Now there's a social-media "clock" of sorts, which you can check out here. It charts the second-by-second accumulation of social-media accounts, blogs, Tweets, photo uploadings, status updates, and the like. Consider it the social-media equivalent of that national-deficit "clock" in Times Square.
The effort does require a reality check. It's not actually an accurate rendering of the real-time Web. Rather, it's a counter, created by an Australia-based virtual-world entepreneur named Gary Hayes. Hayes set the various rates of increase according to various estimates culled from disparate sources such as analysts, company blogs, and news media accounts. Some of the estimates are several months old and may not actually be accurate or complete.
But, while it may not provide any new primary information, or be accurate in all categories, Hayes' social-media clock is nevertheless an excellent visualization of where much of the Web's growth is coming from these days.
Tags: Facebook, social media, Web 2.0, twitter, virtual worlds
Now social media has the equivalent of the Times Square "deficit clock."
By David Talbot
Today the Web is bursting with social media content and a burgeoning supply of (and demand for) "real-time" information. This information is created as people open new Facebook and other social media accounts, churn out Tweets and other microblogs, post photos and videos, and tirelessly text one another. But getting a grip on exactly how much is happening--and what the primary sources are--is a slippery task, especially since web companies often jealously guard their metrics.
The new social media counter. Credit: Gary Hayes.
Now there's a social-media "clock" of sorts, which you can check out here. It charts the second-by-second accumulation of social-media accounts, blogs, Tweets, photo uploadings, status updates, and the like. Consider it the social-media equivalent of that national-deficit "clock" in Times Square.
The effort does require a reality check. It's not actually an accurate rendering of the real-time Web. Rather, it's a counter, created by an Australia-based virtual-world entepreneur named Gary Hayes. Hayes set the various rates of increase according to various estimates culled from disparate sources such as analysts, company blogs, and news media accounts. Some of the estimates are several months old and may not actually be accurate or complete.
But, while it may not provide any new primary information, or be accurate in all categories, Hayes' social-media clock is nevertheless an excellent visualization of where much of the Web's growth is coming from these days.
Tags: Facebook, social media, Web 2.0, twitter, virtual worlds
Are we ready for IBM's Smarter Planet?
Are we ready for IBM's Smarter Planet?
by John Webster
By now you've surely seen at least one of the IBM "Let's Build a Smarter Planet" TV ads. I like them. They talk about computing possibilities that are truly big-picture. I also believe in the message that IBM is fundamentally delivering in these ads: systems that harvest data from a variety of wired and wireless sources are capable of producing new types of information and solving some important problems. The technologies needed (RFID, pattern recognition, Complex Event Processing, etc.) to turn the vision into reality are here and now.
And while they may put a very new face on a venerable IBM, the ad campaign is very much in keeping with a marketing technique IBM has honed for decades. In the beginning IBM had computers but companies didn't know what to do with them. So IBM had to first show them how to compute. IBM had to sell computing first before it could sell computers. Over time, IBM lost sight of the need to sell computing, relied on just selling computers, and consequently lost its vision. Lou Gerstner brought IBM back to selling computing once again by creating IBM Global Services. Smarter Planet is yet another way to sell computing--one that encompasses a myriad of sensory devices and compute nodes all working within some big harmonious system. Indeed, IBM likes to use the word "orchestration" in this context and talks of systems of systems.
Recently, IBM reported to a gathering of analysts that the C-level people within enterprises worldwide were not only getting the Smarter Planet message, some were able to teach IBM a thing or two about smarter systems they had already built. On the other hand, IBM reported that it was also well aware of potential barriers like perceived cost, resistance to trying new things, and fear. Yes, fear.
Here's an experiment you can try. At your next cocktail party, talk to someone about a retail chain you had heard of that was testing the use of technical gadgetry to enhance customers' in-store shopping experience. Customers identify themselves to an in-store system upon entering the retail space that tracks their positions in the store, knows what they have selected as they move around the store, knows when they are physically close to a special promotion and alerts them to the promotion, and knows how much to charge their credit cards as they exit. There are a number of these but perhaps the one most well known is METRO's Future Store. After you've walked your conversation partner through the high-tech store experience, get a reaction. Is the technology helpful or intrusive? Comforting or in some ways frightening? I'd bet on at least a discomforted response.
In the aftermath of Northwest Flight 253, it is abundantly clear that we want systems that connect the dots when someone is threatening us. We want systems to sift though huge amounts of data that could well be 99.99999 percent noise but for the few data points that say "don't let this guy on the plane." But when systems are connecting our dots we sense that Big Brother is watching.
Personal privacy is more easily surrendered after trust is first established. IBM can only go so far in convincing people that Smarter Planet systems are not only beneficial but trustworthy. After that, we have to trust the people behind the systems. That's the hard part.
John, a senior partner at Evaluator Group, has 30 years of experience in enterprise IT storage, spanning mainframe and open systems environments. He has served as principal IT adviser at Illuminata and has held analyst positions at IDC and Yankee Group Research. He also co-authored the book "Inescapable Data Harnessing the Power of Convergence." John is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET.
by John Webster
By now you've surely seen at least one of the IBM "Let's Build a Smarter Planet" TV ads. I like them. They talk about computing possibilities that are truly big-picture. I also believe in the message that IBM is fundamentally delivering in these ads: systems that harvest data from a variety of wired and wireless sources are capable of producing new types of information and solving some important problems. The technologies needed (RFID, pattern recognition, Complex Event Processing, etc.) to turn the vision into reality are here and now.
And while they may put a very new face on a venerable IBM, the ad campaign is very much in keeping with a marketing technique IBM has honed for decades. In the beginning IBM had computers but companies didn't know what to do with them. So IBM had to first show them how to compute. IBM had to sell computing first before it could sell computers. Over time, IBM lost sight of the need to sell computing, relied on just selling computers, and consequently lost its vision. Lou Gerstner brought IBM back to selling computing once again by creating IBM Global Services. Smarter Planet is yet another way to sell computing--one that encompasses a myriad of sensory devices and compute nodes all working within some big harmonious system. Indeed, IBM likes to use the word "orchestration" in this context and talks of systems of systems.
Recently, IBM reported to a gathering of analysts that the C-level people within enterprises worldwide were not only getting the Smarter Planet message, some were able to teach IBM a thing or two about smarter systems they had already built. On the other hand, IBM reported that it was also well aware of potential barriers like perceived cost, resistance to trying new things, and fear. Yes, fear.
Here's an experiment you can try. At your next cocktail party, talk to someone about a retail chain you had heard of that was testing the use of technical gadgetry to enhance customers' in-store shopping experience. Customers identify themselves to an in-store system upon entering the retail space that tracks their positions in the store, knows what they have selected as they move around the store, knows when they are physically close to a special promotion and alerts them to the promotion, and knows how much to charge their credit cards as they exit. There are a number of these but perhaps the one most well known is METRO's Future Store. After you've walked your conversation partner through the high-tech store experience, get a reaction. Is the technology helpful or intrusive? Comforting or in some ways frightening? I'd bet on at least a discomforted response.
In the aftermath of Northwest Flight 253, it is abundantly clear that we want systems that connect the dots when someone is threatening us. We want systems to sift though huge amounts of data that could well be 99.99999 percent noise but for the few data points that say "don't let this guy on the plane." But when systems are connecting our dots we sense that Big Brother is watching.
Personal privacy is more easily surrendered after trust is first established. IBM can only go so far in convincing people that Smarter Planet systems are not only beneficial but trustworthy. After that, we have to trust the people behind the systems. That's the hard part.
John, a senior partner at Evaluator Group, has 30 years of experience in enterprise IT storage, spanning mainframe and open systems environments. He has served as principal IT adviser at Illuminata and has held analyst positions at IDC and Yankee Group Research. He also co-authored the book "Inescapable Data Harnessing the Power of Convergence." John is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET.
Friday, 8 January 2010
The Next Mobile Ad Merger
The Next Mobile Ad Merger
Elizabeth Woyke, 01.07.10, 06:00 PM EST
Google's AdMob purchase and Apple's Quattro deal will likely kick off a new wave of acquisitions.
First came Google, with its November acquisition of AdMob, then Apple with its recent purchase of Quattro Wireless. Now, a host of Internet firms, device makers and even wireless operators are expected to snap up their own mobile advertising networks in the coming months. The challenge? There are only a few--possibly just two--ad firms left that are widely viewed as attractive candidates.
A series of new deals would represent a second wave of merger and acquisition activity for the mobile ad market. The industry experienced an earlier burst of M&A in 2007, when Nokia ( NOK - news - people ) bought Enpocket, AOL acquired Third Screen Media and Microsoft ( MSFT - news - people ) absorbed ScreenTonic. Rajeev Chand, a managing director at Rutberg & Co., says there are three reasons for a resurgence of interest: the strategic growth of the mobile Internet, a renewed interest in making acquisitions as the economy improves, and a greater number of potential acquirers.
Article Controls
Google ( GOOG - news - people ), in particular, is driving the deal-making, says Karsten Weide, program director of digital media and entertainment at researcher IDC. He estimates Google and AdMob together would control 21% of the U.S. mobile ad market, a chunk large enough to give them a comfortable lead over competitors (one reason the U.S. Federal Trade Commission is investigating the purchase.) The disparity will force other tech companies with mobile advertising ambitions to follow suit, says Weide.
Apple ( AAPL - news - people ) was the first to counter Google, announcing its Quattro buyout Jan. 5. Insiders say Yahoo! ( YHOO - news - people ) and Microsoft are likely to be next. Yahoo!, which holds an estimated 10% of the mobile ad market, likely wants to increase its share--and has the cash on hand to make such an acquisition, says Weide. Microsoft, which IDC estimates has an 8% slice of the market, is probably interested due to its "laser-like focus on search," he adds.
Other potential buyers include handset makers, which increasingly view their devices as platforms for tapping into mobile Internet traffic; publishers investing in digital content; and carriers looking for a new way to generate revenue. "Publishers are very interested in the mobile device market," says Noah Elkin, a senior analyst at eMarketer. "The same logic that applies to Apple [buying a mobile ad firm] could apply to a Hearst as well."
AOL is not on most analysts' short lists. The media giant, which is focused on a turnaround, currently lacks the means and "attention span" required for such an acquisition, says Weide.
The choicest targets appear to be Millennial Media and Jumptap, two U.S.-based firms that operate their own mobile ad networks and each command at least 5% of the mobile ad market, according to IDC. Analysts say the companies are likely meeting with potential buyers, or will be soon. Yahoo!, in fact, held talks with Millennial back in 2007, but walked away because the firm wanted too much money, says one analyst. IDC estimates Millennial's 2009 mobile ad revenue at $35 million and Jumptap's at $18 million.
Millennial and Jumptap declined to comment on acquisition rumors, but acknowledged that the AdMob and Quattro acquisitions have spurred interest in their own firms. "For people who thought the AdMob deal was a fluke, the Quattro deal validated the huge opportunity for mobile advertising ... the opportunities are just starting," says Jumptap Chief Marketing Officer Paran Johar.
But will there be opportunities for firms besides Jumptap and Millennial? Other companies, such as Amobee and Greystripe, are small enough that analysts don't track them. "It's hard to know how well [some of these companies] are doing and how much traction they have," says Julie Ask, a vice president at Forrester Research.
Some smaller players contend they're a better value. Bob Walczak, chief executive of the mobile ad tech firm Ringleader Digital, notes that Millennial raised $16 million in new funding in November while Jumptap secured more than $26 million in its last round, in August 2008. "They've put themselves in a higher price category," he says. "They'll have to show a lot of value to warrant an exit to their [venture capitalist investors]."
Analyst Weide says if Millennial and Jumptap garner the same high multiple Google paid for AdMob, they could be acquired for about $600 million and $300 million, respectively.
Elizabeth Woyke, 01.07.10, 06:00 PM EST
Google's AdMob purchase and Apple's Quattro deal will likely kick off a new wave of acquisitions.
First came Google, with its November acquisition of AdMob, then Apple with its recent purchase of Quattro Wireless. Now, a host of Internet firms, device makers and even wireless operators are expected to snap up their own mobile advertising networks in the coming months. The challenge? There are only a few--possibly just two--ad firms left that are widely viewed as attractive candidates.
A series of new deals would represent a second wave of merger and acquisition activity for the mobile ad market. The industry experienced an earlier burst of M&A in 2007, when Nokia ( NOK - news - people ) bought Enpocket, AOL acquired Third Screen Media and Microsoft ( MSFT - news - people ) absorbed ScreenTonic. Rajeev Chand, a managing director at Rutberg & Co., says there are three reasons for a resurgence of interest: the strategic growth of the mobile Internet, a renewed interest in making acquisitions as the economy improves, and a greater number of potential acquirers.
Article Controls
Google ( GOOG - news - people ), in particular, is driving the deal-making, says Karsten Weide, program director of digital media and entertainment at researcher IDC. He estimates Google and AdMob together would control 21% of the U.S. mobile ad market, a chunk large enough to give them a comfortable lead over competitors (one reason the U.S. Federal Trade Commission is investigating the purchase.) The disparity will force other tech companies with mobile advertising ambitions to follow suit, says Weide.
Apple ( AAPL - news - people ) was the first to counter Google, announcing its Quattro buyout Jan. 5. Insiders say Yahoo! ( YHOO - news - people ) and Microsoft are likely to be next. Yahoo!, which holds an estimated 10% of the mobile ad market, likely wants to increase its share--and has the cash on hand to make such an acquisition, says Weide. Microsoft, which IDC estimates has an 8% slice of the market, is probably interested due to its "laser-like focus on search," he adds.
Other potential buyers include handset makers, which increasingly view their devices as platforms for tapping into mobile Internet traffic; publishers investing in digital content; and carriers looking for a new way to generate revenue. "Publishers are very interested in the mobile device market," says Noah Elkin, a senior analyst at eMarketer. "The same logic that applies to Apple [buying a mobile ad firm] could apply to a Hearst as well."
AOL is not on most analysts' short lists. The media giant, which is focused on a turnaround, currently lacks the means and "attention span" required for such an acquisition, says Weide.
The choicest targets appear to be Millennial Media and Jumptap, two U.S.-based firms that operate their own mobile ad networks and each command at least 5% of the mobile ad market, according to IDC. Analysts say the companies are likely meeting with potential buyers, or will be soon. Yahoo!, in fact, held talks with Millennial back in 2007, but walked away because the firm wanted too much money, says one analyst. IDC estimates Millennial's 2009 mobile ad revenue at $35 million and Jumptap's at $18 million.
Millennial and Jumptap declined to comment on acquisition rumors, but acknowledged that the AdMob and Quattro acquisitions have spurred interest in their own firms. "For people who thought the AdMob deal was a fluke, the Quattro deal validated the huge opportunity for mobile advertising ... the opportunities are just starting," says Jumptap Chief Marketing Officer Paran Johar.
But will there be opportunities for firms besides Jumptap and Millennial? Other companies, such as Amobee and Greystripe, are small enough that analysts don't track them. "It's hard to know how well [some of these companies] are doing and how much traction they have," says Julie Ask, a vice president at Forrester Research.
Some smaller players contend they're a better value. Bob Walczak, chief executive of the mobile ad tech firm Ringleader Digital, notes that Millennial raised $16 million in new funding in November while Jumptap secured more than $26 million in its last round, in August 2008. "They've put themselves in a higher price category," he says. "They'll have to show a lot of value to warrant an exit to their [venture capitalist investors]."
Analyst Weide says if Millennial and Jumptap garner the same high multiple Google paid for AdMob, they could be acquired for about $600 million and $300 million, respectively.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)