Category Archives: Finance

M&A Mania is Coming Again … but will it be the same as last time?

the doctor agrees with THE PROPHET that M&A in Procurement, Supply Chain and Finance Tech is Back On For Q4 and 2025, because M&A Mania is part and parcel with the The Marketplace Madness that the doctor told you is coming back in May. The only question is, will this M&A cycle look like the last few during Covid (when every investment firm had to have an online collaboration platform, since they couldn’t do business in person, and an online e-Payment FinTech solution, since they still needed to make, and most importantly receive, payments) and in the late 2010s when companies were getting scooped up left, right, and centre. It was kind of like that first year in Chemistry where you were told to look to your left, look to your right, and look in the mirror and realize that only one of you would survive the end of the course (except the odds had worsened and there was only a 1/6 chance that any of you would be left standing at the end of the M&A cycle and less than a 1/9 chance that more than one of you would be left standing).

But first, let’s review THE PROPHET‘s reasons why:

Reduced interest rate climate coming
Not necessarily in your country, but in the US and a few other major investment markets, and for global funds, that’s enough.
Valuations back up (including a recent one)
the doctor is seeing a bit of this beyond just over-hyped fake-take and (now failing daily) Gen-AI, which indicates a return to value for real solution capability that solves real problems, and not just glam UX or tech buzzwords, could soon be coming.
Dry powder is the size of an ammo depot
And this is a rather conservative estimate. Broaden your definition of our Source-to-Pay space, and it could go well beyond the 666 providers in the mega-map.
Constrained target/asset pool to pursue
Too many providers not focussed on Gen-AI bullcr@p were not (well) funded and in need of funding to grow and too many providers who raised too much on Gen-AI bullcr@p blew too much on failed dev and marketing and need someone to infuse them with fresh funding while taking in the reigns and refocussing them on core problems.
No clear leader in many markets
Even if you constrain by target enterprise size, vertical groupings, and module, you’re usually looking at over a dozen vendors. Too many. By core module alone, you’re usually looking at over eighty (80) potential providers.
Counter-cyclical sector defensibility as a hedge
Most definitely. the doctor has always said the best time to develop/expand is on the verge of a coming financial or supply chain crisis, and it’s even better if it corresponds with the end of a hype-cycle (when everyone realizes that grandiose claims are just that, claims, and usually not realized and it’s time to return to the next generation of tried and true technology).
Times of increasing global uncertainty favours supply chain, supply and supplier risk management
Yes, and this will be constant for years. The outsourcing crisis the doctor and a handful of others have been predicting for over a decade (which is why he was telling you to near-source and home-source in the late 2000s) materialized during COVID, anti-globalization is at a high not seen in the remembered lifetime of most of the global population (and increasing by the day), we likely haven’t been this close to World War III since the cuban missile crisis of 1962 (since the Soviet radar malfunction of 1983 was caught by an alert Soviet air defence forces officer) putting global political tensions at a near all time high since World War II, ever increasing natural disasters and supply shortages are escalating costs at levels of inflation not seen since the 1970s, and in some markets, since the late 1920s (and the Depression era), and it’s just doom and gloom all around. Only our space has the tech to combat this.
Corporate spend flowing into tech, not new jobs
This is unfortunately true since

  • most executives don’t realize that tech only increases productivity and success in the hands of a human, it doesn’t replace them (since Aritificial Idiocy can’t even replace real idiocy, how can you expect it to replace Human Intelligence [HI!])
  • big companies don’t like high fixed costs, and the see people has the highest fixed cost
  • the dream of the new robber baron billionaires is to replace people with machines, which they think will help them realize their vision of constantly increasing profits from constantly increasing revenue (from a workforce that never needs to take a break) at a constantly declining cost to serve (not possible, but that’s their dream)
Nearly all big tech firms (ERP, business applications and stack) aside from SAP have not made any material moves yet — and will need to at some point
You can’t wait for a lumbering giant … by the time they buy someone, it’s ready for sunset. Remember IBM and Emptoris? A sad end to the APE circus! That means that the time to strike as an investor is before they awake!

Add add the following:

  • money has been idling in these funds from lack of investment over the last couple of years (as they got antsy last year with the predicted recession and the SVB failure and the fallout of both), and their investors aren’t happy
  • many of the more progressive funds have realized that fintech is useless if there’s no money moving through it, which means you have to look for broader business solutions that can assure the flow of money as well as information
  • companies are starting to realize that ridiculous 10X, 15X, 20X valuations are a thing of the past (or at least until we get a whole new generation of freshly minted investors who didn’t bother to study their history, like the new generation of founders that didn’t study theirs) and that if you can get a solid 5X to 7X valuation (which is the most a company can expect to realize at an aggressive 40% annual growth rate, which is the most they can hope to realistically support) for tech, that’s great, and this makes acquisitions a lot more attractive than during the last cycle when you’d have to bid 10X on something that might not scale as an investor just to get invited to the table

The M&A market is returning. But there will be some differences this time. The last two times it was valuation run up until the money ran dry or there were no companies left that were worth it. This time will be more reminiscent of the first M&A Mania to hit our space in the late 2000s and it will come with a little kiss, like this:

1. Valuations will be more realistic.

As simply stated, 10X, 15X, 20X growth doesn’t happen in five years for anything but a Unicorn, and even then it’s rare, and investors aren’t going to pay this any more. That being said, they will invest for value and firms who focussed on building real solutions, not slick UX with no substance, will be valuated quite well (at first).

2. The cycle will have 3 parts.

2A. Existing Growth Opportunities

Look for PE firms to buy suites or modules that can be sold and grown stand-alone or as complementary solutions to offerings in their stable. The market for these solutions could mature quickly as the Gen-AI and intake hype cycles crash and the global situation destabilizes and risk-focussed Sourcing and Procurement become paramount. This will be done at fair to very good valuations, depending on the offering and the financial situation of the firm being acquired … those that can wait and play the field will get better valuations.

2B. Fill the Gaps

As new competitors enter the scene, existing providers with aging tech are going to want to counter them and will start buying up point-plays to fill the gaps. This will take two forms.

  1. stable, stand-alone players who can survive without investment will wait for the right offer, get a very good to great valuation, and survive relatively unscathed in personnel and offering (and will continue to be available standalone for some time)
  2. cash-crunched desperate players who won’t survive long without a cash infusion will be bought in a fire sale, folded in quickly, and only key personnel will remain

2C. Liquidation Opportunities

Everyone loves a steal, err, deal. Investors included. As companies start to run out of money left, right and centre because they were underfunded (and struggled to compete with the overfunded overhyped companies) or overfunded and burned money like it grew on Central American fruit trees that produce two healthy crops a year, investors and buyers will be looking for companies with pieces of tech they can use to enhance their offering for pennies on the dollar. These companies will be broken up across talent and technology, with the acquirer keeping only what they want.

Follow the Money — To Find the Spigots that can Turn it Off!

A recent CPO Crunch article over on Procurement Leaders said to Follow the Money as a focus on profit contribution can provide a starting point for improving supply chain transparency.

The article states that having knowledge of our suppliers is one thing, but it’s quite another to have a good understanding of who are suppliers’ suppliers are … not to mention those even further beyond and in a complex, risk-riddled world, such visibility is crucial and can bring meaningful competitive advantage.

In other words, following the money can increase profitability by allowing you to optimize the flow. Which is true, but only half the picture.

The other half is how the flow can be diverted or stopped. Two important things to remember about money flows. First, if these money flows present an opportunity for you, they present an opportunity for others. Not just outright theft of money (or product), but skimming, fraudulent billings/overpayments/handling fees (or your goods don’t move), and even fraudulent good substitution (with knockoffs). Secondly, if any input to any of these flows stops (beyond your visibility), the entire flow stops. And these flows could stop 6 levels down at the source.

For example, let’s say you are in medical device manufacturing or microwave-based manufacturing. Then you need thulium, which is one of the rarest rare earth minerals in the world. If a mine closes, even temporarily, and that mine is the only source of supply into your raw material or component supplier (that produces your enclosed radiation source or manufacturing ferrites), what do you think is going to happen? Production will stop, and your inventory will disappear. Or if you need a custom chip for the control system in your high end electric car, and the one plant currently capable of producing it experiences a fire. (This HAS happened, and chip shortages have been responsible for MULTIPLE shortages in MULTIPLE automotive lines. Just Google it.)

If your only production is in a country with geopolitical instability or deteriorating relations with your country, and borders (temporarily) close, what happens? And so on. If you don’t know the myriad of ways the spigots can be turned off, it doesn’t matter how well you know, or optimize, the money flow. These days, it’s all about risk management, visibility, and quick reaction if a spigot gets turned off to get it reopened again.

Let’s Get One Thing Clear: Like All Financing, Supply Chain Financing Benefits the Lender, Not the Buyer or the Seller

While there might be arguments that some form of Supply Chain Financing (SCF) would benefit all parties in a fair world, it’s not a fair world, as it’s run by greedy capitalists, but that doesn’t mean we have to make it more unfair, or complain about laws being proposed to limit unfairness.

But that’s exactly what a recent article in the Global Trade Review on how the Supply Chain Finance Industry Hopeful EU will Soften Late Payment Rules is pointing out. The EU SCF industry is crying foul when there really is no foul.

The article, which notes that even though an EU Parliament committee is pushing for greater flexibility around the regulation on combating late payments that puts in place a stricter maximum payment term of 30 in both business-to-business (B2B) and government-to-business (G2B) transactions (versus the current 60 days), unless companies negotiate payment terms of up to 60 calendar days and both agree to those extended terms in a contract, there are some parties that are still not happy. (Even when the new regulation even allows for companies trading in “slow moving or seasonal goods” to collectively agree to extend terms up to 120 days in a contract.) (For completeness, we should also note that the forthcoming legislation will enforce accrued interest and compensation fees for all late payments.)

However, some parties believe that payment terms should be twice that as they risk restricting liquidity and interfering with companies’ contractual freedoms. The former statement (restricting liquidity) is complete and utter bullcr@p. The latter statement (restricting contractual freedoms) is a valid point if there are currently no restrictions on payment requirements in local laws, but, guess what, all contracts must adhere to the laws and directives of the countries in which the companies operate, and countries / unions have a right to modify those laws and directives over time to what they believe is in the best interest of the greater (not the lesser) good. And when a recent Taulia research report found that 51% of companies polled are typically paid late, something needs to be done.

The point being whined about … err … made is that shortening mandatory terms without agreement to 30 days and with agreement to 60 days would mean SCF lenders would see their returns slashed, and potentially remove any incentive to offer programmes in the first place. And while it’s true they would see their returns slashed from predatory lending, taking advantage of suppliers who need money now from buyers who want to keep their bank accounts as cash flush as possible (even when not necessary to meet internal operating costs), it doesn’t necessarily mean they have to see their returns slashed from a finance perspective. They could still provide suppliers with loans (at fair interest rates) secured by the equipment the supplier buys or the products produced (which they could seize if they feared lack of payment and then the buyer would have to pay the lender for the goods’ release). Or, if buyers liked unnecessarily fat bank accounts, they could lend the buyer cash with the buyer’s illiquid assets as collateral. And while this is more traditional finance, what’s wrong with that?

Allowing buyers to screw suppliers (when those buyers can afford not to) just hurts everyone in the long run. Suppliers have to borrow, usually at predatory interest rates, to make payroll, which increases their overall operating costs. In return, their costs go up on all future contracts. A buyer might squeeze out a slight gain (in its high interest investments vs. paying the supplier or in its stock price based on correlation that a higher than expected bank account is higher than expected growth), but the buyer will just end up paying more in the long term (and then passing that cost onto us consumers). And the only party winning in every transaction is the SCF vendor who gets 2% to 6% on all the short term cash it provides, which is very safe because someone’s going to take that product. And, FYI, even 2% on a 60 day term, works out to over 13% a year (because by the time the supplier submits, the SCF approves, and the money gets transferred, that’s usually at least 5 days). And the rates are only that good when the supplier has more than one SCF option. When the supplier doesn’t, it’s probably 4%, or 26%+ per year, which is likely 40% higher than the organizational credit card, and nearing predatory lending territory! And while it’s not as bad as the 40%+ some suppliers will be saddled with in hard times when all they can get is the local loan-sharks, it’s still not something we should accept.

So bravo to the EU Parliament and shame on anyone complaining about legislation mandating fair payment terms, especially to SMEs. After all, it’s not banning SCF vendors from helping them in other financing ways, or even negotiating an agreement to auto pay every 60 day invoice in 6 days (for 2% of the transaction value) when you know these suppliers are all going to have 60 days shoved down their throats by big businesses.

Marketplace Madness is Coming Because History WILL Repeat Itself

Over on LinkedIn, Jon The Revelator asked what 2005 could tell us about Procurement AI in 2024, reminding us that major ERP companies have tried multiple times to move “down market”, there’s (still) no dominant player in the pure “Procurement” sector (with a number of big firms showing up in a slice-of-the-pie analysis (and most analyst market maps), and many names that were around in 2004 are names most of today’s practitioners have never heard of.

And, as part of the conversation (check the comments), Jon asked if history will repeat itself. (i.e. Will many of today’s players disappear? Jon listed a dozen names that are no longer in existence.)

the doctor‘ answer, MOST DEFINITELY!

To be more precise, the doctor is predicting twice the percentage of (fire-sale) acquisitions and out-of-business/shut-downs over the next eighteen (18) months compared to usual. What does this mean numbers wise? He usually removes a few dozen vendors from his database every year (which is about 5% of the number of vendors in the Source-to-Pay+ [S2P+] space, as captured in the Sourcing Innovation Mega-Map), and expects that within eighteen (18) months, he will need to remove a few few dozen vendors from his database, which translates into 10% or more, or a number of vendors that is closer to 100 than 50! That’s significant.

Why? A number of reasons, which include, but are not limited to:

1) A lot of the smaller 1 or 2 module pure-play VC funded companies that took (too much) money before the Silicon Valley Bank failure and are not yet profitable are now in a bad situation given that VC funding is still recessed, PE is now looking for close to 300K/FTE for a “good” investment, and these smaller companies are not there as enterprise Procurement software acquisition for the last two years has been recessed (due to overall market fears of recession), and, in addition to sales being down, buyers have been risk averse and newer / smaller players have, in general, being doing worse than they were doing during COVID (when companies were desperate for solutions that were pure SaaS) and just pre-COVID (when companies were more willing to try smaller plays in what they thought was a globally stable economic environment).

2a) A number of smaller plays were started by consultants with no funding, no real sales team, and no marketing support and they just can’t get traction through the noise (or funding).

2b) A lot of smaller plays were started by Procurement practitioners with little or no funding, the same sales and marketing problems, and a bigger disadvantage because they only know their problems, and maybe the problems of a small peer group they meet with in their local organization’s monthly meet-up, and they don’t know the problems in general, what sells, and what doesn’t. This makes funding for them hard (as smart investors know that Procurement experience alone only goes so far), and sales and marketing harder (they were buyers, not sellers; and they don’t understand that the message they needed to hear is not one that will cut through the noise and reach buyers who aren’t as experienced and enlightened as they are).

And when you start to break down Source-to-Pay+, you find that …

3) There are way too many “tech without a cause AI plays” … with no real, demonstrateable value, and, in reality, no future. (Especially since anyone from the Golden Era remembers that all the rebel without a cause managed to do was get his friend killed.)

4) A lot of the carbon “calculators” offer no new functionality (and thus no new value). Most good DIY (do-it-yourself) spend analytics application providers can help you build one in 15 minutes (no joke! — give Spendata a call, for example). Furthermore, you need good data for them to work, so if you don’t have integrations to good data and systems with better data, what’s the point?

5) Moving on to classic sourcing, every developer and their dog can whip up eRFX functionality in a matter of weeks and there is no differentiation there anymore if you’re just another eRFX. So you have a slightly different take on a UX. Well, guess what, that don’t impress me much … and the doctor ain’t alone in that viewpoint.

6) Moving onto classic CLM, if the platform doesn’t support deep analytics, negotiation support, or something that makes it more than an e-filing cabinet, it’s going, going … gone. Way too many over-glorified document management solutions out there to survive, especially at a price point beyond a few hundred per named user per year (given how many freeware/shareware/end-consumer document platforms exist in the open-source repositories).

7) There’s over one hundred (100) SXM plays. OVER ONE HUNDRED. Given that SXM is a CORNED QUIP mash, and you need different types and depths of solution for organizations of different sizes in different verticals, there’s room for two to three dozen. But one hundred? Forget it! Especially since if all your solution ends up being is a glorified SaaS (relational) database, there’s no value there.

8) While there is a desperate need for analytics, and not enough true analytics players, first generation solutions that are nothing more than pre-generated static (OLAP) reports are about to go the way of the dodo. Real-time, dynamic, customizeable analytics are what’s needed today.

9) Standalone ePro is going to go. Given that there are dozens of P2P solutions, and a growing number of P2P solutions with built-in payment support, why would you want old-school ePro, which doesn’t help the average organizational user or get tail-spend under control.

10) AP without full I2P support, integrated payment support, or integrated P-Card support or value beyond classic AP is also going to go. There are dozens and dozens of these solutions (including dozens that started during COVID because people needed to do business entirely online, and since there appeared to be an opportunity for anyone who didn’t do their research beyond bill.com, which is more people than you’d think, see The Biggest Mistake founders in S2P+ keep making after two decades, too many of these were started). The market just doesn’t need that many!


11) Stand-alone Intake(-to)/Orchestrate solutions. The current poster children of the space will soon have a fall from grace (and only the smart will survive)! Call me Scrooge if you like, but there’s a logic behind why I’m developing a bah-humbug attitude towards most of these. And it goes something like this.

Intake

  • Pay For View if modern procurement solutions are completely SaaS, then they should be accessible by anyone with a web browser, so why should you have to buy a third party solution to see the data in those applications? wouldn’t it make more sense to just switch to modern source to pay solutions that allow you to give variable levels of access to everyone who needs access instead of paying for two solutions AND an integrator?

Orchestrate

  • Solution Sprawl while orchestration is supposed to help with solution sprawl, it’s yet another solution and only adds to it. Wouldn’t it make more sense to invest in and switch to a core sourcing and/or procurement platform with a fully open API where all of the other modules you need can pull the necessary data from and push the necessary data to that platform?

I2O

  • Where’s the Beef? Talk to an old Pro who was doing Procurement back before the first modern tools began to be introduced in the late 90’s and they’ll tell you that they don’t get this modern focus on “orchestration” and managing “expenses” and low-value buys because, when they were doing Procurement, it was about identifying and strategically managing multi million (10, 50, 100+) categories where even 2% made a significant improvement to the bottom line, and way more than 10% on a < 100K category.
  • Where’s the Market? This is only a problem in large enterprises — right now, many of these I2O solutions are going after the mid-market who are eating it up because of ease of use, but as soon as they realize the emperor has no clothes, and there’s no support for real strategic procurement (yet alone strategic sourcing) and you have to go out and buy more platforms, what’s going to happen? The reality is that the mid-market is better served by a federated catalog management / punchout platform, and will likely be better served still by a new breed of e-commerce B2B solutions for end-user Procurement (which is being led by providers like BlueBean. Which will only leave the enterprise space, and, more specifically, the enterprise players who are stuck with older generation solutions (due to sunk costs, etc.) that don’t integrate well or have modern bells and wizards.

And so on. The market is over crowded, most of the providers are struggling, funding has dried up for all but the best (who haven’t been overfunded already) [and already profitable with true long-term growth capability], and there’s no room for the rest.

History will repeat, and those who don’t follow best practices and avoid mistakes will be the first to fall.

Finance and Procurement Need to Collaborate, but Sometimes the Relationship Needs to go Beyond the Financial Viewpoint

A recent article over on Financial Executives on Why Finance and Procurement Need to Collaborate For Success made some very good points …

The article in question, which noted that how companies approach expense management will become a top priority with the economy heading into uncertain times summarized an interview with Matthew Smith, CFO & CoFounder of finetune, a full service expense management firm focussed on select complex categories (such as uniform rental, waste & recycling, pest control, energy & utilities, and security) for large clients. In addition to the baseline assessment, sourcing, implementation, and ongoing management (which many BuyDesk operations will do), they also do regular auditing, which is key to ensuring you get what you pay for because, as Matthew said, where the rubber meets the road in expense management is what happens after the contract is signed.

Matthew believes that expense management does need to be its own thing and that there has to be a coordinating element between the affected functions, which always includes Procurement (which is responsible for placing the order and managing the contract) and Finance (for paying the bill) and then the department(s) that are using the goods or services being procured. Especially since the vendors will give up a lot in the negotiations, and then do their best to get it all back through change orders and off contract-purchases of items not covered under the contract. In addition, analytics is becoming critical, but most organizations have bad data. However, without the necessary expertise, the data won’t be clean and the right calculations can’t be done. Procurement can identify the good data and Finance can identify the key analysis that needs to be done. (Not ChatGPT, which is hallucinating and getting all those bad answers and producing false information. Matthew’s words, but the doctor couldn’t agree more.) Furthermore, without a good understanding of the entire situation from multiple sides, you don’t know when incentive are good or bad.

Expense management is a key area where Finance and Procurement needs to collaborate because it takes both departments to prevent overspend, and the article was a really great deep dive in this respect, but it’s not the only area. Working capital management is also key. Managing expenses is a great start, but the goal should be improved working capital management. If both departments work together, and with other organizational departments, to appropriately predict demand and utilization, and optimize payment terms, then the organization can do accurate cash-flow forecasting and working capital can be optimized. And that can truly only happen when both departments collaborate.