As expected, New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg's blind trust is interested in buyingMerrill Lynch & Co. (NYSE: MER)'s 20% stake in Bloomberg LP for between $4.5 billion and $5 billion, according to The New York Post.
The acquisition would give Bloomberg total control over his namesake media company and my employer for seven years. Merrill, of course, also is looking to unload its 49% stake in Blackrock Inc. (NYSE: BLK) to shore up its balance sheet. No word on potential buyers there.
As I posted yesterday, Mike Bloomberg is a logical buyer for the Merrill stake in his company. Bloomberg has the right of first refusal of the sale as well, which probably scared away the few other potential buyers that were out there. Bloomberg LP also prides itself on being a private company that marches to the beat of its own idiosyncratic drummer.
Merrill shareholders, including a close relative, have not had too much to smile about lately. Shares of the New York-based investment bank are down more than 41% this year. Obviously, it's selling its assets from a position of weakness. The New York mayor will gain control over his media empire at a bargain that would have been unimaginable a few years ago.
Bloomberg, whose personal fortune is estimated by Forbes magazine at $5 billion, can easily afford the buy back the 20% stake in his company that he does not already own. Given its financial condition, Merrill better hope that the New York mayor is willing to open his check book. Other media companies are not going to shell out big bucks for a minority stake in the company where I worked for seven years. This is especially true given that many of Bloomberg's biggest customers in Wall Street are cutting spending given the uncertainties in the world's financial markets.
Maybe the private equity players would be willing to pay up provided that they could see an exit strategy through an IPO. I don't see that happening either. Bloomberg, which the Wall Street Journal says has the right of first refusal for the sale, likes being a private company because it enables it to march to the beat of its own drummer. That was especially true when Mike Bloomberg ran the show.
During my career there, there was no question that Matthew Winkler was in charge. My colleagues laughed hysterically when I told them I asked Winkler about his bow ties during my interview with him before I was hired. Bloomberg's editor-in-chief is not known for his sense of humor. Good thing I didn't bring up bow ties -- which he wears every day -- again.
That's why I found the appointment of former Wall Street Journal top editor Norman Pearlstine as Bloomberg's chief content officer so curious. Does this mean that Pearlstine, who was Winkler's boss at the Journal, will supervise him again? What exactly does a chief content officer do that's different than an editor-in-chief? I am not sure of the answers to those questions and neither is the New York Times.
As the Times opines, "the move suggests that Bloomberg, whose fortunes have been buoyed by the selling of its hugely profitable data terminals to brokerage firms and investment banks, plans to expand the journalism side of its business."
Merrill Lynch (NYSE: MER) Chief Executive Stan O'Neal, who is holding onto his job by a thread, likely will sell the Wall Street firm's 20% stake in my old employer, Bloomberg LP, to shore up his company's bottom line. Heck, O'Neal's successor probably will sell it as well.
If I was a betting man, I would bet that company founder and current New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg will probably buy out Merrill. Maybe a private equity player would buy the Merrill interest,reportedly valued at $20 billion, that Fortune values at least $4 billion. The magazine says Bloomberg LP is worth at least $20 billion. But I'm not sure Bloomberg would be willing to cede any management control to an outside investor. The same goes for a huge media company such as News Corp (NYSE: NWS) or Time Warner (NYSE: TWX).
What was obvious to even the lowliest peons at Bloomberg -- including me -- is that the company really likes being private. Management was always willing to try almost anything to keep people glued to their Bloomberg terminals even if it didn't earn an immediate profit. Legend has it, one time Mike Bloomberg noticed that people were away from their Bloombergs and learned that a major sporting event was going on -- he decided on the spot that the company would provide sports news. I have no idea whether this story is true, but knowing the company's corporate culture, it sure seems to be on the mark.
The company founded by New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg -- and my former employer -- is the 1,000 pound gorilla in the business data market. It has gained marketshare at the expense of both Reuters and Dow Jones & Co. (NYSE: DJ) for years.
Bloomberg and Thomson were on friendly terms until fairly recently. Then, Thompson wouldn't answer questions from Bloomberg reporters about the company's earnings estimates. Eventually, Bloomberg decided to do its own polls of analysts.
The combined company may be able to erode Bloomberg's pricing power. When I first started with Bloomberg, it was a mark of status on Wall Street to have your own Bloomberg terminal. Most users that I see now share a Bloomberg to save money.
Nonetheless, Thomson and Reuters have a tough challenge. In addition to Bloomberg, there's the potential that a Rupert Murdoch-owned Dow Jones can pour money into digital publishing products that compete against offerings of the merged company. The Bloomberg threat isn't theoretical.
Though the Bloomberg terminals aren't cheap and aren't very user friendly for the untrained, it's tough to beat their functionality. Many companies have tried and failed to develop a "Bloomberg killer" over the years. Bloomberg terminals even have survived the Internet age.
But it's going to take more than just data for the combined Thomson-Reuters to thrive. More and more financial data is available on the Internet for free. Most individual investors don't need the proprietary data that these companies offer. To survive, they will need compelling content, which in the old days was called news.
Microsoft could combine its struggling search business with Yahoo!'s, which isn't struggling as badly. The dull MSN portal would benefit from being integrated with Yahoo!'s superior content. Moreover, Microsoft would gain the ability to market its products to millions more new users.
Even if this happens, the integration wouldn't be easy. With a market capitalization of more than $38 billion, Yahoo! would be a big acquisition to digest even for a gigantic company such as Microsoft. Combined, these companies would pose a formidable challenger to Google.