Fast Troubles Linger

Share

I've written a fair bit about Fast Search and Transfer on this blog (e.g., The Blood-Letting Begins, Fast to Restate 2006, Fast Search Train Wreck:  Who's Accountable?, Microsoft Bids $1.2B for Fast) and I've done so for a number of reasons:

  • Competition.  While MarkLogic is not a search engine we did end up competing with Fast at several major media (i.e. publishing) accounts, so they had my attention.
  • Seen this before.  Fast reminded me of MicroStrategy, against whom we successfully competed at Business Objects, but whose tactics caused me more than a bit of angst over the years.  (One might argue this comparison was prescient.)
  • Speaking out.  I felt that despite the presence of evidence (e.g., financial analyst reports from a Scandinavian bank that did some pretty convincing analysis) that things were awry that everyone (i.e., industry analysts, customers) seemed to turn a willing blind eye first to the indicators of the problems and then to the problems themselves -- either dismissing them entirely or as characterizing them as simple "accounting issues."
  • Knew the right way.  Also, from my near-decade's worth of experience at Business Objects, I had a strong sense for what I felt was the "right way" to run a European software company.  Basically, play by the same rules as everyone else -- dual list on the NASDAQ and report financials under GAAP.

Anyway, with the Microsoft acquisition, I figured the story was done.  While I was always amazed at the valuation -- particularly for a company in the midst of an accounting scandal -- the problems were well publicized and I figured Microsoft had to have looked into every angle.

A recent story in Portfolio, entitled Fast Troubles for Microsoft, suggests this was perhaps not the case.  Excerpt:

some accounting matters













completing the deal





Aftenposten,characterized


Related articles