Companies like IBM and CA do this too with the added financial benefit of being able to centralize most staff functions (finance, HR, etc) and leverage existing low cost locations.
Of course this hurts existing customers. In reality it’s moving some of the surplus value generated by the company from the customers and employees back to the shareholders.
It’s too complex issue to just say “It’s all good” or “It’s all bad.”
I think Broadcom owns CA now.
A classic PE game is to declare a widespread, but no longer innovative software product "end of life" just to charge more for "extended support" contracts. Customers often have said product deeply entrenched in their daily workflows and would inccur high customizing costs if they switch to a competitor. In the end, they are better off paying the support premium.
From a funding perspective, PE firms also have an advantage compared to stock exchanges: because their assets are no longer traded daily, the volatility of these assets decreases. The asset value is maybe determined once a year for balance sheet purposes. This means that pension funds and other regulated investors can invest more in the PE sector than in stocks, because technically they are buying "low volatility assets".
Not really. We saw a lot of LBO takeovers before the market turned, and Zendesk is one of those (it was planned 6 months ago). LBO activity is expected to slow down now (it already has).
What you will likely see a rise in is a lot of companies cutting costs and going into their bunkers. You don't necessarily need to be taken over a PE firm in order to do that.