RFM 2013 Top 5 – Part 5 – HPQ – Eggy visage

 

 

 

 

 

Hewlett Packard will end up with even more egg on its face this year as I believe that it will lose the war of words with the former management of Autonomy. .

  • The acquisition of Autonomy has been nothing short of a total disaster for the hapless Hewlett-Packard.
  • Billed as the great white hope to begin the transition of a blundering hardware company into a software and services company, HPW blew almost all of its available cash balance to acquire Autonomy for $11.3bn in October 2010.
  • Just over a year later, HPQ wrote off more than $5bn of that acquisition blaming the former management of Autonomy of serious accounting improprieties.
  • HPQ has forwarded its evidence to the SEC and the SFO in the UK, both of whom are investigating but have yet to decide if there is a case to answer.
  • Typically, in these situations, the accused party heads for the hills but in this case the accused is fighting back hard.
  • Furthermore, HPQ has so far declined to disclose the exact details or even the exact size of the write down that is due to the “accounting improprieties”.
  • HPQ claims to have been “very transparent” around these issues but quite frankly its comments do not add up.
  • HPQ claims that this write down “is linked to serious accounting improprieties, disclosure failures and outright misrepresentations discovered by HP’s internal investigation into Autonomy’s practices prior to and in connection with the acquisition”.
  • Erm Hello? If red flags had been raised prior to the acquisition why on earth did the company proceed?
  • All of the research that I have done points to very poor due diligence by HPQ on a company that was well known to be on the darker side of the accounting standards.
  • By blaming Autonomy of wilful deception, the company can shift the blame for what could end up being exceptionally poor due diligence.
  • Whether or not HPQ was wilfully misled is likely to depend on the finer interpretations of accounting, which in software can be very grey.
  • The SEC and SFO are likely to proceed only if they can be reasonably certain that they will achieve a conviction which I think in this case will be difficult to achieve.
  • Hence, I suspect that both the SEC and SFO will decline to proceed with a prosecution leaving Hewlett Packard looking, once again, very foolish.
  • The stock has rallied nicely but off a very low base.
  • Frankly, I can’t get interested until there is a clear out of both the executive and non-executive teams as they continue to demonstrate that it is not fit for purpose.

RICHARD WINDSOR

Richard is founder, owner of research company, Radio Free Mobile. He has 16 years of experience working in sell side equity research. During his 11 year tenure at Nomura Securities, he focused on the equity coverage of the Global Technology sector.

Blog Comments

Considering the analysts saying the write off amount is almost exactly the same as how much they had thought HP overpaid for Autonomy, your prediction sounds like it will be right on the money.

It is tough to sum it up better than Gruber: “Other than setting fire to the company’s campus, I’m not sure how [Apotheker] could have done worse.” 🙂

It is a bit suspicious is it not? I have to say this is not entirely Apotheker’s fault. They wanted hi to effect the transition and he tried to do that. He made a lousy choice but he has paid for his failure. Whitman and her gang signed off on this acquisition. They were on board with it. Its just as much their fault as Apotheker’s but yet they are still throwing cash onto the bonfire that is shareholder’s equity.

You are most definitely correct. The board must be just as culpable and people do bring that up, even though the board members do not get publicly crucified as much. Yet, Apotheker was the gang leader in scuttling Palm, announcing the exit from PC hardware business and Autonomy acquisition, so I think it is still fair to say he could not have done worse.

On the other hand, I doubt Apotheker could announce an exit from PCs without board approval. Considering how fast they walked back from that move (lack of anybody willing to buy? Lack of alternative businesses to replacing the revenue and profits? Who knows…), it is very surprising that the shareholders did not overhaul the board or at least insist on a CEO who was not tainted by any of these moves. I think that explains why they are so eager to put the onus on accounting shenanigans. If there was a new board and a CEO from the outside, they could just blame the past HP management, talk down the stock and get credit for the turnaround that would hopefully follow. This lot cannot use that playbook as easily.

Agree..thats the poblem with a lot of large companies…most of their shareholders are large funds who just blindly vote with management…a key ingredient in allowing the continuation of incompetence and mediocrity

Have you seen this article? It just came out and it sums up the past decade of HP pretty well:

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-10/can-meg-whitman-reverse-hewlett-packards-free-fall

Apotheker does bring up the board’s approval of the deal. I am disappointed that Bloomberg/Businessweek did not dig into how much the board members were involved in the due diligence and if they were not, whether they should have been based on best practices at other places.

[…] increasingly looks like the original conclusion that I drew over two years ago (see here) will finally be proved […]