|
|
|
|
|
Diebold Weighs Strategy for Voting Unit |
By M.R. KROPKO, AP Business Writer
Sun Mar 4, 3:29 PM ET
[link
to article]
Diebold Inc. saw great potential in the modernization of elections
equipment. Now, analysts say, executives may be angling for ways to
dump its e-voting subsidiary that's widely seen as tarnishing the
company's reputation.
Though Diebold Election Systems — the company's smallest business
segment — has shown growth and profit, it's faced persistent criticism
over the reliability and security of its touch-screen voting machines.
About 150,000 of its touch-screen or optical scan systems were used in
34 states in last November's election.
The criticism is particularly jarring for a nearly 150-year-old company
whose primary focus has long been safes and automated teller machines.
"This is a company that has built relationships with banks every day of
every year. It pains them greatly to see their brand tarnished by a
marginal operating unit," said Gil Luria, an investment analyst who
monitors Diebold for Wedbush Morgan Securities Inc.
In the calm after the November midterm elections, Tom Swidarski,
Diebold's chief executive officer, told analysts in a conference call
that the company plans to announce its long-term strategy for the
elections unit early this year.
Swidarski declined an interview request to shed more light on the
voting segment's future.
But in an annual report filed last week with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Diebold's discussion of its election systems
business pointed out various ongoing concerns. Diebold acknowledged
that complaints about its voting products and services have hurt
relations with government election officials.
Diebold indicated it still is "vulnerable to these types of challenges
because the electronic elections systems industry is emerging." The
report also mentioned inconsistency in the way state and local
governments are adapting to federal requirements for upgrades in voting
technology.
Further changes in the voting laws could further hurt business, the
filing said.
Diebold spokesman Mike Jacobsen said that whenever Diebold evaluates
one of its businesses, it looks for growth, profitability and
characteristics that make it a long-term strategic fit.
Jacobsen would not say when the announcement about the subsidiary's
future may come.
"I imagine at this point it's a question of whether have they found a
private equity buyer yet or are they about to announce they are going
to look for one," Luria said. He did not speculate on who that may be.
Diebold headaches have abounded.
Some of its voting machines have been criticized for lacking a
voter-verified paper trail for post-election audits. Last summer, the
Open Voting Foundation issued a report alleging that Diebold
touch-screen functions can be changed with the flip of an internal
switch. Activists have found source code online. And there have also
been numerous lawsuits and leaked internal memos.
FTN Midwest Securities analyst Kartik Mehta wonders if a business that
has been a lightning rod for criticism is worth it. He said Diebold
leaders need to decide "if that negative publicity is hurting them in
selling products to financial institutions, security products to
government or any of their other customers."
North Canton, Ohio-based Diebold jumped into e-voting in 2002, when it
acquired Global Election Systems. It had some prior experiences with
electronic voting through its Procomp business in Brazil.
The elections business was good for 8 percent of Diebold revenue and
about 12 percent of profit last year, but some of that is from
Diebold's voting and lottery contracts in Brazil.
By comparison, the ATM segment produced about 65 percent of the
company's revenue and 63 percent of profit in 2006. Safes have evolved
into Diebold's second biggest segment, now called "security solutions."
It makes various devices and systems for business and government
security. Last year it gave Diebold about 27 percent of its revenue and
25 percent of its profit.
If profit is the key measure for Diebold, the voting business would
seem to be a good fit. But for this segment, a 2006 gross profit
(before taxes, costs and expenses) on products and service of about
$83.5 million isn't the whole story.
"I've been surprised that Diebold has stayed in the voting business for
this long, considering the size of the company and the other sources of
revenue," said Avi Rubin, a computer scientist at Johns Hopkins
University and a frequent foe of Diebold voting systems' programming.
Rubin is director of ACCURATE, an e-voting research organization funded
by the National Science Foundation.
Diebold has always defended its voting machines and its own intentions,
even after its former chairman and chief executive, Wally O'Dell,
sought with little success to convince critics his strong ties with
Republican politics as a fundraiser for George W. Bush were not the
motive for the company's involvement in elections.
O'Dell resigned in 2005 and was replaced by Swidarski, who had been the
company's president and chief operating officer. His main focus has
been on expanding international business for ATMs, a less public
business.
Critics remained. About the time of the November elections, HBO aired a
scathing documentary entitled "Hacking Democracy" that again raised
questions about the security of Diebold machines.
Might Diebold choose to keep the voting business and grow it?
"It's a possibility, but I'd assign it a very low probability," Luria
said.
Voting machine makers such as Diebold; Election Systems & Software,
of Omaha, Neb.; Sequoia Voting Systems, of Oakland, Calif., and Hart
InterCivic, of Austin, Texas have had the federal Help America Vote Act
of 2002 as a sales catalyst. HAVA, with $3.9 billion of funding, urged
the nation to move past punch card voting and hanging chads that
delayed the conclusion of the 2000 presidential election.
ES&S, Sequoia and Hart InterCivic declined comment on a possible
Diebold Election Systems sale.
Douglas E. Rodgers, managing partner and chief executive officer of
Washington-based investment banking firm FOCUS Enterprises Inc., said
he has worked with Diebold executives on recent acquisitions. He could
not comment on Diebold's intentions for voting systems.
Kimball Brace, who closely tracks voting system vendors as president of
Washington-based Election Data Services Inc., said there is uncertainty
now in the elections market, a result of possible legislation setting
new requirements with no promise there will be additional funding.
He couldn't say what Diebold will do.
"If I were in these guy's shoes, I'd be looking close and hard at what
I'm doing in this marketplace," Brace said. "But given the uncertainty,
who would buy it?"
___
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
