Live data from Hacker News

Broadcom to Cut Almost 1,300 VMware Jobs in California After Takeover

bloomberg.com

1–10 of 133 posts

Re: Broadcom to Cut Almost 1,300 VMware Jobs in California After Takeover

#5

Instead of leveraged buyouts, we now have layoff buyouts. Acquire firm, minimise headcount, keep lagged revenue on existing assets and IP for 5 years while reaping profits on 90% margins.

Sometimes it’s right to give up on the dream /s

Re: Broadcom to Cut Almost 1,300 VMware Jobs in California After Takeover

#6

Instead of leveraged buyouts, we now have layoff buyouts. Acquire firm, minimise headcount, keep lagged revenue on existing assets and IP for 5 years while reaping profits on 90% margins.

Same as: acquire renown company making a solid product, substitute product by something from China at a fraction of quality/cost, still charge the same for the next couple years until word has spread.

Re: Broadcom to Cut Almost 1,300 VMware Jobs in California After Takeover

#7
The theory is "we already have a finance, S&M, admin etc" so we will dump the other one wot we just bought. That will instantly fix up the PandL and BS and the share price will simply head north because we have dumped duplicated cost sinks. Loverly

Obviously, we won't bother to compare functions and functionality now 'coz ours will be the better one, 'cos its ours.

Broadcom seem to be a firm of breakers, shakers and dumpers.

Re: Broadcom to Cut Almost 1,300 VMware Jobs in California After Takeover

#10

Instead of leveraged buyouts, we now have layoff buyouts. Acquire firm, minimise headcount, keep lagged revenue on existing assets and IP for 5 years while reaping profits on 90% margins.

Well, very simplistically, yes it is correct and should be expected to reduce headcount post-acquisition, that is the GCSE ('grade school') business studies answer: there are core functions which are non-linear in business growth if you like; that have an 'absolute' requirement but without a marginal need to grow as fast as the rest of the company. Thus an acquired company that is well-integrated doesn't need its payroll department any more, say.

And you don't buy out a company entirely because you like the way it's running(^) and just want all the profits for yourself. You buy it as a company because you think you have some kind of 'synergy' with it, or as an individual because you think you have better ideas for it; in either case you have some change to make that makes it worth more than it's present market valuation. It would be weird for an acquisition to result in no change.

(^So you like everything except think the dividend should be higher, I suppose.)

Post reply on HN