Techland
At the intersection of business and technology
Type Size  -  +
December 17, 2007, 2:05 pm

A Motorola without Razrs

By Michal Lev-Ram

Mention Motorola and most people think cell phones. But if speculation that the company might say goodbye to its phone business proves true, Motorola will lose its core brand.

What would a Razr-less Motorola do? While its best known for phones, which account for about two-thirds of revenues, the embattled company has two other big business units: Enterprise mobility, which sells radios to the government, and home and networks mobility, which makes cellular infrastructure equipment and cable set-top boxes, among other products. And unlike its cell phone unit — which last quarter incurred an operating loss of $138 million — some of these other businesses are actually showing strong growth.

That’s why some analysts (and activist investor Carl Icahn) argue that hanging up on the cell phone business could benefit Motorola (MOT) shareholders. Case in point: While phones sales were down 36 percent last quarter compared to the previous year, sales of home and networks mobility products were up 6 percentĀ and the enterprise mobility solutions business was up 47 percent.

“Motorola does have a leadership position in several markets,” notes Lawrence Harris, an analyst with Oppenheimer & Co.

Of course, not all of Motorola’s secondary businesses are booming. Ping Zhao, a senior analyst with CreditSights, says sales of cellular infrastructure equipment are in an industry-wide slump. Still, she puts Motorola’s total value without its handset business, at about $29 billion.

“Without the handsets you’ve got some businesses that are very interesting and very strong,” says Zhao. “Basically, the sum of its parts is greater than than its stock price would suggest.” Though Zhao says breaking up the company would be advantageous from a shareholder’s perspective, she adds that it’s not clear what it would mean for Motorola in the long run.

Motorola declined to comment on whether it would consider selling off its phone division.

Icahn recently claimed that doing so would produce almost $20 billion of additional shareholder value. The company’s third-largest shareholder has been pushing to split up the company since the Razr started its downward spiral. Former CEO Ed Zander opposed Icahn’s plan but new chief executive Greg Brown may be more amenable to making changes.

“While I do think the new CEO is going to take the opportunity to review the company’s portfolio, I would be surprised if we were to see significant action in the near term,” says Harris, the Oppenheimer & Co. analyst.

One of the reasons Motorola might be reluctant to sell its mobile devices unit, says Harris, is that it has synergies with other businesses within the company, such as cellular infrastructure equipment.

But last week acting Motorola finance chief Tom Meredith opened the door slightly by telling a group of investors that while Motorola could remain intact, “A change in circumstance sometimes requires a change in action. So I will leave it at that.”

Changing circumstances are the nature of the wireless market. Just two years ago, everyone wanted to own a super-thin Razr. But then competitors caught up with the clamshell phone while Apple (AAPL), Nokia (NOK) and other phonemakers started coming out with multimedia devices that left Motorola in the dust.

Of course, the company founded in 1928 as a manufacturer of in-car radios and other products has played a key role in the development of cell phones and has bounced back before. If the handset business stays with the company, it’s not impossible the phonemaker could regain its former glory.

Another Siemens is coming!!!!

Posted By Esayas Addis Aaba Ethiopia : January 4, 2008 8:39 am

Motorola is no different than most US technology driven companies. R&D budgets (small as they are) are continually cut back. There is no risk taking any more. Too many managers/executives who do not know what they are doing – and should have been fired a long time ago – just run around saying “what’s the business reason for doing X” because it sounds good. Of course they have no original idea’s of their own.

It is all about having a good story for why your organization has failed – along with making sure that no-one else succeeds (unless you can claim credit for their work – or take over their project – leaving them stuck with your mess).

It should not be a shock that most big US companies can’t re-invent themselves. Management is just too lazy. The easy money – and sure bet is to take the jobs overseas – basically selling the farm. Unitl eventually there is nothing left. Hopefully, by then, that will be someone else’s problem.

Posted By John R, Lakewood Illinois : December 21, 2007 4:12 pm

I do not understand why Motorola would sell its phone business.

Phones are continually evolving into better devices. It is not as if the cell phone is about to become obsolete. Motorola should focus on making something cool that people want to buy. If they sold off the phone unit and their other businesses tanked, they would look like complete fools.

Companies have to care more about short term loss/gain and play the whole game. Would it make sense for a football team to walk off the field because they are down by 16 at the end of the third quarter? No. Motorola has to get back in the game and get focused. These hasty decisions may make the stock go up for a few quarters but the company would end up losing a potential cash cow, costing loss of jobs and talent.
—–
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/page_music.cfm?bandID=64492

Posted By Yadgyu, Harkeyville, TX : December 19, 2007 5:39 pm

William, of course you’ve heard it before…. to stop hearing it would mean Motorola has fundamentally changed its culture and how it develops handsets such that it doesn’t have highs and lows. Otherwise this sort of thing will just cycle around again and again.

Jay, Yes, the problem is R&D management. That’s what stifles the ideas from the rank and file engineers.

Posted By Festivus, chicago, IL : December 18, 2007 8:35 pm

Mot without mobile is 29B, imagine MOT with another successful phone as razr!!
I think mot has more than sufficient expertise to come up with another great phone.

Posted By Nitin, Campbell, CA : December 18, 2007 7:08 pm

First article I’ve seen in a very long time that recognizes that Motorola is more than just a “cell phone maker”.

Posted By Roger B, Schaumburg IL : December 18, 2007 3:38 pm

Selling off its mobile phone unit would be a huge mistake in my opinion. Although the “cell phone” has become commoditized, the portable mulitmedia/computing device is just gaining traction.

Motorola’s mindshare alone should facilitate a smooth transition into that budding market, i.e. the “do everything” hand held device… you know, like the iPhone…

Just because a business unit is not profitable for 8 quarters doesn’t mean it should suddenly be abandoned; however, if Motorola has indeed ceased any meaningful R&D, it probably is in there best interest to sell now.

Posted By Ty, Atlanta GA : December 18, 2007 3:24 pm

William, thank you for your comment but just because the same thing happened a few years ago doesn’t mean this article is irrelevant. Motorola’s handset business is in trouble again, and selling it off is one of the company’s options.

Posted By mlevram : December 18, 2007 1:22 pm

Icahn only cares his investment, not the long term future of Motorola. I hope the new CEO can do better than that.

Posted By Will, Boston, MA : December 18, 2007 11:59 am

This article could’ve been written last May and doesn’t make much sense today. Moto has a track record with mobile handsets, engineering talent and global reach. Just because it may take the whole of 2008 to get back on track doesn’t imply dumping your strongest core business. Handsets are a phenomenal business and will continue to be strong. What surface-deep rubbish this ‘article’ is.

Posted By Phil Carson, Denver, Colorado : December 18, 2007 11:33 am

This has happened over and over throughout Motorola’s history. They invented the car radio, but once that became a commodity, they sold the business. Same with televisions. Cell phones will be next. The problem is that they have gutted their pure R&D and there is no next big thing.

Posted By Paul Urbana, IL : December 18, 2007 10:46 am

Funny how history repeats itself. Several years back, there was talk of Moto spinning off the cell phone division because it wasn’t making money. Enter the RAZR, and there were several years of profits.

The problem with Moto cell phones isn’t that they lack profitability. It is a lack of consistent R&D. And since the RAZR development was “underground”, the question becomes, “What is Moto R&D doing to stay in the business?”

Perhaps the problem is R&D management, not that the market is to competitive!

Posted By JAy., Houston, TX : December 18, 2007 10:23 am

“Seamless mobility” is one of those catch-phrases that excites journalists and analysts, and then pretty much disintegrates when it — or some imperfectly realized version, since there’s no specificity to what the ‘it’ is/why anybody needs it/etc. — reaches the hands of consumers. There’s nothing ’seamless’ without integrating hardware, software, and services, and there’s little indication that Motorola will do that, just as there’s every indication that Cicso has imported the ’seamless mobility’ branding nonsense, and that the only co. visibly likely to actually accomplish it is Palm. I’ve written a bit about this at DIM BULB: http://dimbulb.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/12/warrior-brown-r.html

Posted By Jonathan Salem Baskin, Chicago, IL : December 18, 2007 9:57 am

My Razr is the worst cell phone I have ever had. I can’t wait to get rid of it & go back to Nokia. Barely 1 day battery life on full charge? What a joke. I’ll never buy another Motorola phone.

Posted By Jeff B., Princeton NJ : December 18, 2007 9:44 am

b*ll sh*t article…heard the same thing for years ago!

Posted By William Ford : December 18, 2007 9:08 am

Brian, what is this supposed seamless mobility solution?

Posted By MOTOcynic, San Diego, CA : December 17, 2007 7:25 pm

Good perspective, so many analysts fail to recognize the synergy within the business’ that come together to provide a seemless mobility solution.

Posted By Brian, Chicago IL : December 17, 2007 5:21 pm
CNNMoney.com Comment Policy: CNNMoney.com encourages you to add a comment to this discussion. You may not post any unlawful, threatening, libelous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic or other material that would violate the law. Please note that CNNMoney.com may edit comments for clarity or to keep out questionable or off-topic material. All comments should be relevant to the post and remain respectful of other authors and commenters. By submitting your comment, you hereby give CNNMoney.com the right, but not the obligation, to post, air, edit, exhibit, telecast, cablecast, webcast, re-use, publish, reproduce, use, license, print, distribute or otherwise use your comment(s) and accompanying personal identifying information via all forms of media now known or hereafter devised, worldwide, in perpetuity. CNNMoney.com Privacy Statement.
Sponsors
* : Time reflects local markets trading time.† - Intraday data delayed 15 minutes for Nasdaq, and 20 minutes for other exchanges.• Disclaimer
Powered by WordPress.com VIP.