Acquisitions vs. Sales
Scott Kirsner has posted a really interesting graph showing that Massachusetts companies acquired 1.4 companies for every Massachusetts company that was sold. By way of comparison, California's ratio was one for one.
At first blush this statistic seems to run contrary to the accepted story that Massachusetts companies have traditionally been sold off (often to the west coast). Having said that, it is not at all clear what the statistic means. For example, was it a statistical fluke because the sample period was short?
The period covered was 2008, which we all can recall was the beginning of the great recession. Does this suggest that Massachusetts companies were stronger at the beginning of the recession than companies in other states?
This is an interesting piece of data because of its relationship to expectations, but until someone can draw a conclusion from the data, it won't be information.
Comments (1)
Read through and enter the discussion by using the form at the endDerek - April 30, 2010 3:22 PM
Well, it's an interesting graph, but when taken in aggregate it means reasonably little: if there is no consideration for the ecosystem within a particular state, the "acquirers vs acquired" ratio doesn't mean much. The interesting statistics to look at are:
- The % of startup/funded companies (originating within MA) that get acquired
- The % of startup/funded companies that progress to become acquirers themselves
- And the dealmaking/acquisition activities of larger companies within the state (and WHERE their acquisitions come from)
It would be much more informative to get a stratified view of this type of breakdown based on company size/stage
(I am not sure if the report breaks this down or not. As I actually thought about this comment, I hope that the report is very general and does not include this segmentation so that I feel like I actually contributed to some useful dialogue . . .)