据彭博社（Bloomberg）报道，迈克尔•戴尔正在试图获得对戴尔公司（Dell Inc.）的多数控制权。目前，这家个人电脑制造商正在与银湖合伙基金（Silver Lake Partners）和微软（Microsoft）进行私有化谈判。另据报道，科比•布莱恩特仍希望在平局比赛中投出绝杀。

    说实话，有人有过不同想法吗？

    最初，人们都认为，迈克尔•戴尔将滚转他目前持有的15.74%的股份。之后，我们得知权益总额（不包括戴尔持有的股份）约为50亿美元。即便微软与银湖各自拿出20亿美元——虽然我并不认为银湖真的会这么做，除非它能够利用某些资金回收——但最终的资金缺口仍高达10亿美元。

    这正是迈克尔•戴尔的机会——这意味着他将出资超过40亿美元（超过微软与银湖出资的总额）。

    而从更为本质的角度来看，迈克尔•戴尔从来没说过要放弃对公司的控制权。如果公司被收购，他或许可以继续担任戴尔的董事长兼CEO，但届时，他的命运将掌握在银湖手中。或者要看银湖将戴尔转售给谁。他肯定不希望发生这样的事情。

    实际上，有知情人士称，迈克尔•戴尔坚持对公司的永久控制，也是许多私募股权并没有认真对待这次机会的原因之一。不仅是因为他们希望迈克尔•戴尔出局，也是因为他们希望能够掌握主动权，如果有朝一日自己改变了想法，可以将他一脚踢开。

    对于迈克尔•戴尔来说，这并不是一个打击。他创立了戴尔公司，是公司最大的股东。同时，他坚信，要帮助公司适应这个PC日渐式微的世界，他本人才是正选。相反，对于那些以为他会心甘情愿让别人决定自己与公司命运的那些人来说，这才是一个沉重的打击。（财富中文网）

    译者：刘进龙/汪皓

    Bloomberg is reporting that Michael Dell is seeking majority control of Dell Inc. (DELL), the PC maker that is in talks to be taken private by Silver Lake Partners and Microsoft (MSFT). In other news, Kobe Bryant still wants to take the last shot in a tied game.

    Seriously, did anyone ever think different?

    For starters, it was always assumed that Michael Dell would roll over his existing 15.74% position. Next, we knew that the total equity check (excluding Dell's shares) would need to be around $5 billion. Even if Microsoft and Silver Lake each pumped in $2 billion -- something I don't believe Silver Lake can actually do, save for possibly utilizing some fund recycling provisions -- that would still leave a $1 billion gap.

    That's where Michael Dell would come in -- meaning that he would contribute more than $4 billion in value (i.e., more than Microsoft and Silver Lake combined).

    From a more qualitative perspective, Michael Dell has never suggested a willingness to give up the reins. He could have remained Dell's chairman and CEO following a buyout, but his job security would have been subject to Silver Lake's continued approval. Or that of whoever Silver Lake sold Dell to down the line. That just isn't happening.

    In fact, sources tell me that Michael Dell's insistence on eternal control was one reason why a number of private equity firms didn't look seriously at the opportunity. Not because they didn't want Michael Dell involved -- but because they wanted the option of dumping him if they someday changed their mind.

    None of this is a knock on Michael Dell. He founded Dell, is its largest shareholder and believes he's the right man to help it adapt to a PC-light world. Instead, it's a knock on anyone who thought he'd voluntarily let someone else determine his fate, or that of his company.