All: Should CMGI and SFE be more widely seen as similar companies? Seems to me the answer's yes. That the Internet IPO company hook has been pre-empted by CMGI, but if SFE is viewed by the same stds then its mkt cap must be adjusted accordingly.
If they were compared here are some random musings pro and con:
Pros: SFE has probably more companies. I saw one estimate that CMGI has 42 companies in its portfolio with 4 ready to go public. Not certain exactly how many SFE has, but looks to be mid-high 40s, maybe 50. SFE has many more VC arms (Radnor, PERS, TL, etc.) If they raised capital they could probably do 10-15 new deals in a year very quickly. CMGI probably doesn't have that bandwidth.
Cons: CMGI highly focused on Internet. SFE charitably probably has 15 inet in its portfolio. SFE late to the internet game.
Pros: SFE gives rights, CMGI doesn't.
Cons: SFE lets its children live at home too long. NAV can be a rock around the neck sometimes. If SFE simply spun off all its holdings at once at market price, it might have better exit strategies. I think SFE tends to nurture its holdings far too long -- should have left CATP 2 years ago. CCSC was fortunate to be bought, otherwise they would still be holding onto them. Look at Pioneer Metals (remember them?)
Pros: SFE has more diversified mix (soft landing if the internet gets rocky)
Cons: Right now, less internet=less voracious upside potential.
Pros: SFE has a good eye. Rarely has it had a complete blowup of any company it invested in.
Cons: a 70+ year old (Musser) chairman doesn't exactly exude internet hipness. Staid culture doesn't seem self-promotional enough to me.
Remember, SFE has never had an industry peer group. Now that it has a chance to establish one, I think its success depends on comparing itself to CMGI every chance it gets, maybe even do some co-marketing activities like an early stage Internet company conference. Forget about doing them with Emerald Research, they carry no weight. |
