security industry monitor - imperial capital · imperial capital is a full-service investment bank...
Post on 25-Jun-2018
221 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
PLEASE SEE IMPORTANT DISCLOSURES ON LAST PAGE
Security Industry Monitor
March 2014
For additional information on our Security Team, please contact:
John E. Mack IIICo-head, Investment Banking GroupHead of Mergers and Acquisitions(310) 246-3705jmack@imperialcapital.com
Michael McManusManaging Director, Investment Banking Group(310) 246-3702mmcmanus@imperialcapital.com
Imperial Capital is a full-service investment bank offering a uniquely integrated platform of comprehensive services to institutional investors and middle market companies. We offer sophisticated sales and trading services to institutional investors and a wide range of investment banking advisory, capital markets and restructuring services to middle market corporate clients. We also provide proprietary research across an issuer’s capital structure, including bank debt, debt securities, hybrid securities, preferred and common equity and special situations claims. Our comprehensive and integrated service platform, expertise across the full capital structure, and deep industry sector knowledge enable us to provide clients with superior advisory services, capital markets insight, investment ideas and trade execution. We are quick to identify opportunities under any market conditions and we have a proven track record of offering creative, proprietary solutions to our clients.
Imperial Capital’s expertise includes the following sectors: Aerospace, Defense & Government Services, Airlines & Transportation, Business Services, Consumer, Energy (Clean Energy and Traditional Energy), Financial Services, Gaming & Leisure, General Industrials, Healthcare, Homebuilding & Real Estate, Media & Telecommunications, Security & Homeland Security and Technology.
Imperial Capital has three principal businesses: Investment Banking, Institutional Sales & Trading and Institutional Research.
For additional information, please visit our Web site at www.imperialcapital.com.
About Imperial Capital, LLC
March 2014
Table of Contents Security Industry Monitor
3
Table of Contents
Section I Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 5
Defining the Security Industry 7
Macroeconomic Overview 9
Equity Performance and Valuation 10
M&A Snapshot 13
Public Debt and Equity Offerings Snapshot 14
Registered Direct and Private Placement Snapshot 14
Bankruptcies Snapshot 15
Security Industry Transactions Outlook 15
Physical Solutions Overview 16
Identity Solutions Overview 16
Information Security Overview 17
Section II Physical Security Sector .................................................................................................. 19
Sector Outlook and Commentary 21
M&A Review and Outlook 42
Notable Middle Market Transactions 42
Registered Direct and Private Placement Snapshot 44
Public and 144A Debt and Equity Offering Snapshot 44
Bankruptcies 45
Section III Identity Solutions Sector ............................................................................................... 47
Sector Outlook and Commentary 49
M&A Review and Outlook 70
Notable Middle Market Transactions 70
Registered Direct and Private Placement Snapshot 71
Public Debt and Equity Offering Snapshot 72
Bankruptcies 72
Section IV Information Security Sector .......................................................................................... 75
Sector Outlook and Commentary 77
M&A Review and Outlook 90
Notable Middle Market Transactions 90
Registered Direct and Private Placement Snapshot 91
Public Debt and Equity Offering Snapshot 92
Bankruptcies 92
Section V Appendix ........................................................................................................................... 95
Comparable Companies 97
Valuations—Security Industry Companies 100
Disclosures ................................................................................................................................. Last Page
March 2014
4
Security Industry Monitor
[This page intentionally left blank.]
March 2014
Table of Contents Security Industry Monitor
5
Section I
Executive Summary
March 2014
6
Security Industry Monitor
[This page intentionally left blank.]
March 2014
Table of Contents
7
Executive SummarySecurity Industry Monitor
Executive Summary
Defining the Security Industry
Our Security Industry Monitor primarily focuses on and discusses the dynamics affecting the industry’s major
sectors, as well as key developments and transaction trends.
According to the results of a recent study released by a leading industry trade organization, ASIS International
(its first major study in nearly a decade and the largest industry report since the Hallcrest report in 1990), and the
Institute of Finance and Management (IOFM), the U.S. security industry is a $350 billion market (versus our
estimate of a $280 billion market at the end user level). The majority of the market consists of private sector
spending ($282 billion) followed by federal government spending on homeland security ($69 billion). The major
reason for the difference in the ASIS report and our industry estimate (at the user level) is that ASIS fully accounts
for all homeland security (including Department of Defense (DoD)) spending, noted above, and we only provide
for $4 billion of products and services sold to homeland security-specific users. According to ASIS, over
400 security industry executives participated in the survey.
Within the physical security sector, we discuss the need for a more meaningful conversation at the highest levels
of clients’ organizational chart to communicate the security industry’s potential contribution toward efficiency,
cost, and business process improvements. We discuss the increasing global demand for security equipment and
the expansion of the security industry. Government agencies are increasingly leveraging communications
intelligence and investigative solutions to gather evidence and generate actionable intelligence, thus reflecting
the need to make sense of unstructured data from multiple sources. We expand our writing to discuss the
challenges facing the integrators, the state of the home automation (post Google-Nest acquisition), and
residential security monitoring industry, the convergence of access control and electronic locks, including the
potential use of Blutooth Low Energy and Near Field Communication (NFC). With new and innovative
technologies expanding the home services suite of offerings, users are able to see and hear their monitored
premises from a remote device. We highlight this fast moving industry, and look at the historical trading ranges
of select security companies based on Steady State Net Operating Cash Flow, along with why this metric is
widely used and valid. The public emergency response sector has received much attention from recent events
(e.g. Sandy Hook school shooting, Boston Marathon bombing), and we examine its various components, ranging
from “Safe City Programs” to Mass Notification Systems (MNS) to wireless infrastructure to Physical Security
Information Management (PSIM) systems. We complete this segment by discussing the security officer industry
and the trends within it.
Within the identity solutions sector, we highlight identity and access management in the cloud, and the
complexities which have risen. We discuss new developments in biometrics technology, particularly in fingerprint,
which may overcome many of the real world deployment challenges and could drive broader adoption by
commercial and institutional customers. Anti-counterfeiting and other relevant case studies are also highlighted.
Within the information security sector, we discuss the escalation in the volume and sophistication of attacks, which is
driving broad-based market demand for more effective security solutions beyond traditional, signature-based
defenses. The sector gained particular attention recently with one of the largest and most publicized data breaches in
history at national retailer Target in December 2013. This breach impacted a substantial portion of the American
public and made news headlines, elevating security from an “IT” problem to a strategic issue for the executive
leadership and boards of numerous consumer-facing organizations. This attack was a major topic at this year’s RSA
March 2014
8
Executive Summary
Security Industry Monitor
Conference in February 2014, one of the premier annual industry events, which saw strong expansion in attendance
to approximately 30,000 people, up from 24,000 in 2013. In this monitor, we highlight several of the key themes at the
conference, as well as emerging trends and challenges for the sector. We additionally discuss the details of the Target
breach, which demonstrated the security challenges facing large organizations with complex IT infrastructures—even
those with top-tier defenses. We also highlight increased prioritization of cybersecurity by the federal government
based on details of the President’s budget request for FY2015. We particularly note significant expansion of the
EINSTEIN3 and Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation (CDM) programs which aim to provide ongoing situational
awareness to protect federal civilian agencies and “.gov” networks. We also discuss the strong momentum of industry
consolidation, with two major transactions since the beginning of the year. We anticipate further strategic acquisition
activity over the coming quarters, as larger technology companies and security vendors seek to integrate new security
technologies and to achieve early penetration of emerging categories.
Across the Security Industry, we cover three main sectors:
� Physical Security (integration, monitoring, video solutions, guards, and armored transport)
� Identity Solutions (ID management, biometrics, ID/video convergence)
� Information Security (Security-as-a-Service, encryption, attack mitigation, and endpoint)
Homeland Security spans all three sectors.
Figure 1: A Massive, Multi-Segment, and Fragmented Industry with $280+ Billion in End User Revenues
Sources: Imperial Capital, LLC.
March 2014
Table of Contents
9
Executive SummarySecurity Industry Monitor
Macroeconomic Overview
Real U.S. GDP grew for the eighteenth straight quarter, up 2.4% sequentially during the fourth quarter of 2013
and up 4.1% sequentially during the third quarter of 2013, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis
(BEA). GDP growth was bolstered by exports and commercial equipment and software investment, which grew
9.4% and 10.6%, respectively, in the fourth quarter of 2013. Commercial construction also showed some signs of
strength, up 0.2% and 3.4% in the fourth and third quarters of 2013, respectively. Government consumption
expenditures and gross investment continued to lag in the fourth quarter of 2013, down 5.6% sequentially
versus 6.5% in the fourth quarter of 2012.
Figure 2: GDP Components, Annualized Quarterly Changes,
Fourth Quarter 2013 versus Fourth Quarter 2012
Sources: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.
� Commercial equipment and software spending remained positive, while commercial construction
continued to recover from a major drop
Commercial construction strengthened a modest 0.2% in the fourth quarter of 2013 after recovering from a
25% drop in the first quarter of 2013. Commercial equipment and software investment was up 10.6% in the fourth
quarter of 2013, its largest sequential increase since a 14.6% increase in the fourth quarter of 2012. Exports surged
9.4% in the fourth quarter of 2013 while imports jumped by 1.5%. Federal spending again decreased, down
12.8%. State and local government spending saw a small 0.5% drop in the fourth quarter of 2013.
Pe
rso
na
l con
sum
ptio
n e
xpen
ditu
res
Pe
rso
na
l con
sum
ptio
n e
xpen
ditu
res
Com
me
rcia
l Co
nstr
uctio
n
Com
me
rcia
l Co
nstr
uctio
n
Eq
uip
me
nt a
nd s
oft
wa
re
Eq
uip
me
nt a
nd s
oft
wa
re
Re
sid
en
tia
l Co
nstr
uctio
n
Re
sid
entia
l Co
nstr
uction
Exp
ort
s
Exp
ort
s
Imp
ort
s
Imp
ort
s
Na
tio
nal d
efe
nse
Na
tio
na
l de
fen
se
No
nd
efe
nse
Non
de
fen
se
Sta
te a
nd
lo
cal
Sta
te a
nd
loca
l
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
4Q12 4Q13
March 2014
10
Executive Summary
Security Industry Monitor
Figure 3: Business Investment and State and Local Government Spending Trends,
Annualized Quarterly Changes, Fourth Quarter 2011 to Fourth Quarter 2013
Sources: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Equity Performance and Valuation
� The relative stock returns of the Security Industry comparable companies that we analyzed generally
fell behind S&P 500 during the fourth quarter of 2013 but outperformed the index for the year
From December 2004 through December 2009, the select group of Security Industry comparable companies
that we analyzed outperformed the S&P 500 (see the Appendix of this report for more detail on the composition
of the select group), but fell along with the overall market in 2008 partly due to an (ultimately erroneous)
expectation among many investors that residential monitoring would suffer in a poor housing environment.
Since the markets hit a 12-year low in March 2009, the select group of Security Industry comparable companies
that we have listed has generally exceeded the S&P 500’s return. Going forward, we continue to expect this
select group of security companies to perform favorably versus the S&P 500 due to: 1) the perceived need for
security in a more dangerous world, 2) the increasing ability of security to demonstrate return on investment
(ROI) to business executives and consumer value to residential customers, 3) the significant improvements in
service we expect due to the use and evolution of Internet Protocol (IP) and interactive technologies, and
4) a sustained robust M&A environment for the sector.
� Security Industry valuations have increased from 2012 with increases in Physical Security, Identity
Solutions as well as Information Security
Security Industry valuations, based on EV/LTM EBITDA at the end of the fourth quarter of 2013, were up by
16.8% compared to the prior year, driven by multiple increases in the Physical Security, Identity Solutions and
Information Security sectors, which increased 15.2%, 43.1% and 0.8%, respectively.
-30%
-25%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
4Q11 1Q12 2Q12 3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13 4Q13
Commercial Construction Commercial Equipment and Software Investment State and local
March 2014
Table of Contents
11
Executive SummarySecurity Industry Monitor
Figure 4: Valuation Multiples, EV/LTM EBITDA, Fourth Quarter 2013 versus Fourth Quarter 2012
Notes: Measured relative to period ending 6/30/13; LTM EBITDA based on reported financial results as of the date of this report. Companies used
to generate these multiples are listed in the Appendix of this report.
Sources: Imperial Capital, LLC and Capital IQ.
� Public valuations in the Physical Security sector increased significantly in the fourth quarter of 2013
compared to the same period in 2012
The Physical Security sector tends to have steadier and more predictable cash flows versus other Security
segments as a result of its recurring revenue and relative maturity. Physical Security valuations hit a
historical low during the first quarter of 2009, but rebounded significantly in 2010 despite market volatility
earlier in that year. After several high-profile M&A transactions in the alarm monitoring space pushed
valuations up during the end of 2010 and the beginning of 2011, valuations declined during the second
half of 2011. During 2013, the sector’s average LTM EV/EBITDA multiple rebounded strongly to 11.3x from
9.6x during the same time in 2012, which is currently above the long-term average of 9.6x. This has been
driven by increased M&A, a rebound in installation activity, higher stock prices, low interest rates and a
long-term bull stock market.
Figure 5: Physical Security Sector Historical EBITDA Multiples, December 2008 to December 2013 (1)
(1) Companies used to generate these multiples are listed in the Appendix of this report.
Sources: Imperial Capital, LLC and Capital IQ.
Industry / Sectors December 31, 2012 December 31, 2013 Year-over-Year Change
Security Industry 9.0x 10.8x 20.0%
Physical Security Sector 8.8x 10.1x 15.2%
Identity Solutions Sector 8.0x 11.4x 43.1%
Information Security Sector 10.2x 10.9x 6.2%
6.0x
7.0x
8.0x
9.0x
10.0x
11.0x
12.0x
13.0xEV / LTM EBITDA
Last Twelve Months Mean Long Term Average
March 2014
12
Executive Summary
Security Industry Monitor
� Public valuations in the Identity Solutions sector strengthened significantly in the last two quarters
of 2013
The Identity Solutions companies that we analyzed traded at 11.4x LTM EBITDA on average in the fourth quarter of
2013, up from 8.0x during the same period a year earlier, driven partly by several marquee M&A deals. Identity
Solutions technology, from software to biometric equipment, is continuing to mature, as evidenced by its
increasing adoption by an array of government and defense programs in response to increased security threats,
international identification programs, as well as increased cloud-based hosted access and ID systems being
installed by integrators for both government and commercial sites. The increase in valuation was also helped by a
rising stock market and several M&A deals which stirred the sector.
Figure 6: Identity Solutions Sector Historical EBITDA Multiples,
December 2008 to December 2013 (1)
(1) Companies used to generate these multiples are listed in the Appendix of this report.
Sources: Imperial Capital, LLC and Capital IQ.
� Public valuations in the Information Security sector rose year over year in the fourth quarter of 2013.
Public valuations in the Information Security sector rose 6.2% from the comparable period in 2012 on an EV/LTM
EBITDA basis. Valuations steadily traded below their long-term historical averages for the entirety of 2013. In late 2010
and early 2011, several M&A transactions provided a short-term increase to valuations, which was not repeated in
2012. Unfortunately, the information security sector is really a tale of two separate valuation worlds. Broad-based
increases in budget outlays against cybercrime and M&A have been helped by strong performers such as Palo
Alto Networks, Qualys, Fortinet, Proofpoint, and Imperva. Unfortunately, cutbacks in government-related IT
programs have adversely affected or blunted valuation growth in larger index companies, such as Symantec,
IBM, Hewlett Packard, CA Technologies, and Juniper Networks.
5.0x
6.0x
7.0x
8.0x
9.0x
10.0x
11.0x
12.0x EV / LTM EBITDA
Last Twelve Months Mean Long Term Average
March 2014
Table of Contents
13
Executive SummarySecurity Industry Monitor
Figure 7: Information Security Sector Historical EBITDA Multiples,
December 2008 to December 2013 (1)
(1) Companies used to generate these multiples are listed in the Appendix of this report.
Sources: Imperial Capital, LLC and Capital IQ.
M&A Snapshot
� The Fourth quarter of 2013 saw an increase in the number of transactions compared to the third
quarter of 2013
There was a large increase in the number of transactions in the fourth quarter of 2013 from both the previous
quarter and the comparable quarter in 2012. The M&A market rebounded during 2013, largely due to lower interest
rates, a recovering economy and a bull market. Overall, the value of M&A deals in 2013 was approximately
$5.0 billion. The average value of a deal has increased from $120m in 2011 to $147 million in 2013.
Figure 8: Historical M&A Transactions in the Security Industry,
Fourth Quarter 2010 to FourthQuarter 2013
Sources: Imperial Capital, LLC and Capital IQ.
6.0x
8.0x
10.0x
12.0x
14.0x EV / LTM EBITDA
Last Twelve Months Mean Long Term Average
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Q4 2010 Q1 2011 Q2 2011 Q3 2011 Q4 2011 Q1 2012 Q2 2012 Q3 2012 Q4 2012 Q1 2013 Q2 2013 Q3 2013 Q4 2013
Physical Security Sector Identity Solutions Sector Information Security Sector
March 2014
14
Executive Summary
Security Industry Monitor
Public Debt and Equity Offerings Snapshot
� Public offerings in the fourth quarter of 2013 increased quarter over quarter as well as year over year
The fourth quarter of 2013 saw an increase in public offerings after a sharp decrease in the first quarter. Public
offering activity has rebounded significantly due to robust capital markets in CY2013.
Figure 9: Public Offering Transactions in the Security Industry,
Fourth Quarter 2010 to Fourth Quarter 2013
Sources: Imperial Capital, LLC and Capital IQ.
Registered Direct and Private Placement Snapshot
� Registered direct offerings and private placements in the Security Industry increased to more historic
averages in the last two quarters of 2013
The fourth quarter 2013 saw the most registered direct and private placements compared to the previous four
quarters, continuing an upward trend.
Figure 10: Historical Registered Direct and Private Placement Transactions in the Security Industry,
Fourth Quarter 2010 to Fourth Quarter 2013
Sources: Imperial Capital, LLC and Capital IQ.
31
38
43
55
3133
41
23 22
6
16
42
60
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Q4 2010 Q1 2011 Q2 2011 Q3 2011 Q4 2011 Q1 2012 Q2 2012 Q3 2012 Q4 2012 Q1 2013 Q2 2013 Q3 2013 Q4 2013
130
159
140
163
7769
55 5359 59 63
133
155
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Q4 2010 Q1 2011 Q2 2011 Q3 2011 Q4 2011 Q1 2012 Q2 2012 Q3 2012 Q4 2012 Q1 2013 Q2 2013 Q3 2013 Q4 2013
March 2014
Table of Contents
15
Executive SummarySecurity Industry Monitor
Bankruptcies Snapshot
� Bankruptcies have decreased significantly since their high in 2011, as the economic and market
recoveries have driven an improved operating environment and access to capital markets
During the second half of 2013, there were two bankruptcies in the industry.
Figure 11: Historical Bankruptcy Transactions in the Security Industry,
fourth Quarter 2010 to fourth Quarter 2013
Sources: Imperial Capital, LLC and Capital IQ.
Security Industry Transactions Outlook
Figure 12: Security Industry Transactions Outlook
*Arrows reflect what we view as current trends for each of these areas.
Sources: Imperial Capital, LLC.
2
3
5
6
3
1
2
1 1
- -
1
2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Q4 2010 Q1 2011 Q2 2011 Q3 2011 Q4 2011 Q1 2012 Q2 2012 Q3 2012 Q4 2012 Q1 2013 Q2 2013 Q3 2013 Q4 2013
IPO
and S
econdar
y
Offe
rings
Strat
egic
and P
riva
te
Equity M
&A
Reg
iste
red D
irect a
nd
Priva
te P
lace
men
ts
Ban
kruptc
ies
Physical Security
Identity Solutions
Information
Security
March 2014
16
Executive Summary
Security Industry Monitor
Physical Solutions Overview
Physical Security Services M&A transactions were higher in the fourth quarter of 2013, compared to the fourth
quarter of 2012. There was one Initial Public Offering (IPO) and a low number of secondary offerings and
private placements.
� IPO and secondary offerings
There were numerous Physical Security equity and debt secondary offerings in the second half of 2013.
� Strategic and private equity M&A
Physical Security Services M&A transactions were higher in the fourth quarter of 2013.
� Registered direct and private placements
The market for private placements rebounded for the Physical Security Industry during the fourth quarter of
2013, up year over year.
� Bankruptcies
There were three bankruptcies in the Physical Security space in the second half of 2013.
Identity Solutions Overview
Activity in the Identity Solutions sector was driven primarily by M&A transactions. Both public offerings and private
placements increased from the comparable prior year period.
� IPO and secondary offerings
RX Safes, maker of fingerprint medical security storage solutions for consumers and healthcare professionals
filed its IPO in February 2014.
� Strategic and private equity M&A
Identity Solutions M&A experienced an increase in volume in the fourth quarter 2013, compared to the first quarter.
� Registered direct and private placements
The volume of transactions in the Identity Solutions sector increased in the fourth quarter of 2013, compared to
the fourth quarter of 2012.
� Bankruptcies
There were no significant Identity Solutions bankruptcies during the fourth quarter of 2013.
March 2014
Table of Contents
17
Executive SummarySecurity Industry Monitor
Information Security Overview
Transaction volumes increased in the fourth quarter of 2013 over the fourth quarter of 2012.
� Initial public offerings and secondary offerings
FireEye, Inc. raised $321 million in an initial public offering on September 20, 2013. The company subsequently
raised $442 million in a follow-on offering on March 7, 2014.
Barracuda Networks, Inc. raised $75 million in an initial public offering on November 12, 2013.
Varonis Systems, Inc. raised $95 million in an initial public offering on February 28, 2014.
� Strategic and private equity M&A
M&A activity increased in the fourth quarter of 2013, compared to the fourth quarter of 2012.
� Registered direct and private placements
Private Placement activity in the fourth quarter of 2013 increased significantly from the fourth quarter of 2012.
� Bankruptcies
There were no significant Information Security bankruptcies during the fourth quarter of 2013.
Security Industry MonitorPhysical Security Sector
March 2014
18
[This page intentionally left blank.]
March 2014
Executive Summary
19
Consumer Industry Monitor
Section II
Physical Security Sector
Security Industry MonitorPhysical Security Sector
March 2014
20
[This page intentionally left blank.]
March 2014
Security Industry Monitor
21
Physical Security Sector
Physical Security Sector
Sector Outlook and Commentary
Looking Back at 2013—A Decent Year—The Best Since 2008
In residential security, the industry experienced higher than expected “take” rates of base level wireless interactive
systems by residential users of monitoring systems. This had the effect of bolstering our case of a minimum
doubling in 6-7 years of the current 25 million homes using some form of security or home automation system. The
side issues arising from this acceleration in take rates include the fading value of POTS-line based security systems,
the generally higher costs to install cellular raising creation cost multiples initially, and the emerging value of “the
platform” rather than the device as prime center of value in the residential system.
In commercial/industrial/institutional we saw what we defined as the first multiple separation from the pack of
superior integrators who ask for, and price for full services value, rather than just installation and break-fix
service margins. While we have written about this trend for several years, before 2013 the ability to demand full
margins was usually the province of just one or two outliers. We now see several security integration companies
being recognized as trusted service partners by leading, sophisticated end users, who testify at meetings
featuring end users like the “Security 500” (New York) and “The Great Conversation” (Seattle).
In 2103, we witnessed steady gains (actually rather dramatic in the context of their history) even faster than
video—in development and acceptance of wireless, interactive, electronic lock and access control and identity
systems, with multiple types of form factors as credentials. Relative to its conservative nature, the changes in
access and locking technologies could even be deemed relatively more dramatic than video. While we have yet
to see what “killer” app will emerge as the winner, it is clear that the changes and flexibility for end users are
going to grow significantly based on the acceleration in 2013.
Last year we witnessed the first real national media articles around the migration of the fight against infosec
crime and terrorism into the physical realm, including identity solutions. The still undiscovered (by the media)
fight by the DoD and certain leading integrators to deal with billions of dollars of substandard, cloned, recycled
counterfeit parts in our critical military and commercial infrastructure. This has given rise in some cases grudging
acceptance of a new age marking and “provenance” technologies, such as DNA.
Looking Forward: We See Even More Acceleration in Physical Security Over the Next 12 Months
In the residential sector, we believe superior “platforms” for interactive home services will emerge that provide a
more personal, easy-use experience for the end user. We already have the “basic upgrade” that allows one to
turn on and turn off the system and perform other simple operations with their smart phone. Now, that 2013 has
provided high take rates in this area, we now need to see which layers of apps and at what cost end users are
willing to pay.
It will be a couple of years before we can prove out an attrition curve for the industry that proves out the thesis
for lower attrition and better internal rate of return (IRR). However, we will see the first end-of-contract statistics
coming in from companies like ADT and Vivint in late 2014 and into 2015.
Physical Security Sector Security Industry Monitor
March 2014
22
We will also witness the beginning of an entirely new technology upgrade in remote health and personal
emergency response devices and services as form factors become more compact and more integrated with
sensors that passively detect vital signs. Competition to gain contracts with payers and health care providers,
rather than the end user, will also heat up.
This year will also see the first major move by larger and better capitalized monitoring companies to upgrade
radios to 3G from 2G, a necessary cost that may mean leaving smaller dealers even further behind.
In the commercial/industrial segment there will be continued bifurcation between the best and the rest,
particularly by a few highly disciplined and focused integrators with superior “IT IQ”. They are in the best
position to increase their services as a percentage of revenues, and increase margins, while the majority of the
industry continues to experience falling profit margins.
We will continue to see an increase in the development of partnerships between video and access/locking/ID
companies from a product standpoint, well before the integrators are brought in to incorporate the various
offerings together.
We believe in 2014 there will be a breakout, separately, of several formerly strongly promoted technologies that
have been enduring a decade of slow acceptance and “false” starts. This includes:
� Gateways for both the home and small business that drive value from the underlying platform, to a more
“human” interface with a connected premises and the various devices that are part of the system. This
includes devices that “learn” the behavior of the end users and provide more automated responses when
things are as they should be, and warnings to the user (or to a monitoring center) when exception
incidents and environments develop. This coincides with broader trends outside the security industry
with the "internet of things" (IoT). IoT refers to the embedding of sensors in physical objects throughout
the home or office, and being able to identify them in a virtual format, often using the same internet
protocol which connects the internet. In this area Alarm.com is a notable leader.
� Radio frequency identification (RFID) in retail for asset tracking and inventory management, integrated
with existing anti-theft technologies, an area where Checkpoint Systems (CKP) stands out after years of
investments in this technology.
� “New-age” fingerprint technologies that have the ability to overcome virtually all the read problems of
older “ridge” technologies and which are virtually error proof, such as Lumidigm which was recently sold
to industry leader HID Global, a division of Assa Abloy.
� DNA anti-counterfeiting technology, in the retail, commercial, and government sectors, respectively, an
area where Authentix, OpSec Security, Hologram Industries Group and Applied DNA Sciences are leaders.
� Continuing development of wireless, remotely interrogated locks and access control systems, with
the developing question of what types of communications interfaces (i.e., NFC, Bluetooth Low
Energy) will be preferred by manufacturers, integrators and end users down the road; an area where
Brivo was an early pioneer.
We also believe that the leading independent “wholesale” alarm monitoring companies will continue to pick up
business from cable companies and telcos who need other than generic CSR’s providing response service. In
addition, the leading independent monitoring companies will benefit from the increasing business they are
getting from personal emergency response companies. According to Barnes Associates, the leading
independent wholesale alarm monitoring companies grew 19% in 2013, well beyond the market as a whole, and
the highest growth rate we have seen from this niche sector of the business.
March 2014
Security Industry Monitor
23
Physical Security Sector
But Challenges Abound for The Above Predictions
The Security Industry has never been known to do things easy or fast. There are a lot of reasons for this, but the
main reason is an attempt to avoid errors when lives and valuable assets are at stake. In the past the industry was
committed to silo-like, proprietary, analog equipment installed in an almost customized manner by integrators
at the commercial level, and dealer/installers at the residential level. This has mostly (but not completely)
changed with the advent of IP networks, driving down product margins, but building up service margins when
the value proposition could be properly made to someone much higher than a security manager. This has led to
the fast expanding market for managed services business models for Security as a Service (SaaS.)
Another challenge, in the IT world, involves getting large and small end users to finally recognize that password use
is slowly dying, and that “next gen” authentication is critically needed to protect physical assets as well as IT assets.
We believe, based on our continuous checks with the industry channels, that too many manufacturers still do
not do enough work to combine standards that are being developed with partnerships to their channels. True,
this means giving up gross margin (i.e., standards), but it also means a larger market for all and more business for
those that do develop these relationships under standards. Having the “best” product, does not necessarily
mean that your company is collaborating enough externally to provide the best communication and solution to
the integrator—or to the end user. We continue to see companies not willing enough to give up some profit to
standards or to other partners who might add that extra value to put the proposal over the top. In other words,
too many manufacturers still want as much of the 100% of the share of the sale as they can get, when getting
30% or 50% of a similar or much larger sale or larger market may lead to a higher level of service revenue and a
longer, stickier customer life.
Another challenge will be for Video Surveillance as a Service (VSaaS) and other hosted, cloud-based solutions to
prove out solutions to both security and ROI concerns at scale to meet elevated expectations of what VSaaS can
bring to the value proposition, and create higher market share for companies trying to sell a cloud-based
solution, either hosted or premises based.
In residential security, there are a number of challenges that have developed with wireless interactive systems. We
do not believe that the top tier of the residential security companies are at risk of disintermediation by cable and
telecom companies, simply because we believe the market will be expanding rapidly enough to allow for future
growth within the residential security companies. Those price sensitive users who really just want to make their
overall home experience a little easier and who are not generally discriminating consumers will choose a lower
price telecom or cable service provider. We believe the majority of consumers or minority (users who value life
safety, service and response) will want to make sure they receive verified, high quality response, even if it means
paying a higher price.
Cable and telecom companies trying to add homeservices revenues to their existing “triple play” base, may also
face their own challenges. Google has already run very high speed fiber into three cities (Kansas City, Missouri,
Austin, Texas and Provo, Utah), and has targeted several dozen more for 2014. This cannot be good news for a
cable company that depends on its existing base of triple-play users to leverage advertising, lower upfront costs
and lower monthly costs against the incumbent security companies.
Physical Security Sector Security Industry Monitor
March 2014
24
There are already cost challenges to consider as residential moves increasingly toward interactive wireless
systems. It is 20-25% more expensive to install cellular compared to Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS)
systems, although that can be partially offset by less installation time. This can be overcome by simply selling
more apps and getting more recurring monthly revenue (RMR) upfront—not always the easiest thing to do
with Telco and Cable companies advertising at lower prices. This can be overcome by investing in technology
to lower even further the time and the labor involved in installing the new systems. Finally, we are seeing
lower creation cost multiples from residential companies who have very high percentages of their base
already installed with cellular systems.
Commercial/Industrial Sector Review: Key Conferences Discuss the Need for Integrating
Far More Than Security Devices. Reviews of “Securing New Ground” and “The Great
Conversation”
New technologies and secular trends for video products and video management, access control, identity
management, data management, and analytics are only a small part of what is transforming the “physical”
security sector into something more akin to “electronic” security. Indeed, even once prosaic door locks can now
be integrated with sophisticated access control technology and can “talk” with a company’s network. Along with
new standards, technology developments are increasingly driving the proliferation of innovative products and
interactive services. However, while these industry changes have the potential to substantially expand the
addressable market opportunity, they may also be outrunning many companies’ abilities to clearly install,
integrate, and then make the data easily accessible to and understood by the client. The ability to first have a
conversation with company executives, rather than physical security managers, and then to make the steps to
integrate with other corporate services (e.g., IT, human resources) is crucial to generating stickier, long-term,
recurring revenue streams at higher (35%-plus) gross margins over the long term. Bridging this chasm is
becoming critical, particularly given shrinking margins for traditional installations and products.
Securing New Ground: New York, November 3-5, 2013
We participated on a discussion panel regarding the security company valuations, at the 18th annual Securing
New Ground Conference, which was held at the Sheraton New York Times Square Hotel in New York City from
November 5, 2013 through November 6, 2013. Securing New Ground is one of the leading security industry
conferences (now owned and operated by the Security Industry Association, SIA) which includes select Security
industry executives. The key themes driving both commercial and residential security investment were the most
positive we have seen since 2006-2007.
� Themes at Securing New Ground Integral to Success of Security Companies
Based on the conversations we had and the presentations which we attended, we see five key elements which
could be integral for any Security company aiming to increase competitiveness: 1) using multiple services, with
high value content, as a key differentiator; 2) infusion of mobility, SaaS, and other “cloud” solutions within suites
of products and services, especially as it relates to access control, video, monitoring, data analytics for specific
vertical markets, and other key services; 3) becoming an “extension” of the customer and taking the customers
into an “environment” where they can participate in discussing “design” of their own security ecosystem;
4) taking the time to understand what the end user needs and expanding the circle of solutions; and 5) driving
the four previous points to ensure a business conversation with a potential end user at the “C-Level” or
IT-HR-Building Services level, and not at the lower margin security director level.
March 2014
Security Industry Monitor
25
Physical Security Sector
The Great Conversation, Seattle, March 3-4, 2014
The Great Conversation, hosted annually by Aronson Security Group, a Seattle-based, rapidly growing “thought
leader” in the security integration community, is based on the reality that success in the commercial security
installation and integration industry requires a more meaningful conversation at the highest levels of a client’s
organizational chart. The industry has to show to institutional, commercial, and industrial end users that it
contributes to a more efficient, less expensive, and yes—a safer—operation. Security companies that can bridge
the gap from “insurance” and “compliance” cost center to what Microsoft calls a “Trusted Advisor” (or at the very
top of the value chain “Trusted Leader”), can, in our opinion, generate far higher margins and keep their clients
far longer. This is not easy, but we learned a lot about how to approach this at a recent annual conference of
security industry thought leaders, The Great Conversation.
� At the 2014 Great Conversation, we participated in a panel on the “State of the Industry” featuring:
Microsoft’s Senior Director of Technology & Investigations, Brian Tuskin, who oversees the Security
Technology, Investigations, and Communications for the Microsoft Global Security team
� Larry Trittschuh, Executive Director, Threat Management General Electric
� Francis D’Addario, Security Executive Council
All of these participants must deal with a wide range of partners to help ensure their networks, ensure safe travel
for employees, to securing and permitting access to facilities.
The Great Conversation, in our view, focuses not so much on the technology, but on what processes and people
are needed with the IT IQ who can talk to the “C-Suite” and potential clients. A group of security companies that
have adopted IT IQ have become the model for developing an environment where the interoperability of the
company’s “culture” with the end user’s own needs create recognition and high trust with the client. The trust
brings long-lived relationships and the potential for not just higher margins, but significant recurring revenues
(beyond break-fix and maintenance). While we have already observed this in residential, we are starting to see
this in the types of proposals and value propositions within those proposals to make over security into one of
the key business process improvement drivers.
For example, Microsoft has 180,000 employees, 90,000 independent contractors, and 700 facilities. Microsoft will
look at outside partners as those who, starting from the bottom, take care of 1) tactical activities, then 2) subject
matter expertise. Where the company appears to take the next step in terms of partnering comes at a higher
level of strategic thinking and a longer-lived relationship as a 3) “Trusted Advisor,” and finally 4) as a “Trusted
Leader.” This highest level is where we believe the relationship with companies likes Aronson has evolved.
Home Automation Overview
� Who will benefit and who will be challenged by the Google-Nest transaction?
In our January 2014 White Paper, “Home Automation: The Players in Post Google-Nest Environment,” we set out
to explain the implications of Google’s acquisition of Nest Labs for $3.2 billion signaled to us the value of
connecting many services and devices in the home that far exceeds that of the devices and applications. We
asked why Google has stressed that a fully connected home is a cornerstone in the developing IoT.
Physical Security Sector Security Industry Monitor
March 2014
26
� Imperial Capital Estimates on Size of Home Services Market 2013-2020
The SDM Magazine–a trade publication–and Barnes studies (published in February 2014) back up our contention
that a combination of a) better value proposition for end users, even though they pay more monthly, interactive
wireless and verifiable systems, b) the advertising and marketing from cable and telecom companies and
c) general “buzz” created by Google/Nest, new cool do-it-yourself systems in the news has already started to
generate increased awareness and acceptance of the better premises control systems available.
Between 1990 and 2007, penetration of U.S. homes from mainly security (and a few high end home automation
systems), increased from about 5% to nearly 20%. This was due mainly to a dramatic fall in equipment prices and
to the digital switch, which multiplied by a factor of 10x, then 50x the number of accounts that could be serviced
by the same monitoring personnel. The adoption of a business model in the early 90s that entailed the
subsidization of the upfront cost of a system by virtue of the customer signing a longer term service and
monitoring agreement additionally increased adoption rates.
However, since 2008, penetration in the U.S. by security systems has been flat. This is due to the lack of any
improvement in the value proposition of old, POTS-line based security systems, and to some extent, the
recession of 2008-2010.
Companies like Alarm.com and iControl changed this equation with software platforms that allowed a major
technology and functionality step-up. The data seen coming from the leading companies in the security industry, the
increase in marketing and awareness coming from the cable and telecom newcomers to home security, and the “buzz
factor” we mentioned above, back up our contention that the overall penetration of U.S. homes for some form of
wireless interactive home service is going to increase dramatically over the seven years, providing significant growth
for several sectors, and a huge challenge for for smaller, undercapitalized security companies.
As depicted below in Figure 13, Imperial Capital estimates that the market for homeservices, currently mainly
centered around security, is going to broaden in scope and in size over the next seven years. We estimate that
there are currently 25 million homes using some form of home services, nearly all security, including several
hundred thousand home automation systems, and several hundred thousand do-it-yourself (DIY) home
monitoring systems.
If we define home automation more broadly as a wireless connected service within the Security industry, then
our estimate of several hundred thousand home automation services would actually be closer to, and likely
above, 3 million customers.
Within the security, industry the Top 30 SDM residential companies currently represent about 12 million, or
48%, of the 25 million homes with systems. We note that there could also be several hundred thousand
non-monitored and self-monitored DIY systems, many of which may not really be in active use. The remaining
52% of homes use one of thousands of small, local security companies, most of them still selling nearly 100% of
their systems based on hard telephone lines, and focused solely on intrusion.
Over the next seven years we believe that the overall home services industry, meaning using some form of home
services, not necessarily security, will expand to 50 million to 51 million. That is about a 10.5% compound annual
growth rate (CAGR). That includes these changes from today’s $25 million home services “pie”.
March 2014
Security Industry Monitor
27
Physical Security Sector
Cable and telecom companies grew from 1-2% (300,000 systems) to 43% of the market (22-25 million homes).
Admittedly this is a very aggressive number of a larger universe of users than several other consultants have
published (e.g., ABI Research projects, a smaller market in six years than we do(see figure 14) but also a smaller
percentage of the business going purely to cable and telco’s than we do. In addition, this number could be
impacted in many unpredictable ways by the entrance of Google (e.g. the acquisition of Nest Labs and the
emergence of fiber optics capabilities).
Top 30 residential security companies (including Vivint in this category) growing from 11-12 million to
16-17 million homes (4-6% CAGR), with certain companies growing faster, offsetting slower growth by ADT,
which due to its 6.4 million existing subs simply cannot grow net new subscribers that fast in percentage terms.
However, this does not mean that ADT would not make a significant contribution to the growth of the industry,
if they grow at a rate of 2-3%, simple because of their size relative to their direct competitors.
Home automation only and DIY device companies are growing from 500,000 homes to 3 million homes, a
30% CAGR.
The smaller security monitoring companies fell to 8 million from 13 million homes serviced. And in this sector,
we may be too optimistic, depending on the amount of consolidation, competition from new entrants, etc.
Figure 13: Home Services Market 2013—25 Million Homes
Sources: Imperial Capital, LLC.
Figure 14: Home Services Market 2020E—50-51 Million Homes
Sources: Imperial Capital, LLC.
Physical Security Sector Security Industry Monitor
March 2014
28
� The acquisition of Nest by Google signals some positives and some challenges for existing companies
throughout the residential device and services spectrum
In this Security Monitor, we seek to expand on the list of public and private companies who may benefit from
the broadening awareness through marketing, M&A, and technology “step-ups,” coming nearly every year.
We would also refer readers to our deep domain expertise in this sector, including the residential section on
another White Paper, “Securing the Smart Grid” section in our Security Industry Monitor published in August 2011,
as well as our White Paper, “Smart Grid Security Technology and Next Gen Premise Services,”, dated October
2011, to gain a more balanced view of how small and large companies connected with the smart grid are
restructuring their business to serve and protect grid data in an increasingly interconnected, networked—and
hacked—world.
Figure 15: Home Automation Capabilities
Sources: Alarm.com.
Home Services: Who Will Benefit and Who Will Be Challenged by the Google-Nest
Transaction?
Clearest Likely Beneficiaries
In this publication, we focus on the public and private companies who are most likely to benefit from
unavoidable acceleration in connected home services posed by the Google acquisition of Nest. Of the public
companies, we see Control4 as a potential beneficiary in interoperable home services. Echelon, Itron, and to a
lesser extent, Silver Spring Networks (a smaller part of their business) will be “connected home” energy
beneficiaries. Nexia is a DIY home automation system from Ingersoll Rand, which is built around a central control
module, and allows Zigbee-based hook ups with over 200 affiliated devices.
March 2014
Security Industry Monitor
29
Physical Security Sector
Privately held Vivint is creating what we believe could be a new standard in vertically integrated,
subscription-based home automation services (“Vivint SkyControl”), with its own control interface, its own
platform, some of its own devices, and software development kit (SDK)’s for an increasing line-up of app
writers who want to take advantage of the company’s 700,000 subscribers.
Alarm.com and iControl Networks have been and remain from our past publications the best known companies
providing interactive wireless software platforms to the security and cable-telecom industries. However, several
lesser known companies, such as The Essence Group (Israel), SecureNet Technologies, and RSI/Videofied
(France/U.S.), also provide home automation platforms and/or devices that are integral parts of home services
platforms. These companies will bear increased responsibility and increased value as their security and
cable/telco clients ask for more and improved home services applications.
Service Companies That Will Benefit from the Emergence of New Home Automation Platforms
Among the leading security companies in this “would-be beneficiaries” category are ADT Corp. (ADT),
Securitas Direct in Europe (SECUB-SK, debt), Vivint, Ascent Capital Group (ASCMA), and Protection One
(private), and other leading regional alarm companies. We believe that with recent trade publication surveys
predicting 10-14% residential revenue growth for 2014, some of the turmoil and moving around in the real
estate market has calmed down and homeowners observe how they can make their homes more secure and
more in line with their lifestyles.
Among the leading cable, satellite and telecom competitors in the sector are AT&T (T), Comcast/xfinity (CMCSA),
Time Warner Cable (TWC), Cox Communications (private), Rogers Communications (RCI/B), Verizon
Communications (VZ), and DirecTV (DTV). We expect these companies, currently with about 400,000-500,000
home services subscribers, to gain another 20 million new subscribers using some form of home service system
by 2020. One caveat for the cable companies is the emergence of Google as a potential force in disrupting the
“triple play.” Google has laid fiber with very high throughput speeds in three cities so far—Austin, Texas, Provo,
Utah, and Kansas City, Missouri. Google has enumerated 35 more cities where it intends to lay fiber and compete
for Internet services.
In addition, we would include two home device manufactures that have new offerings in the market, but still very
large legacy production they must support: Honeywell (HON) (despite its late, but growing home services platform
business in “Total Connect,”), and Nortek’s (NTK) Linear equipment division, including its acquisition of 2GIG.
We would note that in December 2011, Tyco International acquired Visonic Ltd, an Israeli company that develops
cutting edge IP and cellular electronic security solutions. This includes, a) “PowerMax” connectivity options for
broadband and/or GSM/GPRS communications which enable uninterrupted data transfer (via frequency spread
spectrum technology) in the event of link interference or failure, and b) advanced personal emergency response
equipment and systems that are also used with the “PowerMax” communications technology.
� What are the criteria that we see for beneficiaries and those challenged in this future?
Legacy manufacturers of control components for the home are at risk. We have been noodling around with a
Nest thermostat, as well as a Canary DIY security system for a number of months, and have found that they are
easy to install, easy to use, even friendly in some ways, and provide feedback and future functioning based on
past use patterns. These new devices will surely disintermediate older, harder-to-use home devices, even though
they may function just as well as the newcomers.
Physical Security Sector Security Industry Monitor
March 2014
30
However, there is still a life-safety response, monitoring and service requirements that we see in both police and
medical response that goes beyond current capabilities of friendly, smart products and a trust factor behind the
use of those services with regard to security and medical needs that still makes the internet a very uncertain
place to be. We disagree with media articles and market surveys that overlook the importance of verifiable
professional response for the premises.
With that, we provide our current list of potential beneficiaries and those that are challenged in this environment.
This list is ever evolving, as new products, services and technologies are both introduced and put to sleep.
� Cable and Telco Marketing in Wireless Interactive Homeservices is Creating an “Awareness Wave”
In our opinion, the attitude of the larger residential “RMR” companies was quite upbeat relative to their current
competitive position for wireless interactive lifesafety-fire-personal emergency response services for residential
users. We believe these leading residential alarm companies are not living in an being overly optimistic. News of
personnel moves in the security divisions of cable companies, the recent “unbundling” of lifesafety services from
core home services packages by large cable and telcos from the core of the package to an option, and the
dedicated security industry’s better-than-expected growth (8% as noted in a presentation by the editor of SDM
Magazine) all underscore to use the sustainability of the dedicated business for those largest companies. We
continue to believe the many small, undercapitalized alarm dealers, who make up 80% of the companies (though
less than 25% of the revenues), remain at severe risk to disintermediation by cable and telco competition.
We continue to estimate that dedicated security monitoring companies will garner 6-7 million of the
25-32 million new home systems estimated to be installed over the next 6-7 years.
Home Automation and Energy Control Companies
Companies that provide software and equipment that make it easier for the residential end user to monitor and
control their premises, similar to Nest, will have an easier time convincing investors of their ability to move
rapidly with changes in the market. In particular, we believe technologies that manage home energy
consumption will be in the spotlight.
� Publicly-Held Companies Providing Home Services
In the integrated home, there are already companies pushing easier-to-use technology in smart grid lighting
and electricity, as well as overall home services. Vivint developed its own gateway, platform, and critical devices
(platform will accommodate outside devices) that could potentially generate very high monthly average
revenue per user (ARPU). Control4 systems, sold by a network of integrator/dealers developed the control
architectures and hardware technology that bring smart capabilities to a range of products, from audio-visual
systems to kitchen technology.
� Control4 Corp (CTRL)
The company is the market leader and the first pure play publicly traded home automation company in the U.S.
with a fully integrated offering. Its intent is to deliver an affordable way to control and automate lighting, music,
video, security, and energy, in a single room or throughout the home or business. CTRL has installed more than
135,000 homes and boosts a dealer base of over 3,000 in more than 80 countries. CTRL’s model provides an
advantage over its competitors who typically use an approach that is less customized for the client, and is much
harder to turn into a long-term relationship. A key to Control4’s integration capabilities and its attraction to
March 2014
Security Industry Monitor
31
Physical Security Sector
dealers is its “Simple Device Discovery Protocol” (SDDP) in which leading consumer electronic brands integrate
Control4 SDDP into projectors, Blu-ray players, flat panel TVs, audio/video receivers, and a variety of other wired
and wireless devices.
Dealers add these devices to a Control4 system and the controller automatically recognizes them. If the dealer
chooses to include the device, then the correct driver is automatically added to the project and the device is
installed. The company is, as of now, one of the few outside partners with Nest, due to its integration capabilities,
among other factors. Control4’s stock is up by about 43% since the Google-Nest announcement on January 1, 2014.
Figure 16: Control4 Panel
Sources: centralintegration.net.
Nexia Home Intelligence
Nexia remained with Ingersoll Rand and was not part of the spin-off with Allegion. Nexia’s home automation
offering is based around its “Nexia Bridge,” which services as the home automation controller. It actually looks
like a router and works like one, too. The system uses the Z-Wave communications protocol. It is just a matter of
plugging into a home network, telling it which compatible devices you want it to communicate with over the
wireless network, and then use Nexia's Web site and smartphone app to control them however you see fit. There
are nearly 300 Nexia-compatible devices currently available for purchase form a variety of manufacturers,
including, not surprisingly, Ingersoll Rand and Allegion. This also includes: Schlage locks and cameras, Trane
thermostats, light dimmers, and motion detectors.
The most impressive aspect of the Nexia system is its Website, which functions as a true home automation
power station. The site is very sophisticated, given its simplicity to use and the scope of its capabilities with
hundreds of devices. The devices can all be purchased on the website.
The issue with many users and reviewers of the Nexia Home Intelligence systems is that for what is essentially a
self-monitored DIY system, in addition to the cost of the Nexia Bridge, there is a $10 monthly fee. There is no
independent monitoring option for the system, which we always prefer, and for which there should be a charge.
This is one of the conundrums that nearly all home automation systems, whether truly automated and
integrated like Control4 or via a Z-Wave “router” like Nexia, face. There is a segment of the population who want
a verified security aspect to their system, which they are willing to pay a monthly fee for; however, incorporating
a monthly fee into a system that is essentially sold, is an issue that will continue to appear in the future.
Physical Security Sector Security Industry Monitor
March 2014
32
Digimarc Corporation (DMRC) based in Beaverton, OR, provides media identification and management
solutions to commercial entities and government customers. It develops and patents intellectual property to
differentiate products and technologies, mitigate infringement risk, and develop opportunities for licensing. The
company’s patents relate to various methods for embedding and detecting digital information in video, audio,
images, and printed materials, whether the content is rendered in analog or digital formats. Imperceptible to
human senses, Digimarc’s digital watermarking technology allows users to embed digital information into audio,
images, video and printed materials in a way that is persistent, imperceptible and easily detected by computers
and digital devices.
We are particularly interested in Digimarc’s “Discover” application, where smartphones can instantly see, hear
and engage with all forms of media while connecting users to interactive experiences via a smart phone from
home. Digimarc® Discover uses multiple content identification technologies–digital watermarking for print and
audio plus QR code and barcode detection–to give mobile devices the ability to see, hear and engage with all
forms of media.
How “Discover” works: One points a mobile device at a Digimarc-enabled advertisement, article, package, retail
sign, television or radio commercial to trigger brand-defined mobile experiences. “Discover” offers a new means
of visual and audio search, delivering a broad swath of media experiences and capabilities on the computing
devices we carry with us 24/7–our smartphones.
� Napco Security Technologies
About one year ago, NAPCO Security Technologies, Inc. (NSSC-7), security equipment provider to midsize and
smaller commercial and residential dealers (with about $70 million in revenues), launched iBridge Connected
Home solutions. This SaaS-based system of products enable consumers to remotely control and schedule:
� Security
� Thermostats
� Lighting
� Small appliances
� Motion/occupancy sensing
� Video cameras and recorders
� Door locks
Additionally, text, email and video notifications are sent to users and notify them of any important status
conditions or events. All of this utility is controlled by the consumer using free NAPCO proprietary apps, via a
smartphone, tablet or an internet-connected PC. New activations of the iBridge Connected Home have, from a
small base, grown sequentially 62% and 45% for the three months ended September 30, 2013 and
December 31, 2013, respectively.
� Energy Management Companies
As we have stated in our previously noted publications, smart grid companies including Silver Spring Networks
(SSNI), and private companies such as Sensus and CEIVA Energy are likely to see rising interest in the capabilities
of their technology to communicate into the home, which should start unlocking the potential of smart grid. In
2009, Silver Spring acquired GreenBox Technologies, a home-energy management-and-automation company, in
order to bolster its information software capabilities in the home.
March 2014
Security Industry Monitor
33
Physical Security Sector
NIST seeks increased funding for securing cyber-physical systems in “Smart Homes”
As we noted in our January 2014 white paper, “Home Automation: The Players in Post Google-Nest
Environment,” a new generation of smart systems that network with previously stand-alone devices
(e.g. thermostat, refrigerator, or smart meter) also bring the potential for new cyber attacks.
In newly released details of the agency's budget proposal for the coming year, published on March 17, 2014 by
“Fierce Government,” NIST says it needs $18.8 million to study "cyber-physical systems," with $5 million of that
dedicated to improving their security.
Recent security improvements to purely digital systems haven't been widely adopted in the physical systems
world, for want of perceived threats and because of the degradation in performance things such as default
encryption causes.
NIST says it intends to develop lightweight encryption and trustworthy networking and distributed control
networking protocols that could be implemented on an industrial scale.
Cyber-physical systems "have the potential to change every aspect of life," NIST says, pointing to likely
applications such as the smart electricity grid, intelligent buildings and highway systems studded with sensors
for managing traffic.
In all, NIST is requesting $928.3 million in discretionary spending, $693.7 million for scientific and technical research
and services, $174.5 million for industrial technology services, and $60 million for research facility construction.
Privately Held Companies Best Positioned for Home Automation in the Security Industry
Vivint’s New Home Automation System: Vertically integrated, “Warm & Fuzzy,”—And All its Own
Vivint has been playing it low key lately, and for a good reason—they may be taking home subscription-based home
automation to a new level. The company this year will introduce a new vertically integrated gateway, and what we can
only define as a true home automation system with its own “warm, human” control box, into the cloud. The new Vivint
system (Vivint SkyControl), to be introduced during summer of 2014, will include a cloud-based package that learns
(like NEST) its users preferences and habits, only over an entire menu of sensors and apps. The bundle will include
Voice Over IP (VOIP), geolocation, as well as Siri-like voice interaction, if desired, so that in addition to a menu of
applications there will be greater “human” interaction with the apps as well.
Vivint will still support its 700,000 users on the Alarm.com platform, as well as its 2GiG panel users, but new
systems going forward will include the company’s own platform and controller. By becoming vertically
integrated, a risky move to some, yet opening up its system enough to provide SDK’s to developers, the
company hopes to create its own ecosystem and better control its own appearance and relationship with end
users. Vivint executives believe there is real value in designing a system from the sensor on up to the cloud. They
believe they will now have the flexibility to move into other premises functions beyond “home automation”
which could bring the company “closer” to its customers, further increase their base and the stickiness of the
base. The platform is scalable to millions of customers.
As we see it, the new Vivint systems will have unusual intelligence in being able to understand patterns of
occupancy, patterns of heating and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) use, via its own analytics.
The system will include its own digital video recorder (DVR) in the panel, and the panel will include some of the
anti-“smash & crash” prevention software that has made Alarm.com so desirable.
Physical Security Sector Security Industry Monitor
March 2014
34
Figure 17: Vivint Panel
Sources: Vivint, Inc.
Independent Homeservices Platform Leaders
Several companies provide the communications and functionality for interactive wireless solutions to both the
dedicated security monitoring industry as well as to cable and telecom companies. The most prominent of these
are Alarm.com, iControl Networks, and the Essence Group. These companies’ value to their end users
(monitoring companies to cable/telco’s) will only increase as their clients clamor to add more services and a
better value proposition.
� Alarm.com
Alarm.com, based in Vienna, VA, virtually created interactive wireless security and continue to impress with some
of the most advanced, first to market solutions. While security companies can debate how much value, relative
to the monitoring function itself, Alarm.com deserves out of each payment that providers receive from their
customers, there is no doubt many would not be in business today were it not for Alarm.com. As the value
proposition of connected devices in the home changes rapidly, security companies need a partner that can
move as fast as or faster than the market. Alarm.com’s litany of wireless services includes interactive security,
video monitoring, energy management, and home automation through a connected platform and accessed
through easy to use mobile apps.
Alarm.com is already well ensconced in connecting devices in what Google and others define as the IoT space.
The company effectively creates subscribers to the IoT space through its relationships with security companies
to the extent that we do not know of very many companies anywhere that help create the types of
interconnected clients that Google talks about with Nest. Alarm.com is not tied to, nor locked out of the DIY
market, so that if Canary Security (or Apple for that matter) needs to at least offer the option of enhanced
monitoring services to its young, hip users, it has a company in Alarm.com with the software to provide that.
March 2014
Security Industry Monitor
35
Physical Security Sector
� iControl Networks
iControl, is similar in some ways to Alarm.com, but with some stark differences (the proprietary panel, the
communications protocols, the customer interface, and the client base of mainly cable and telecom companies,
along with ADT). The current formation of the company was created out of the merger of uControl, a primarily
ZigBee based home automation communication platform, with iControl (Z-wave). The company offers a wide
range of services in interactive home security (including remote video, touch screen, web/mobile access,
email/text alerts), energy management (smart meter demand response, real time monitoring, energy efficiency),
home health care (activity monitoring, heart rate, blood pressure, emergency aids, and medication schedules),
and other related offerings.
In November 2013, iControl introduced in Europe “iControl Touchstone,” a self-installable, self-managed, and
self-monitored smart home solution, for resale by broadband service providers.
� The Essence Group
Established in 1994, privately held Essence Group (based in Herzliya, Israel), is a leading provider of
wireless-based systems for residential & business applications with over 12 million devices deployed globally.
The company has its greatest strength in Europe, and includes being a key platform and device provider for the
“Verisure” system of Securitas Direct, the leading residential security services company in Europe. Essence also
provides systems to Gulfstream Security, the largest privatized security monitoring company in Russia. A close
Israeli competitor to Essence historically, particularly in its device and communications technologies has been
Visonic, now a subsidiary of Tyco International.
The Essence portfolio provides tools to access various market fields, among them:
� Security Monitoring
� Home & Family Monitoring
� Healthcare Monitoring
� Home Energy Management (HEM)
Similar to Alarm.com, iControl offers a long menu of services up to its dealer and multiple-system operator
(MSO) clients. A difference between Essence and iControl, and Alarm.com, apart from communication protocols,
and with whom they go to market, is that both Essence and iControl manufacture devices (from panels to
sensors) for their clients, while Alarm.com is primarily a software company and is currently hardware agnostic.
Other Selected Home Service Providers
� RSI/Videofied
RSI, based out of Strasbourg, France, has been specializing in wireless video applications for 20 years and has
over one million installations of its products. For the last eight years, our focus of interest in this company has
been its Videofied offering in the U.S., based in suburban Minneapolis, Minnesota. Videofied is a complete video
alarm system that sends a short video clip with the alarm notification to the central station for immediate review.
Videofied links the video with the central station, DIY self-surveillance does not. A monitored video alarm
delivers quicker police dispatch. Videofied includes an interactive smartphone app that provides remote
arming/disarming and Look-in request.
Physical Security Sector Security Industry Monitor
March 2014
36
Videofied panels always transmit to a professionally staffed 24-hour monitoring center to provide customers
with full-time security, not self-protected security without any response. Customers are notified only when
human activity has been confirmed and not on non-emergency.
� SecureNet Technologies
SecureNet, based in central Florida, has been successful in combining life-safety security intrusion monitoring
with many levels of video from very simple to high-end, and for both home and business at a reasonable cost.
The company’s best home surveillance systems feature a DVRfeature, so one can save surveillance footage
(highly unusual for this price level) which can serve as a deterrent and make it easier to identify and prosecute a
suspect. For small-and-medium businesses, SecureNet also integrates specialty cameras, such as infrared, all
types of monitors, including liquid crystal display (LCD), flat panel, and touch-screen, which can be viewed on a
web browser at home, to SecureNet’s professional monitoring station.
Security Dealer Revenues Accelerate for First Time since 2008
There is a great deal of scrutiny focused on subscriber growth and RMR/revenue growth in the monitored
security industry. Much of this can be attributed to articles, analyst reports, and public relations announcements
from cable and telco companies, that this is where the threat of disintermediation for security, fire and personal
emergency response will begin. Almost nowhere do we see such articles and analyst reports on the quality of
training, systems, and 10-30 second response in the monitoring station by “five diamond” and UL-certified
personnel and systems that save people’s lives (and create very loyal and long customer lives).
After five years of essentially flat revenues for the entire channel, both commercial and residential, along with no
increase in U.S. homeowner penetration by the residential channel in particular, it was a relatively easy
conclusion to make from the outside that future growth in the sector will be generated by the larger cable and
telco providers, as well as “new age” self-monitored devices, like the much strongly promoted Canary Security
offering. Investors or reporters outside the security industry may not realize that an RSI/Videofied unit can do
just about anything that a Canary unit can do, except that it is also used for verifying images and sensor trips for
the monitoring station and the police, not just for observation by the end user on a smart phone.
The Security dealer channel actually exceeded internal industry expectations for just one or two percent revenue
growth in 2013, with the SDM Subscriber Market Forecast Study showing 9.9% growth for respondents for 2013
to about $47.9 billion.
Total dealer industry channel revenue is defined as total revenue from the sale, lease, installation, service and
monitoring of security systems. It includes both commercial and residential revenues. (Under a new SDM
methodology, 2013 is going being reclassified at $59.9 billion). The forecast for 2014 is for 12% increase in
industry revenues to $67.1 billion.
In 2013 about:
� 51% of industry revenues were related to commercial activities
� 31% of revenues were residential
� 18% divided among various services and maintenance (not specified)
March 2014
Security Industry Monitor
37
Physical Security Sector
It is not surprising that in the commercial security monitoring area, the SDM subscriber base expects the
Educational Institutional area as its greatest rate of revenue growth in 2014, moving from 11% in 2013 to 21% in
2014, far outpacing Commercial office space which falls from 26% to 16%.
In the residential security market, even though 47% (consistent with previous years) believe that “middle
income” home will be the largest market, it is noteworthy that “new construction” showed the greatest
movement, either way with 18%, expecting it to be the largest market, compared with 13% a year ago,
according to the 2014 SDM Magazine survey of security executives.
The SDM Forecast Study attributes part of the new-found growth to the amount of advertising and marketing
being done by newer entrants, such as Comcast and AT&T.
� Barnes Associates Survey Results
The Barnes Associates Survey, presented at the Barnes Buchanan Conference in February 2014, came up with
slightly different industry numbers, though they were based on some of the information generated by SDM. We
would note that the estimate of the size of the un-surveyed companies by Barnes was 49% of the market, which
he estimated to be growing at 9%.
According to Barnes, total security industry revenues of surveyed companies rose 5% year over year to
$45.8 billion (the un-surveyed companies rose an estimated 9%).
� The SDM 100 (top 100 companies) grew 7%, as larger companies were able to increase wireless
interactive service revenues faster
� Monitoring & service revenue up 9% to $21.2 billion. Monitoring & service rose to 46.3%, of total revenue
from 44.5% in 2012.
� Sales and installation grew 2% to $24.5 billion in 2013, the first increase since 2008.
� Independent (“wholesale”) monitoring services grew 19%, helped by contracts from personal emergency
response companies and telco and cable companies (source: Security Systems News and CSAA Contract
Monitoring Council).
Non-monitoring services as a percentage of total RMR, down 10pb year over year, as monitoring pricing
increases margin on monitoring & service, down 6bp to 54.1%, the result of a surge in cellular hookups, which
currently carry lower margins, as well as new video, personal emergency response, new cloud and managed
services, are all added to what had been a simple mix of basic monitoring and service agreements.
The current size of the all-combined telco and cable accounts is estimated by Barnes to be about
400,000-500,000 accounts, and an estimated $8-20 million of RMR. Based on this data, the market percentage is
something between 1-2%. Most of those gains have come from existing cable/telco customers, and from small,
POTS-line based local security companies.
The cable and telco’s end of year rate gross additions are estimated to be about 15,000-30,000 accounts per
month, which would add about $600,000-$1.2 million of RMR per month.
The gross attrition rate decreased 10bp to 11.8%, but this number is deceptive. Although the top 10 providers with
national or super-regional basis (some not in the Barnes survey) all increased due to an increase in movers, the
movers constitute 45% of gross attrition, up from 43% in 2012, while financial reasons dropped to 28% from 31% as
the reason for attrition. This shift to “movers” in attrition is unprecedented, and highly unlikely to be sustained.
Physical Security Sector Security Industry Monitor
March 2014
38
The 2013 creation multiple rose to 29.2% from 28.5%, mainly due to the increase in more costly interactive
cellular systems. It was noted that the creation multiple had stopped going up for a select group of companies
whose percentage of accounts using wireless interactive accounts had surpassed 60-70%.
The net internal RMR growth rate rose to 9% in 2013 from 8% growth in 2012.
Figure 18: 2013 Transaction RMR Multiples for Companies in the Above RMR Ranges
Sources: Imperial Capital, LLC.
Historical Trading Range Based on Steady State Cash Flow
Engaging in the “good fight” for metrics that properly describe the efficacy and value of a residential alarm
monitoring company trading in the public markets has not been easy. In our previous discussions, we have
described key performance indicators (KPIs) that have been used over the last 15 years by senior lenders and
private equity firms to value security services companies built around recurring revenue. While there are serious
“real world” and “forward growth” flaws in using only steady state net operating cash flow (SSNOCF) as the only
metric in judging the value of a public or private alarm monitoring company, many believe it is one of the best
indicators of quality and margin in a security monitoring company’s primary business: monitoring and service.
We also use three key performance metrics against the peer group, and EV/RMR as a “sanity check”. The quality
of the monitoring and service business is usually a good indicator of how the rest of the company—the creation
side—pans out.
After years of education and use by lenders and private equity firms, operating executives as well as private
equity financial owners have turned to SSNOCF, along with IRRs (levered and unlevered), as the best predictable
measure of a company’s valuation, and relegating the older metrics, such as simple RMR, or the very unreliable
EBITDA variants to secondary status. There simply is a much tighter bell curve for SSNOCF valuations for quality
transactions, indicating that buyers and their advisors are now solving for that metric first. This is underlined by
the fact that senior lenders generally look at the recurring monitoring revenue as an asset (not as simple cash
flow), and are willing to lend against that asset.
For example, while RMR valuations for selected transactions from 2003-2012 have ranged from 25-70x, and
EBITDA valuations for these transactions have also been spread out 6.3–13.5x, SSNOCF values for the same
transactions have typically remained in a much tighter 10–14x valuation range. In addition, private equity buyers
have guided toward a mid-teens hurdle rate for unlevered IRRs in their investment considerations for these
recurring revenue security companies.
Less than $50,000 35.1x $50K-$100K 38.4x $100K-$500K 39.7x Over $500,000 47.1x
March 2014
Security Industry Monitor
39
Physical Security Sector
The Emergence of Smart Locks (Part II)
(See Part 1 in our September 2013 Monitor)
Mobile Security and School Tragedies Driving Growth in Commercial/Institutional Wireless Locks that Connect to
Network and Access Control
In our September 2013 Security Monitor, we profiled Assa Abloy’s Hi-O, Aperio, and Seos wireless systems. In this
edition, we profile Allegion’s “aptiQ” two-way interactive system for connecting cards, readers and locking devices.
The locking and access business is misleadingly perceived as a very sleepy, but steady business made up almost
entirely of mechanical and sometimes electro-mechanical locks. This business is changing rapidly and Imperial
Capital estimates (see our September 2013 Security Monitor) that electro-mechanical, electronic and wireless
access and locking devices will take over 50% of new sales by 2016. Allegion is at the forefront of this technology
change. Perhaps the most underrated area of growth in security that we have seen at security trade shows and
seminars in 2013 has been what we consider to be the replacement of legacy mechanical and
electro-mechanical locks, and the movement toward networked locks that can allow encrypted card access,
allow privileges inside, can be shut down for emergencies almost immediately, and which can provide the
overused phrase to “actionable intelligence” to those who are in charge of a premises, not just the security
personnel. At the heart of these new smart, electronic locking systems, is a short distance encrypted wireless
communication protocol linked to an online electronic access control system, such as Assa Abloy’s HID Global, or
Tyco’s Software House. In many cases, these locks look almost identical to the commercial/industrial locks they
are replacing, and again, in many case, may be the very same brand.
We believe that the market for “smart locks” that are either wireless or hardwired to an enterprise’s or
institution’s network will be able to increase overall organic growth in the lock area by 1-2% over the next two
years, through both remodeling of existing facilities, and/or new construction. These functions range with
working with the access control system, including smart cards and prospectively, NFC and low blue
tooth-enabled phones to assist with premises entry, permissions within the building, and internal access, once
the permissions level of the authentication are encoded into the card or key. Access and permission levels can
be remotely given and revoked, and remotely changed via the system. One of the hurdles that wireless locks
have had to overcome is the conservation of battery power, and making the locks smarter to “wake up” instantly,
but only when signaled. This has been a big industry move ahead.
It is critical to be able to “wake up” an electronic lock to do something (lock or unlock) in a very short period of
time. Ingersoll Rand, which is spinning off its $2 billion Security business, Allegion PLC, includes the well-known
Schlage brand of locks and other access control products. Allegion’s and Schlage’s single biggest growth area
and its biggest single market for interactive, wireless locks is in the educational institution market, currently
nearly a third of Allegion sales.
Allegion’s “aptiQ” (pronounced: ap-teeck) contactless smart card credentials provide a two–way dialog between
the card and reader instead of just reading a proximity card serial number. The cards are used in conjunction
with an entire ecosystem of Allegion and partner products, which provide on-line, real time lock controls that
can be changed or upgraded without replacing the entire lock—as we were shown at the show.
Other brands in the Allegion portfolio include most notably Von Duprin, CISA, LCN, Von Duprin, Interflex, Briton,
Bricard, BOCOM Systems, Dexter, Kryptonite, Falcon, and Fusion Hardware Group.
Physical Security Sector Security Industry Monitor
March 2014
40
aptiQ: Allegion’s Platform for Connecting Wireless Systems
aptiQ is a group of Allegion technologies (mainly readers right now) built around a short-distance, wireless
communication protocol, designed to link with an online electronic access system with apitQ-enabled locks and
devices. aptiQ allows for online access control and management, increasing both security and controllability.
aptiQ is able to integrate with most wireless units and systems, regardless of the manufacturer, because it has
been developed around an open standard. Each of these readers handle all applicable ISO standards (14443A,
14443B, 15693), are FIPS 201-1 compliant (for government agency and GSA listing) and are versatile enough to
read 125 kHZ proximity and 13.56 MHz contactless smart cards. They are not yet FIPS 2011-2 compliant, which is
the latest standard in government access control technology, but we expect them to be soon.
The aptiQ Alliance Program is a group of leading companies coming together in tandem with Allegion to create
an ecosystem of applications that support aptiQ smart card technology. The Alliance consists of global
companies that are using an open architecture smart card technology which extends the use of an access
control card or near field communications (NFC) enabled smart phone credential to an increasing number of
applications. These global companies’ end users will learn how they can better leverage smart credentials to
build out an increasing number of solutions available to them.
Such partners as Matrix Systems (a leading physical access control provider), Access Smart (cyber
authentication and network access), Gemalto (leading dual technology credentials), BadgePass (badge
printing and smart cards), CBORD (cashless payment), Heartland Campus Solutions (one of many college
campus providers using aptiQ cashless payment), Mobile Security Solutions, Nedap (RFID and long-range ID),
TagMaster (standards-based long-range identification), XID (biometric facial readers), all create an ecosystem
of adjacent solutions. While just a small slice of the aptiQ Alliance, all these companies provide vertical market
product suites or manufacture ancillary products that can be bundled as part of an overall smart solution.
aptiQ field devices report to a wireless receiver, called a hub. The hub is mounted in the ceiling or on the wall,
and handles all control functions for the door.
aptiQ appears to be the major platform for Allegion to migrate its installed base from wired to networked and
wireless. The technology is fully compatible with RFID and other contactless credential technologies, so, in most
cases, there is no need to change a user’s credentials–the user can just use an existing card. Doors and locking
systems do not need to be changed out, only upgraded with aptiQ-enabled products.
For example, the aptiQ multi-technology reader, which reads both proximity and smart credentials, now also
reads magnetic stripe cards to provide users with a simple migration path to increased credential security levels,
including various forms of proximity contactless card industry standards (MIFARE Classic, and MIFARE DESFire
EV1, which opens up global standards for both air interface and cryptographic methods). The readers are also
Near Field Communications.
March 2014
Security Industry Monitor
41
Physical Security Sector
Allegion plc Settles into Life as An Independent Public Company
Allegion plc, formerly a business within the Ingersoll Rand Security Technologies Group, was spun-out as a
public company in December 2013. As part of the locking, access control industry, and with a presence in the
Identity Solutions market, Allegion competes in multiple product areas.
Allegion is a market leader in door exit devices in North America, where it competes with Stanley Black & Decker,
Assa Abloy, Spectrum Brands, Fortune Brands, and DORMA. In Germany, where Allegion has the second largest
market share in the workforce management category, KABA Holding and Primion are the main competitors.
Within systems integration video analytics in Asia, where Allegion has the third largest market share, it competes
with CSST and China Telecom.
U.S. Lock Market
Within the U.S. lock market, Assa Abloy and Allegion hold the number one and number two market shares,
respectively. Between these two competitors, Allegion has the higher operating margins. Allegion also faces less
competitive pressure within the door openers and closers business. Stanley Black & Decker and Assa Abloy have
stronger competitive positions in doors than does Allegion, which has developed a patented geometrically
flexible (in its locking points) door, where fixed points are no longer needed, a significant advantage for
servicing doors even after years of building and door entrance shift. Allegion expects that its most intense
competition will be in locks.
Within Europe, where Allegion competes with Assa Abloy and Kaba Holding, Allegion’s position based on
revenue from its security products is ranked first in Italy, second in France, and third in the U.K. In Europe, where
Allegion’s operating margins are very low, improving under-absorbed capacity, competing in geographic
sectors where it can win, acquisitions, rationalization in weak areas, and changing a culture to where the brands
cooperate more on “Allegion” projects are all important milestones for the company.
Allegion is growing its acquisition pipeline and management has already completed two small transactions and
future acquisitions will be logical bolt-ons, including locks, exits, closers, and doors.
Physical Security Sector Security Industry Monitor
March 2014
42
M&A Review and Outlook
� M&A activity in the Physical Security Product sector was relatively strong during the second half of
2013. With both Physical Security Service and Products sector experiencing year over year rebounds.
With the convergence of IT and Physical Security and the intersection of defense and security continuing to drive
value in the Physical Security sector, deal volume trended upward through 2011. The M&A activity in 2012
moderated in the physical security sector, which corresponds to the overall slowdown in M&A activity resulting
from the European Credit Crisis and the Fiscal Cliff in the U.S. The first half of 2013 saw slow M&A activity
because the valuations went up, but buyers became much more active in the second portion of the year.
Figure 19: M&A Transactions in the Physical Security Sector,
Fourth Quarter 2010 to Fourth Quarter 2013
Sources: Imperial Capital, LLC and Capital IQ.
Notable Middle Market Transactions
The market for M&As in the fourth quarter of 2013 was again strong like the preceding quarter and year
over period.
� ADT announced the acquisition of Devcon Security Services, Corp.
On July 30, 2013, The ADT Corporation entered into a definitive agreement to acquire Devcon Security Systems
from Golden Gate Capital for approximately $150 million in cash. The deal was completed on August 2, 2013 and
gave Decon Security Services, Corp. an implied enterprise value of $148.5 million.
Imperial Capital acted as the financial advisor for Devcon on the deal.
� Securadyne Systems, LLC agreed to acquire Advanced Control Concepts, Inc.
On September 4, 2013, Securadyne Systems announced the acquisition of Advanced Control Concepts, an
integration firm that offers managed electronic security solutions with risk mitigation and business process
improvement services. Details of the transaction have not yet been disclosed.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Q4 2010 Q1 2011 Q2 2011 Q3 2011 Q4 2011 Q1 2012 Q2 2012 Q3 2012 Q4 2012 Q1 2013 Q2 2013 Q3 2013 Q4 2013
Physical Security Services Physical Security Products
March 2014
Security Industry Monitor
43
Physical Security Sector
� Assurant Specialty Property acquired Field Asset Services
On September 30, 2013 Assurant, Inc acquired Field Asset Services, a provider of property preservation and REO
asset management services for $55 million.
� Assa Abloy agreed to buy U.S. fence maker Ameristar Fence
On October 1, 2013 Assa Abloy, the Swedish company that is the world's biggest lock maker by sales, agreed to
buy Ameristar Fence for an undisclosed amount.
� Securitas AB bought South African companies Rentsec and Vamsa for $9 million
On October 21, 2013, Securitas AB announced that it acquired the security solutions companies Rentsec and
Vamsa in South Africa. The two companies, having the same owners, work closely together focusing on remote
video surveillance as well as a range of advanced security technology applications specifically suited for the
South African and the regional market.
� Atkins agreed to acquire US based nuclear business Nuclear Safety Associates
On November 19, 2013, WS Atkins plc announced it acquired the 130 person engineering and technical services
firm, Nuclear Safety Associates. The target focuses on nuclear safety, design engineering, and professional
security services.
� Kastle Systems International bought business segments from The ADT Corp.
On November 22, 2013, Kastle Systems International added 4,000 customer sites and a new, highly specialized
UL-listed Five Diamond central station in New York City with the November 21, 2013 acquisition of Mutual
Central Alarm Services and Stat-Land Security Systems from ADT.
Imperial Capital acted as the financial advisor to ADT on the deal.
� Convergint Technologies announced it bought Acme Future Security Controls
On December 9, 2013 Convergint Technologies, a systems integrator backed by KRG Capital Partners, said it acquired
Acme Future Security Controls Inc., a provider of physical security systems and services in Eastern Canada.
� InnovAntennas acquired Force 12 on December 30, 2013
On December 30, 2013 InnovAntennas acquired the legendary Force 12 antenna company and product line and
has moved the Force 12 factory from Bridgeport, Texas, to Grand Junction, Colorado.
� Universal Protection Service Acquired International Security Management Group, Inc.
On February 11, 2014, Universal Protection Service, a division of Universal Services of America and one of the
largest providers of security services in the U.S. announced it acquired International Security Management
Group, a risk management and physical security services company in the US.
Physical Security Sector Security Industry Monitor
March 2014
44
� Barrette Outdoor Living Acquired Alumi-Guard Inc. on February 12, 2014
On February 12, 2014 Barrette Outdoor Living, Inc. (BOL) announced the acquisition of Alumi-Guard, Inc., a
leading manufacturer in the aluminum fence and rail industry.
� Carlyle agreed to buy Tyco South Korea unit for $1.93 billion
On March 3, 2014 Carlyle (CG) Group LP agreed to buy Tyco International Ltd. (TYC)’s fire and security business
in South Korea for $1.93 billion, the country’s largest private equity buyout deal in U.S. dollar value in more
than five years.
Registered Direct and Private Placement Snapshot
The market for private placements significantly strengthened in the fourth quarter of 2013, compared to
the fourth quarter of 2012.
� Offsite Vision Holdings raised $10 million in private placement of convertible notes
On October 6, 2013, Offsite Vision Holdings, Inc., provider of remote video surveillance solutions for commercial
and residential customers announced that it will receive $10,000,000 through the issuance of convertible debt
securities along with option, warrant or other right to acquire another security.
� Guardian 8 Holdings raised $2 million in equity capital
On November 21, 2013 Guardian 8 Holdings announced the final closing on a $1,984,500 private placement of
its securities.
� Micro Technologies (India) Ltd. raised $40.35 million
On December 27, 2013 Micro Technologies (India) Limited, which develops and markets transformational security
devices, services and technologies in India and internationally, raised $40.35 million in a private placement.
� Northeast Automotive Holdings placed $2 million in equity securities for acquisition financing
On December 31, 2013 Northeast Automotive Holdings sold an aggregate of 7,142,857 newly issued shares of
common stock at $0.28 per share, for aggregate gross proceeds of approximately $2.0 million.
Public and 144A Debt and Equity Offering Snapshot
The Physical Security sector experienced an increase in the fourth quarter of 2013 from the fourth quarter of 2012.
� Control4 Corporation completed its IPO on August 1, 2013
Control4 Corporation, provider of automation and control solutions for the connected home, completed its IPO
on August 1, 2013, raising $64 million. Control4 Corporation intends to use a portion of the net proceeds to pay
off the remaining amounts owed under a litigation settlement agreement.
March 2014
Security Industry Monitor
45
Physical Security Sector
� Monitronics International, Inc refinanced existing senior notes with $175 million of unregistered
9.125% Senior Secured Notes
On November 4, 2013, Monitorinics International, provider of security alarm monitoring and related services
to residential and business subscribers in the United States and parts of Canada offered to exchange up to
$175 million of registered 9.125% Senior Notes due 2020 for a like principal amount of unregistered
9.125% Senior Notes due 2020.
� Stanely Black & Decker, Inc. offered $400 million Fixed-to-Floating Rate Junior Subordinated Debentures
due 2053 concurrently with 3 million equity units
On November 25, 2013, Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. provider of power and hand tools, mechanical access solutions,
and electronic security and monitoring systems for various industrial applications offered $400 million aggregate
principal amount of a new series of fixed-to-floating rate junior subordinated debentures due 2053. Stanley
concurrently offered 3,000,000 Equity Units. The Company expects the Equity Units will initially consist of $300 million
aggregate principal amount of junior subordinated notes due 2018 and contracts obligating the investors to
purchase, for an aggregate of $300 million, shares of common stock. The Company intends to use the net proceeds
from the offering for general corporate purposes, including repayment of short term borrowings.
� Securitas AB issued $473 million 2.625% notes due 2021
On November 15, 2013 Securitas AB, provider of security services in North America, Europe, Latin America, the
Middle East, Asia, and Africa, issued 350 million euro notes yielding 2.625% due 2021.
Bankruptcies
There were three physical security bankruptcy in the second half of 2013.
� IPC International filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
On August 9, 2013, IPC International Corporation, provider of security services for people and facilities filed for
Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
� Kranem Corporation filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
On November 11, 2013, Kranem Corporation, provider of digital security, data analytics, visualization, and
surveillance solutions for law enforcement, homeland security, and intelligence markets worldwide, filed for
Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
� Evergreen Defense & Security services filed petition to liquidate under Chapter 7 Bankruptcy code
On December 31, 2013, Evergreen Defense & Security Services, Inc., a private military contractor that offers
defense and security services to government, military, and NGOs filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy.
Physical Security Sector Security Industry Monitor
March 2014
46
Notable Transactions
Figure 20: Select M&A Transactions in the Physical Security Sector, Second Half of 2013 and YTD 2014
Sources: Capital IQ and Imperial Capital, LLC.
Announced
/ Filing
Date
Closed Date Target Business Description Buyer
Target
Implied TEV
($mm)
TEV /
Revenue
TEV /
EBITDA
3/2/2014 NATyco Fire & Security Services
Korea Co., Ltd.
Tyco Fire & Security Services Korea Co., Ltd., through its
subsidiaries, provides security solutions in Korea.The Carlyle Group LP $2,388.6 3.5x 17.5x
2/12/2014 02/12/2014 Alumi-Guard, Inc.Alumi-Guard, Inc. engages in the design and manufacture of pow der
coated aluminum fences, matching gates, and arbors.
Barrette Outdoor Living,
Inc.NA NA NA
2/11/2014 02/11/2014International Security
Management Group, Inc.
International Security Management Group, Inc. provides security and
risk management services to companies, corporations, and properties
in the United States.
Universal Services of
America, Inc.NA NA NA
12/30/2013 12/30/2013 Force 12 IncForce 12 Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets antennas for
amateur, commercial, military, and security markets.InnovAntennas Limited NA NA NA
12/9/2013 12/09/2013Acme Future Security Controls
Inc.
Acme Future Security Controls Inc. provides security management
solutions.
Convergint Technologies
LLCNA NA NA
11/21/2013 11/21/2013
Mutual Central Alarm Services
and Stat-Land Security
Systems
Mutual Central Alarm Services and Stat-Land Security Systems
designs commercial intrusion, fire, video, and access control systems
for f inancial service, jew elers and retail stores in the New York City
area.
Kastle Systems
International, LLCNA NA NA
11/19/2013 NANuclear Safety Associates,
Inc.
Nuclear Safety Associates, Inc. provides safety, security, and
engineering services to the nuclear markets.WS Atkins plc NA NA NA
10/21/2013 10/21/2013
Rentsec Equipment (Pty) Ltd
and Video Alarming Monitoring
SA
Rentsec Equipment (Pty) Ltd and Video Alarming Monitoring SA
represent the combined operations of Rentsec Equipment (Pty) Ltd
and Video Alarming Monitoring SA in their sale to Securitas AB.
Securitas AB NA NA NA
10/1/2013 NAAmeristar Fence Products,
Inc.
Ameristar Fence Products, Inc. manufactures ornamental and
decorative metal fences and gates.Assa Abloy AB NA NA NA
9/30/2013 09/30/2013 Field Asset Services, Inc.Field Asset Services, Inc. provides property preservation and REO
asset management services.Assurant Inc. $55.0 NA NA
09/04/2013 09/04/2013Advanced Control Concepts
Inc.
Advanced Control Concepts is an integration f irm based in Pensacola,
FL that offers managed electronic security solutions w ith risk
mitigation and business process improvement services.
Securadyne Systems,
LLCNA NA NA
8/29/2013 08/29/2013The Budd Group, Inc., Security
Division
As of August 29, 2013, Security Division of The Budd Group, Inc.
w as acquired by Universal Services of America, Inc. Security
Division of The Budd Group, Inc. provides guard and security
services.
Universal Services of
America, Inc.NA NA NA
08/28/2013 08/28/2013 X7X7 is a Washington DC-based systems integrator that provides
comprehensive security management systems.SDI NA NA NA
08/23/2013 08/23/2013Shenzhen Probuck
Technolgies Co. Ltd.
Shenzhen Produck Technologies Co. Ltd. specializes in electronic
door lock soltions w ith biometric identif ication, based on ow n
f ingerprint technology, as w ell as time and attenance terminals
Kaba Group NA NA NA
8/20/2013 08/20/2013 Industry Retail Group, Inc.
Industry Retail Group, Inc. provides broadband-based applications
and services to largest apparel and specialty stores, quick-serve
restaurants, seasonal and pop-up stores, insurance companies, real
estate f irms, medical facilities, and other franchises in the United
States.
Vector Security, Inc. NA NA NA
8/20/2013 08/20/2013 VisibleRisk Inc.
As of August 20, 2013, VisibleRisk Inc. w as acquired by Click
Security, Inc. VisibleRisk Inc., an information security analytics
company, provides solutions to support enterprise visibility and
advanced security analytics efforts.
Click Security, Inc. NA NA NA
8/20/2013 08/20/2013 Sentinel Security Systems
As of August 20, 2013, Sentinel Security Systems w as acquired by
American Alarm & Communications, Inc. Sentinel Security Systems
provides security services to homes and businesses.
American Alarm &
Communications, Inc.NA NA NA
8/14/2013 Announced
Agero, Inc., Connected
Vehicle Services Division
(nka:Sirius XM Connected
Vehicle Services Inc.)
Sirius XM Connected Vehicle Services Inc. provides telematics
services.
SIRIUS XM Radio Inc.
(nka:Sirius XM Holdings
Inc.)
$525.4 NA NA
8/12/2013 08/12/2013
DigitalOptics Corporation East,
Certain Micro-Optics Business
Assets in Charlotte
Tessera Technologies Inc., Micro-Optics Business Based in Charlotte,
North Carolina produces and markets diffractive optical elements,
refractive optical elements, and integrated micro-optic sub-
assemblies.
FLIR Systems, Inc. NA NA NA
7/30/2013 08/02/2013Devcon Security Services,
Corp.Devcon Security Services, Crop. The ADT Corporation $148.5 NA NA
7/18/2013 07/18/2013Johnson Controls Inc.,
HomeLink Product Line
As of September 27, 2013, HomeLink Product Line of Johnson
Controls Inc. w as acquired by Gentex Corp. Johnson Controls Inc.,
HomeLink Product Line comprises a a vehicle-based radio-frequency
device that communicates w ith other radio-frequency devices
including garage door openers, estate gates, and home lighting.
Gentex Corp. $700.0 NA NA
7/10/2013 08/16/2013 Security Netw orks, LLC
Security Netw orks, LLC, a life safety solutions company, engages in
the sale, installation, maintenance, and monitoring of commercial and
residential burglar alarms, f ire alarms, medical alerts, access
controls, and CCTV systems.
Monitronics International,
Inc.$740.2 8.1x NA
March 2014
Executive Summary
47
Consumer Industry Monitor
Section III
Identity Solutions Sector
Security Industry MonitorInformation Security Sector
March 2014
48
[This page intentionally left blank.]
March 2014
49
Security Industry Monitor
Identity Solutions Sector
Identity Solutions Sector
Sector Outlook and Commentary
Industry Size: Fingerprint Continues to Lead as the Technology Improves
Biometrics has been covered in nearly every Security Monitor published. Most of what we have written about
involved lumpy government purchases of expensive Live-Scan equipment and growing international
acceptance for security, voting, and empowering “off-the-grid” citizenry. However, in the U.S., based on our
observations, there has mostly been frustration with the pace of adoption relative to the potential of the
technology—particularly in a commercial environment with a strong demand for biometrics, but which has also
had to deal with ROI and efficacy shortcomings. Each year, we interview integrators and potential end users
about the technology, and for the first time, we may see some light at the end of the tunnel due to improved
technology for the most common biometric of all—fingerprint. This is borne out by a scanning of the many
market surveys being done on biometrics (it may be the most market-researched ID technology in history),
which have begun to get more bullish and more specific regarding increasing acceptance outside of
government use. If we were to take the mean of 12 separate reports, it would be fair to deduce that at least the
market survey world believes that the worldwide biometric industry will grow about 15-25% annually through
2018 to about $18-20 billion, and that by far the largest modality will remain fingerprint, with potential
industry-wide growth to about $10-11 billion. Below we note the reasons why this might be the case after many
years of lumpy, unpredictable growth.
A biometric is unique, and with the right technology, copies can almost always be detected and prevented.
Contrast this to the current industry standards of passwords and RFID badges, all of which can be much more
easily replicated and used by sophisticated electronic programs to gain access to invaluable personal
information and confidential enterprise assets.
On a yearly basis for over a decade, we have interviewed several leading integrators and non-government end
users regarding their potential use of biometrics. It has been a long road. The shortcomings of certain fingerprint
technologies have led biometric system integrators and developers to push end users toward very expensive
multi-model installations (usually iris or face, or both), which dramatically reduces ROI, and raises privacy issues,
particularly in “passive” and even less accurate facial recognition. What is clearly needed is a solution to those
issues affecting the most convenient, inexpensive, and familiar biometric, which is fingerprint.
Because of its ease of use and familiarity, fingerprint biometrics is once again gaining momentum and scale as
governments and corporations around the world are adopting practices to better safeguard their key
information and assets. Fingerprint has, and will continue to be, a key factor when single or multi-modal
biometrics is used. Typical (of the many reports we aggregated above) would be RNCOS Industry Research
Solutions' latest forecast, in which the global biometric market is expected to expand at a CAGR of 21% from
2012 to 2014. Although fingerprint biometrics have traditionally stemmed from government applications, the
technology is being increasingly accepted and adopted in various external and internal commercial applications,
including physical access control, logical access controls (such as ATMs), point of sale or delivery, and time and
attendance. Pricing and interoperability of “multi-modal” biometric systems, or iris, simply remain too costly or
complicated, and facial remains too inaccurate at the price points for a mass market.
Security Industry MonitorIdentity Solutions Sector
March 2014
50
This is unfortunate, because we believe whatever the government-civil biometric market is, our discussions with
participants in the commercial/industrial/institutional markets indicate a potential market more than double the
government market—only if and when security, durability, cost, and ease of operation issues are solved. The
immediate markets that could be secured with biometrics (versus passwords, keys, or RFID cards) include:
� Physical access and logical access—border control, amusement parks, commercial/institutional buildings,
driver recognition, fleet management, medical dispensing, point-of-sale, single-sign on, civil ID,
e-Prescribing, and process control
� Self-service kiosks—ATMS, medical dispensing, financial services
� Time and attendance
� Mobile/hand-held—public (deliver goods), civil (verify citizens), secure financial services
Fingerprint technology is the most established and widespread form of biometrics and will likely dominate the
residential and commercial security product marketplace. Biometric Research Group, in a report published in
September 2012, projected that fingerprint technology will represent $3 billion of revenue within the residential
and commercial security product marketplace by 2017. While that seems like large growth from a little over
$1 billion today, it still represents only 15% of the total biometric market estimated by Biometric Research
Group. As we have noted, we believe the commercial market by itself should be larger than the government
market as key issues are solved.
We believe new, advanced fingerprint technologies will drive this ultimately significant growth in commercial
and residential biometrics.
The main advantages of fingerprint technology is that it is the most economical biometric technology and its
small storage space, reduced power requirements, and resistive nature to temperature and background lighting
make it an ideal technology to be deployed in a range of logical and physical access environments.
Targeted market environments that will exceedingly benefit will include home-based and small to mid-sized
businesses. To be sure, there are still challenges that remain for the overall fingerprint biometric industry.
Frost & Sullivan’s 2011 publication, Best Practices Guide to Fingerprint Biometrics, found that the most concerning
and prevalent issues holding back the industry were accuracy, fraud (“spoof” or “liveness”) detection,
environmental, and physiological usability and throughput speed.
Accuracy remains the most important factor in the equation. False rejections can cause the user significant
inconvenience and interfere with timely processing and access. Even more problematic are false acceptances,
instances in which a non-approved user gains access to sensitive information or valuable assets. Finally, some of
the fingerprint technologies have tried to overcome what limitations or inaccuracies they have, but it comes at a
cost, which puts the majority out of immediate consideration by specifiers, integrators, and end users.
The most common fingerprint technology used today (includes most of the largest providers, such as Safran,
NEC, and Cross Match) have been sensors that use arrays of photodiode or phototransistor detectors to convert
the energy in light on the detector into an electrical charge. The sensor package usually includes a
light-emitting-diode (LED) to illuminate the finger. Total internal reflectance (TIR) biometric sensors are the most
common of these sensors. TIR sensors collect images based on the difference between air and material in
contact with the sensor. Among the capture methods used in fingerprint technologies, TIR sensors rely on the
image generated by the material in contact with the sensor. Therefore, any material placed on a sensor that has
the same ability as expected can be used to generate a fingerprint. As a result, spoof fingerprints and “less than
March 2014
51
Security Industry Monitor
Identity Solutions Sector
optimal” environments are an issue with TIR sensors, particularly in unattended applications. TIR sensors can be
affected by a number of real life factors such as stray light, surface contamination, or even prior fingerprint
impressions present on the sensor surface. Hence, it is essential to clean the fingerprint reader glass on a regular
basis for optimal performance. In truth, some TIR sensors can now detect a real fingerprint from a fake
fingerprint using “spoof” or “live finger” detection, but that increases cost.
In real world applications, the user's hands may not always been clean and dry. The same concept applies to
outdoor sensors that are subject to the wind and rain. Dust, pollen, chalk, and chemicals may often dirty a user's
prints, which will decrease a TIR sensor's ability to detect and collect the full print. This sometimes leads to false
negatives, user frustration, and a backlog in throughput. The government can get around this with maintenance,
expensive multi-finger “swipe” and “static finger” readers, or by going “multi-modal” with several biometrics.
However, this is not acceptable for the potentially much larger commercial/industrial/institutional market where
throughput, cost, ROI, and total cost of ownership are important considerations.
Capacitive Sensors—Thin, (Sometimes) Inexpensive, and Small—Still Many Drawbacks
The most widely used fingerprint technology outside of optical (i.e., AuthenTec, acquired by Apple) use electric
current to sense a fingerprint and capture the image. As sensors apply a small voltage to the finger, a real
fingerprint is required rather than a visual impression of it. This technique makes the fingerprint reader more
reliable as it becomes harder to fake enrollment. Another benefit of capacitive sensing fingerprint readers is that
they are more compact and thus easy to install. However, there are reasons why capacitive sensors have done
well in small form factors but have not broadened their base in the market, particularly into enterprise use, and
the list is not short: 1) The thinner silicon chips are inherently fragile and susceptible to damage by hard external
impact and scratches, and are susceptible to damage by electrostatic discharge, 2) their thin form factor also
exposes them to more corrosion from everyday handling and exposure, resulting in greater replacement,
maintenance, and downtime costs, and 3) capacitive sensors usually only offer a smaller imaging area, image
size, and resolution. This is due to greater cost of manufacturing larger, high quality chips, but is an area that we
believe is being improved over time.
Is Multi-Spectral Imaging the Silver Bullet?
Vastly improved technologies are being developed for fingerprint at the commercial/ industrial/institutional
level, most notably, multispectral imaging (MSI), which has already been on the market for several years. A MSI
sensor captures multiple images of the finger under varied conditions such as different wavelengths, different
illumination orientations, and different polarization conditions. This data is processed to obtain a composite
fingerprint image. The advantage of a multi-spectral fingerprint reader over others is that the functioning is not
affected by external factors such as contaminants or improper contact or bright ambient lights. MSI is also able
to identify whether the fingerprint is genuine or a spoof. This process thus captures data on both the surface and
subsurface features of the skin, as opposed to TIR sensors, which cannot retrieve subsurface features, and also
produces inferior surface images. This same MSI concept of collecting data under different conditions has been
successfully tested in harsh environments as well.
Unlike TIR sensors, MSI technology also allows for the imaging of a fingerprint without direct contact with the
sensor. An MSI sensor will always acquire a fingerprint image whether or not there is direct contact with the
sensor or an appropriate amount of pressure is applied to the sensor.
Security Industry MonitorIdentity Solutions Sector
March 2014
52
We believe that as MSI technology continues to gain traction as being a convenient, robust, and secure
authentication tool, then the superior ROI/TCO (return on investment/total cost of ownership) and integration
capability (with other security technologies), could create the fast growing market in
commercial/industrial/institutional markets that we have been predicting. The markets for this technology
already include banking and healthcare. Lumidigm, Inc. is currently the only company that is offering MSI
technology in its sensors. To the best of our knowledge, Lumidigm's spoof detection technology provides spoof
performance that exceeds that of any other fingerprint sensor currently on the market.
Other Major Fingerprint Technologies Include:
Thermal Sensors. A fingerprint image is created by the skin-temperature ridges and the ambient temperature
measure for valleys. The biggest drawback of this technique is that the temperature change is dynamic and it
only takes about a tenth of a second for the sensor surface touching ridges and valleys to come to the same
temperature, erasing the fingerprint image.
Pressure Sensors. Pressure sensing scanners (including micro electro-mechanical, or MEMS), can be made very
thin and are often used in electronic devices. Pressure sensing scanners are just now moving beyond having to
make a tradeoff between durability and quality because any protective layer on the detector surface would
diminish the contrast of the impression.
RF Sensors. A low radio frequency (RF) signal is applied to the user’s finger and then read by the detector array,
with each pixel operating like a tiny antenna. The advantage of this detector is that it reads the fingerprint from
the dermal layer underneath the surface making it less susceptible to damaged or dry fingertips. However, it is
more expensive.
Ultrasonic Sensors. Ultrasonic scanners have an advantage of being able to see beneath the skin. This provides
not only verification of a live finger; it also provides more information as a biometric measure. However, this
technology is slower, expensive, bulky, and too data intensive for many access control applications. Ultrascan is
the leading provider of this technology.
NIST Protocol from May 2013 Beginning to Become Reality for an Easy-to-Use,
Standardized Biometric Communication with the Web
In May 2013, researchers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) developed and published
a new protocol for communicating with biometric sensors over wired and wireless networks using some of the
same technologies that underpin the web—and now they are demonstrating it.
The protocol, called WS-Biometric Devices (WS-BD), allows desktops, laptops, tablets, and smartphones to access
sensors that capture biometric data such as fingerprints, iris images, and face images using web services. Web
services themselves are not new; for example, video-on-demand services use web services to stream videos to
mobile devices and televisions. We were recently shown a demo of this protocol and believe it could be a
significant step in making biometrics easier to use interoperable between not just government agencies, but
also between sites in a large, commercial multi-store enterprise.
March 2014
53
Security Industry Monitor
Identity Solutions Sector
The WS-Biometric Devices protocol could greatly simplify setting up and maintaining secure biometric systems
for verifying identity because such biometric systems will be easier to assemble with interoperable components
compared to current biometrics systems that generally have proprietary device-specific drivers and cables.
WS-BD enables interoperability by adding a device-independent web-services layer in the communication
protocol between biometric devices and systems.
In other words, any type of web device—a phone, a laptop, or a tablet can talk to any type of biometric scanner
(finger, face, iris, etc.). The operator does not have to learn anything new; no new drivers are required, no
proprietary knowledge about the scanner, making life a lot easier for the end user.
With the pushback that came with interoperable ID credentialing, NIST recognized this need several years ago
and developed a solution with the support of the Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology
Directorate, the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Biometric Center of Excellence and NIST’s Comprehensive
National Cybersecurity Initiative. However, NIST also is now working with industry through the Small Business
Innovation Research Program to help bring these plug-and-play biometric devices to market, and take them out
of the demo stage.
Identity and Access Management’s Increase Use of Biometrics: Growth of Secure and
Underpenetrated Market
We view the competitive and consolidation environment in Identity and Access Management as robust from the
physical, logical, and converged perspectives. Adoption of biometric systems appears to be a strategic and
secure direction for companies, countries, and even academic institutions that deal and interact with access
control, identification, verification, and secure payment needs.
The Need. The current method to identity and properly document a citizen, or access a secure document are
not able to meet the growing demand for enhanced security, thus giving high growth opportunity to the use of
biometric technology.
Types and Uses of Technologies. Biometrics systems are used to measure physiological and behavioral
characteristics to identify people, grant them access to secure items (e.g., files, doors), and perform transactions (e.g.,
pay for lunch, online payments via two-factor authentication). Physiological characteristics include Vascular
Recognition, iris, face, and fingerprints. Behavioral characteristics include a dynamic signature and voice recognition.
As more countries use biometrics to combat terrorism, enhance airport security, adopt a national ID or driver’s license,
or even a passport, the market availability will become larger. India, Mexico, and Russia are increasing their use of
biometric systems, while China recently began using a biometric national ID program. Commercial, government, and
consumer-based data security concerns have given rise to biometric based two-factor authentication devices, and the
companies that are able to create a sustainable competitive advantage via product quality, enhanced features,
usability, and brand awareness will garner a greater portion of this new and accelerating market.
Market Size. We believe that biometric systems may not just replace, but enhance the way in which we perform and
interact with certain processes (e.g., pay for items, state/national ID, passwords). If we were to take the mean of
12 separate market research reports, we believe it would be fair to deduce that at least the market survey world
believes that the global biometric industry will grow about 15-25% annually through 2018 to about $18-20 billion,
and that by far the largest modality will remain fingerprint, with potential industry-wide growth to about
$10-11 billion. Transparency Marker Research notes that the facial, iris, veins, and voice recognition together
constitute the second largest segment, estimated at $1.4 billion in 2010 and expected to reach $3.5 billion by 2015.
Security Industry MonitorIdentity Solutions Sector
March 2014
54
Concerns. Many of the concerns regarding the use of biometric systems for physical security purposes seem to stem
from the lack of awareness and understanding about improvements in cost and efficacy technology. We believe that
the use of biometric systems, in the right places, greatly enhance security and efficiency to the end user.
The Opportunity. Each year, more biometric functionality is being added to mobile devices, and the proliferation
of unique apps is allowing consumers to control their home security systems, enter premises, deposit checks, and
remotely log into their work computers (e.g., GoToMyPC). Consider the recent acquisition by Apple of AuthenTec,
Intel’s venture capital business investing in Validity Sensors, Inc. (creator of fingerprint sensors), or Microsoft
working towards biometric sensors which it can incorporate in its Xbox game console. The gaming and mobile
markets are not the only places in which we will see the infusion of biometric technology. Schools, universities,
banking industry (e.g., ATM, credit cards), state and national governments (e.g., IDs), hospitals are and will see an
increase in the use of biometric systems as a way to increase security and combat fraud.
Biometrics Update: Companies Are Forging Forward With This Technology Even While
There Are Some Who May Fear It
Types of Notable Biometric Technologies
There are two main purposes of biometric systems: authenticate and identify. An individual could use their
finger to be able to access a door, or to be able to pay for lunch at school. Both physical (i.e., fingerprint, iris) and
physiological (i.e., handwriting) characteristics are examined to identify a person and to produce one of three
types of biometric data: raw images, encrypted images, and encrypted partial data.
Raw images consist of recognizable images (i.e., face), while encrypted images store data which can be used to
create an image, and encrypted partial data stores partial data from an image which is encrypted and cannot be
used to recreate the complete original image.
Fingerprint Recognition
Figure 21: Fingerprint Characteristics
Sources: www.biometrics.gov.
Fingerprint technology is the most established and widespread form of biometrics and will likely dominate the
residential and commercial security product marketplace. Biometric Research Group, in a report published in
September 2012, projected that fingerprint technology will represent $3 billion of revenue within the residential and
commercial security product marketplace by 2017. While that seems like large growth from a little over $1 billion
today, it still represents only 15% of the total biometric market estimated by Biometric Research Group.
March 2014
55
Security Industry Monitor
Identity Solutions Sector
The main advantages of fingerprint technology is that it is the most economical biometric technology and its
small storage space, reduced power requirements, and resistive nature to temperature and background lighting
make it an ideal technology to be deployed in a range of logical and physical access environments.
Facial Recognition
Figure 22: Elastic Bunch Map Graphing
Sources: www.biometrics.gov.
Facial recognition continues to become more refined as it evolves from the early days of using simple geometric
models to morphing into something which takes many images of the face to extract uniquely identifiable facial
features, while accounting for the distances from-to-and between the eyes, nose, ears, mouth, etc. Facial
recognition is now used to prevent passport fraud, support law enforcement, access control, etc.
Hand Geometry Recognition
Figure 23: Distance Measurement
Sources: www.biometrics.gov.
Hand geometry recognition entails looking for unique features on the structure of the hand. The length, width,
thickness, and distances between joints joints are all distinguishing characteristics that are noted when taking a
3D image of the hand. We note that the human hand does not contain as many uniquely identifiable
characteristics as the other biometric-based identifiers.
Security Industry MonitorIdentity Solutions Sector
March 2014
56
Iris Recognition
Figure 24: Iris Recognition
Sources: www.biometrics.gov.
Iris recognition is the process via which the iris is analyzed for distinct and random patterns. The iris is a thin,
circular structure in the eye responsible for controlling the diameter and size of the pupil and thus the amount of
light reaching the retina. It is the colored part of the eye.
Though the color of the eye may be genetically linked, the patterns are unique and developed during the
prenatal growth.
Voice Recognition
Figure 25: Voice Sample
Sources: www.biometrics.gov.
Voice recognition (not to be confused with speech recognition) is the process by which the unique patterns of
an individual’s voice are analyzed. The physiological component of the voice recognition is related to the
physical shape of an individual’s vocal tract, and the voice/speaker recognition software analyzes the frequency
content of the speech and compares the quality, duration, intensity, dynamics, and pitch of the signal.
March 2014
57
Security Industry Monitor
Identity Solutions Sector
Vascular Recognition
Vascular recognition (or Vein Pattern Recognition) may likely be the newest addition to the suite of available
biometrics technologies. Much like the way retina recognition is done; vascular recognition looks for unique
patterns within the blood vessels. The uniqueness of this arises since this process does not involve any contact
with the actual examination machine, but is done via the use of infrared light.
Signature Recognition
Signature recognition analyzes the way in which a person signs his/her name. The pressure applied to the
object, timing, and speed of signing something are all examined to identify a person with their handwriting. We
note that “signature recognition” is not limited to a person’s signature, but encompasses the full breadth of the
way a person writes.
Biometrics in Schools and Colleges: Is It A Comfort or Concern?
We have seen an increase in the number of companies that are innovating products which could make it safer,
easier, and faster for kids to not only safely pay for their school lunches, but be able to access doors to which
they have granted permission, and to be able to easily identify themselves. In order to be able to introduce a
biometric system within a school or college, we believe that two key elements need to take place: consent by
both students and parents (when appropriate), and a legitimate interest of the school or college.
Universities. Universities across the nation (and very likely in other parts of the world) are routinely introducing
new and more secure technologies, and it appears to us that they are starting to consider biometrics as a form to
identify the students and to also use this technology as a way to pay for certain items in the same way in which
the students would be able to pay with their student card (e.g. food, books). Access control (e.g., door locks)
companies such as Assa Abloy (ASAZY), Brivo Systems, or Honeywell International (HON) have long had a
presence on college campuses, but the use of biometrics to pay for items and as a means of identification is now
gaining popularity.
What Has Been Holding Back Biometrics?
We believe that students, parents, and administrators have not been properly informed about the benefits and
risks associated with the use of biometric systems. Apple’s acquisition of AuthenTec in October 2012 sparked
market observations that the maker of the iPhone and iPad could integrate fingerprint identification into future
devices. With the introduction of the iPhone 5S on September 10, 2013, that possibility became reality. We
believe that Apple's evident validation of this technology may force other manufacturers of mobile devices to
provide a similar option. Whereas biometrics have generally been focused on government and enterprise
applications, we believe Apple’s adoption could be the “tipping point” for mainstream adoption that may create
entirely new ecosystems for mobile payment, e-wallets, and e-commerce.
In our view, the administrators may be far more concerned than the current students are. Whereas the students
at younger and younger ages are being introduced to these systems and growing up with some form of
technology, the older generation may not be as comfortable with the use of it and may be more reluctant to
adopt it. We believe that properly-integrated biometrics have the potential to dramatically increase the security
of point-of-sale and online transactions made through mobile devices.
Security Industry MonitorIdentity Solutions Sector
March 2014
58
We recognize that spoofing (e.g., using fake fingerprints), and accuracy are two of the primary concerns for both
the end users and the administrators. False rejections can cause the user significant inconvenience and interfere
with timely processing and access. Even more problematic are false acceptances, instances in which a
non-approved user gains access to sensitive information or valuable assets.
The most common fingerprint technology used today (includes most of the largest providers, such as Safran,
NEC, and Cross Match) have been sensors that use arrays of photodiode or phototransistor detectors to convert
the energy in light on the detector into an electrical charge. The sensor package usually includes a
light-emitting-diode (LED) to illuminate the finger. Total internal reflectance (TIR) biometric sensors are the most
common of these sensors. TIR sensors collect images based on the difference between air and material in
contact with the sensor. Among the capture methods used in fingerprint technologies, TIR sensors rely on the
image generated by the material in contact with the sensor. Therefore, any material placed on a sensor that has
the same ability as expected can be used to generate a fingerprint. As a result, spoof fingerprints and “less than
optimal” environments are an issue with TIR sensors, particularly in unattended applications.
Solutions to the Biometric Backlog.
Multispectral Imaging. Vastly improved technologies are being developed for fingerprint at the commercial/
industrial/institutional level, most notably, multispectral imaging (MSI), which has already been on the market for
several years. A MSI sensor captures multiple images of the finger under varied conditions such as different
wavelengths, different illumination orientations, and different polarization conditions. This data is processed to
obtain a composite fingerprint image. The advantage of a multi-spectral fingerprint reader over others is that the
functioning is not affected by external factors such as contaminants, improper contact, or bright ambient lights.
MSI is also able to identify whether the fingerprint is genuine or a fake. This process thus captures data on both the
surface and subsurface features of the skin, as opposed to TIR sensors, which cannot retrieve subsurface features,
and also produces inferior surface images. Unlike TIR sensors, MSI technology also allows for the imaging of a
fingerprint without direct contact with the sensor. An MSI sensor will always acquire a fingerprint image whether or
not there is direct contact with the sensor or an appropriate amount of pressure is applied to the sensor.
Two-Factor Authentication. We have seen instances in which biometric information is stored on an ID token so
the user can be authenticated and identified, but the data stored on the card cannot be copied. The way this
works is fairly straightforward: the cardholder swipes the card in the system to be authenticated, and then a live
scan of the cardholder’s finger is taken and compared against the sample on file. Two-factor (or multi-factor)
authentication can also be used with online transactions, where the user inputs their credit card information or
username and password, but will then have to enter a PIN number (i.e., located on a key fob or cellphone) that
continuously changes.
Increasing the number of authentication factors has a direct impact on the accuracy and thus the overall security
(albeit at a slightly reduced speed). As credit card and identify fraud continues to haunt the consumers, it will
likely make way for biometric systems (and likely multi-factor authentication) that are more secure.
March 2014
59
Security Industry Monitor
Identity Solutions Sector
Figure 26: Multi-Factor vs. Layered Security
Sources: Wallstreet Journal. .
Biometric Data Not Being Stored. Based on our observations, parents of students, and maybe the students, are
reluctant to try this new and more secure (in our opinion) technology because they believe that the scanning
systems will store their biometrics. We want to put this issue to rest and explain that these biometric systems are
not storing images of a fingerprint, iris, or other body part, but instead are creating mathematical representations
(templates) with the true image never being stored in the system. When a person enrolls into a biometric system,
the algorithm selects several points and transfers that into a mathematical representation. The data is generally
encrypted, the template is smaller in size and makes it easier to store biometric information on a smart card or
other memory restricted system, and it safeguards the actual image from being reverse engineered.
Biometrics Uses in Different Verticals
� Healthcare and Biometrics
We believe that the healthcare biometric vertical will go through a great deal of growth in mitigating healthcare
fraud, while providing increased and improved patient care and document privacy. Our recent discussions with
healthcare professionals has indicated to us that document duplication is an issue which needs to be resolved,
and we believe that biometric technology can be a viable and efficient solution. Many times a patient will go to a
doctor’s office and check in with his legal/official name; for instance, the patient’s legal name is Robert J. Smith,
but at times, the patient may use the shortened version of his name, which, in our example, is Rob J. Smith. If the
system is unable to decipher if the two are in fact the same, therein lies the issue of document duplication,
misplaced documents, etc. The use of biometric will aid in making sure that the person signing in as “Robert” or
“Rob” are in fact the same person and aid towards better managing patient documents, and thus better and
more efficient treatment.
� A View Into the RSA Conference, Held in San Francisco on February 24-28; Review of Select Companies
At the recent RSA Conference, which was held at The Moscone Center in San Francisco, California from
February 24 through February 28, 2014, we spoke with several security companies that are finding ways to
merge physical and IT security. The RSA Conference is one of the leading security industry conferences which
includes select security executives as well as leading and emerging IT security companies. Attendees have the
opportunity to learn and converse about some of the most important issues facing the security industry.
Security Industry MonitorIdentity Solutions Sector
March 2014
60
Select List of Exhibitors
� Entrust
Based in Dallas, Texas, Entrust is a leading provider of identity-based security solutions, authentication,
credentialing, physical and logical access, mobile security, digital certificates, single socket layer (SSL-protocols
for providing secure communications over the internet), and public key infrastructure (PKI).
During the conference, we spoke with Entrust about its recently announced collaboration with 3M Cogent to
integrate biometric fingerprint authentication into Entrust IdentityGuard software. The partnership will allow
organizations to leverage fingerprint biometrics to authenticate users for logical access to workstations. We find
that there is a need for second factor authentication to protect sensitive data, and this partnership will help users
streamline secure access to both cloud and internal systems.
In addition to our conversations at RSA, Entrust previously pointed out a long-standing obstacle to converged
credentials between logical and physical access: divergent budgets and goals that result as a function of logical and
physical groups often being siloed within the enterprise. The relatively early state of smartphone enabled ID
technologies, such as NFC or Bluetooth Low Energy, deployment in mobile devices is an additional limiting factor,
yet is expected to play an important role in smart card credential spawning. Entrust has previously noted that in the
U.S., mobile operators and manufacturers have control over NFC capabilities, so agreements between consumers
and their chosen application providers must materialize for NFC to integrate into the corporate environment.
� HID (part of Assa Abloy)
Assa Abloy is, by a factor of three, the largest lock and access control company, and recently exhibited at RSA
from February 24 to 28, 2014 at the Moscone Center in San Francisco, California. The lock business is undergoing
a steady shift from mechanical to electro-mechanical and electronic locks that “think” for themselves. The
company is also a leader in wireless locking infrastructure, and through its HID division, the leader in contactless
card access control systems, several smartphone enabled credentials, such as near-field communications (NFC)
systems. Assa Abloy’s leading competitor is the security division of Ingersoll Rand, which is being spun off under
the name of Allegion later this year.
Earlier, at the Securing New Ground Conference in November 2013, management noted the three catalysts which
could lead to smartphone enabled platform devices taking a larger piece of the Security market: 1) the business
model of how mobile devices live within the Security industry, 2) privacy, which is a major issue which the industry
is currently facing, and 3) security, as it relates to where the identity will reside (in the device, cloud, or elsewhere).
The Threat of Counterfeit Electronics to the Industry. Also at the Securing New Ground Conference, both Don
Erickson (President of the Security Industry Association), and Denis Hebert (President and CEO of HID Global
Technologies, part of Assa Abloy) stated that counterfeiting of electronic and electro-mechanical items are the
most significant threats to the security industry. They also stated that billions of dollars are being shifted away
from the industry, which could be better deployed towards profitable growth. Assa Abloy/HID Global is actively
addressing the counterfeit issue; Mr. Hebert stated that most manufacturers do not pay enough attention to or
realize the impact of counterfeiting on the Security industry. We have already identified this issue as a key
problem and HID now has a staff of people that are dedicated to dealing with this matter.
March 2014
61
Security Industry Monitor
Identity Solutions Sector
� NagraID
NagraID, a privately held company based out of Switzerland, produces contactless cards using a variety of
materials (i.e., PVC, PC, ABS Blends, Melinez, etc.), as well as tags, key fobs, and other similar security products
through the use of technology.
We were able to experience first-hand the single and multi-touch display cards. A single button display card
provides a simple and secure solution for remote access with strong authentication such as VPNs. The
multi-touch card (which looks identical to the dual-interface card displayed below) provides a 12-button keypad
and can provide features which include PIN activation, and challenge question.
The dual interface display card (below) gives the user the account balance, transactions history, reward points,
payment due dates, etc. This is one of the most advanced payment display cards with contact and contactless
communication which we have seen. The Dual one-time password (OTP) enables generation of two different
passcodes on a single device and protects two different services such as e-banking and e-commerce.
The standard Europay (EMV) chip technology is used to update the information every time the card is authorized
online. EMV is the global standard for interoperation of integrated circuit cards and point of sale terminals and
ATM’s for authenticating credit and debit card transactions. The cardholder swipes the card (same as before), the
terminal requests the payment authorization (same as before), the card issuer processes the request and replies
back with an approval (same as before), and the terminal at the store receives the approval code and executes
the EMV script to update the information on the cardholder’s display card.
Figure 27: Single Button vs. Dual Interface/Information Display Card
Sources: nidsecurity.com.
Acquisition of Fingerprint Technology Leader Opens Up Further Markets for HID Global
On 2/10/14, Assa Abloy announced that its $950 million HID Global division had acquired Lumidigm, a
global leader in authentication solutions that use multispectral imaging (MSI) technology, software, and biometric
fingerprint sensors to authenticate identities with a high degree of certainty—and cannot be spoofed. We believe
the acquisition significantly expands the addressable market for the company’s ID solutions capabilities.
Lumidigm’s fingerprint technology offers substantially improved speed and accuracy over traditional systems by
scanning under the skin rather than only the surface. We believe the commercial/industrial/institutional market
has a potential market of more than double the government market if and when security, durability, cost, and
ease of operation issues are solved. The immediate markets that could be secured with biometrics (versus,
passwords, keys, or RFID cards) include:
Security Industry MonitorIdentity Solutions Sector
March 2014
62
� Physical access and logical access—border control, amusement parks, commercial/institutional
buildings, driver recognition, fleet management, medical dispensing, point-of-sale, single-sign on, civil
ID, e-Prescribing, and process control
� Self-service kiosks—ATMS, medical dispensing, financial services
� Time and attendance
� Mobile/hand-held—public (deliver goods), civil (verify citizens), secure financial services
Lumidigm’s advancements could enable numerous commercial and industrial applications, such as high
throughput physical access (e.g., theme parks), electronic medical records and pharmaceuticals access, ATM
authentication, automotive “push-to-start” systems, time and attendance solutions, and manufacturing systems
access. We believe biometrics will broaden far beyond traditional government identity programs, border control,
and criminal forensics and into these new applications over the next several years.
Is Lumidigm’s Multi-Spectral Imaging a Silver Bullet for Fingerprint?
Lumidigm, Inc. is currently the only company that is offering MSI technology in its sensors. The advantage of
Lumidgim’s multi-spectral (MSI) fingerprint reader over others is that it is not affected by external factors such as
harsh environments, contaminants or improper contact or bright ambient lights. For example, biometric
identification typically has not been used in areas of high throughput because confirmation was significantly
slower than visual inspection or PINs Contact fingerprint systems are particularly sensitive to less than ideal skin
conditions (e.g., too dirty, too sweaty, too dry, too worn, etc.). Importantly, Lumidigm’s MSI technology is also
uniquely able to identify whether the fingerprint is genuine or a spoof.
The Lumidigm acquisition comes on the heels of its 1/17/14 acquisition of IdenTrust, Inc., a provider of solutions
for globally interoperable digital identities that can authenticate, encrypt, and create electronic signatures for
virtually every type of transaction activity where proof of identity is essential. IdenTrust is the largest supplier of
digital identities for the Department of Defense’s External Certification Authority (ECA) program and General
Services Administration’s Access Certificates for Electronic Services (ACES) program. The company provides
identity management solutions in 175 countries for over 20 of the world’s largest financial institutions.
In our opinion, Assa Abloy has made a concerted effort to become the undisputed leader in higher technology
access control and identification solutions for not just enterprises and institutions, but for government as well—the
latter is an area in which it did not have a lot of traction until 2011. However, a series of acquisitions have turned the
company into the leader in this segment from a revenue perspective. This is unlike Safran (which purchased L-1 in
2010), which is primarily involved in registration and border identification. The challenge remains for Assa Abloy
and HID to integrate these acquired technologies and companies carefully, to let some of the more creative sectors
provide both competitive advantage to Assa Abloy, yet still remain the leading providers of software and identity
solutions to other companies in the industry as well. These acquisitions include:
2011—ActiveIdentity, a leader in authentication, credential management, security client services, and
authentication device products and technologies.
2012—Codebench, the leading provider of software for physical identity management credentialing systems,
particularly for federal standards-based verification systems for government agencies and projects. The
acquisition was highly complementary with ActiveIdentity in which both companies provided leading solutions
for “identity at the door” which could be monitored from servers inside the premises.
March 2014
63
Security Industry Monitor
Identity Solutions Sector
2014—IdenTrust, a leading provider of solution for global/interoperable digital identities that can
authenticate, encrypt, and create electronic signatures for virtually any type of transaction activity where
proof of identity is essential.
2014—Lumidigm, the most advanced fingerprint biometric technology available—multi-spectral imaging,
which we believe creates “spoof-proof” fingerprint readings. Because this technology takes into account
subdermal distinctions, it extracts the correct identity regardless of the condition of the ridges on the finger,
contaminants, or the harsh environment in which some fingerprint readers must work.
With these acquisitions, we believe Assa Abloy now possesses networked, digital identity leadership for both
commercial/institutional and government programs and installations. These technologies include 1) cloud-based
employee authentication and identification; 2) mobile access solutions, including Near-Field Communications
(NFC); 3) the entire suite of software, services, and products needed to address every aspect of identification
solutions from cards, readers, and printers to an identification and authentication ecosystem in the cloud.
Companies with Well-Regarded Positions in the Physical-to-Logical Access Control Market
and Physical ID Solutions Market
AlertEnterprise, Inc. AlertEnterprise provisions both physical and logical access control across multiple card
access systems, video surveillance systems, and sensor networks.
Bridgepoint Systems. Bridgepoint Systems is a well-known provider of authentication solutions, primarily for
the federal government, based on public key infrastructure for physical access control.
Entrust Inc. Based in Dallas, Texas, Entrust is a leading provider of identity-based security solutions,
authentication, credentialing, physical and logical access, mobile security, digital certificates, single socket layer
(SSL-protocols for providing secure communications over the Internet), and public key infrastructure (PKI).
*HID Global. HID, a division of Assa Abloy, is the leading physical access card and reader company. Through its
acquisitions of ActivIdentity and LaserCard in early 2010, and Codebench in 2012, HID now can manage the
issuance and administration requirements of large scale smart card deployments and provide a suite of
GSA-listed PKI products and services. HID recently acquired Codebench, a small, but respected leader in software
and software kits that allow other software manufacturers to customize their applications to communicate with
PIV, TWIC, and CAC cards, speeding up the interoperability process. Through ActiveIdentity and Codebench, HID
has become the undisputed leader for being able to provide “Identity at the Door.” One area the company is
increasingly stretching into is the “government-to-citizen” identity solutions vertical, where it supports national
ID programs and electronic passports, for instance. The company is currently the prime contractor on the U.S.
government’s “Green Card” program.
Certipath. Certipath provides PKI-based high assurance credentials to industry participants for both physical
and logical access and control.
*Identive Group. Identive is a leading provider of ID card readers and software, chips, card firmware, RFID, and
tracking solutions. Identive has been a major supplier to the federal government and international ID programs.
NXT-ID (NXTD). NXT-ID develops products and solutions for consumers and commercial entities that are
seeking a biometric secure access control. The company is creating the next generation of advanced biometric
technology to facilitate secure transactions, identity management, and access control. NXT-ID has four Marquee
products: Wocket, Biocloud, Facematch, and Voicematch.
Security Industry MonitorIdentity Solutions Sector
March 2014
64
Quantum Secure. Quantum Secure is the leading solution provider for managing and securing identities and
compliance across disparate physical security infrastructures. Quantum Secure has coined the acronym PIAMS,
for Physical Identity Access Management Services.
RightCrowd Software. Another company with a directive to bring Physical Security into the Enterprise is
RightCrowd, based in Australia. RightCrowd, originally spun out of, and staffed by the team that developed SAP’s
global physical security convergence strategy, provides software that is web-based, and tasked with
implementing automated workforce management solutions (HR, IT, Finance) to provide the glue between the
existing physical security system and the Enterprise systems. The main RightCrowd functions consist of range
from cardholder processes, through to implementing visitor management and occupational health & safety
solutions, to full integration with SAP or other Enterprise systems.
*Widepoint’s ORC division. The ORC division of Widepoint provides flexible integration of identity
management, authentication, authorization for access, and automating the ID workflow across devices such as
identity tokens, credit cards, cell phones, and personal computers.
*Publicly held or a division of a publicly-held company.
Anti-Counterfeiting Update
� More Agencies Asking for Broader Anti-Counterfeiting Coverage—Counterfeits in the DoD Supply
Chain May Be as Bad as Cyber Threats
We are getting very close to formalized rules and penalties and formalized ecosystems for DNA marking as a way to
secure the critical supply chain (and to avoid those penalties) regarding counterfeit, “cloned,” and grey market
parts to be used in critical military infrastructure and weapons programs. The combination of intolerable incursions
into our national defense infrastructure by counterfeit devices and the impending final report and codification of
penalties by the National Defense Authorization Act, Section 818 is in process Indeed, the DoD is hosting a public
meeting on March 27, 2014 to obtain the views of experts and interested parties in government and the private
sector regarding further implementation of the requirement for detection and avoidance of counterfeit electronic
parts, as required by a section of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.
Since we published our Anti-Counterfeiting White Paper in February 2011, we have continued to provide
quarterly updates on a problem that is estimated at $650 billion to $1 trillion of economic losses annually. The
U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates that nearly 10% of all goods and services are counterfeited, with examples
including 40% of all U.S. footwear being seized to 7-10% of pharmaceuticals. Our last update was extensive, and
can be found in the October 2013 Security Monitor.
� The Most Recent DoD Counterfeit Incident and the Impending Implementation of Section 818
On March 10, 2014, Reuters reported that two years after discovering China-made components in the F-35
fighter jet, a Pentagon investigation has now uncovered Chinese materials in other major U.S. weaponry, as well
as Boeing Co's B-1B bomber and certain Lockheed Martin Corp F-16 fighters, the U.S. Defense Department said.
Titanium mined in China may also have been used to build part of a new Standard Missile-3 IIA being developed
jointly by Raytheon Co and Japan, said a senior U.S. defense official, who said the incidents raised fresh concerns
about lax controls by U.S. contractors.
March 2014
65
Security Industry Monitor
Identity Solutions Sector
U.S. law bans weapons makers from using raw materials from China and a number of other countries, amid
concerns that reliance on foreign suppliers could leave the U.S. military vulnerable in some future conflict.
Raytheon and Lockheed Martin had to obtain special waivers to avoid specified penalties for these violations.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office is expected to brief Congress in April on its comprehensive audit of
the issue of Chinese specialty metals on U.S. weapons systems.
A separate issue involving thermal sensors built for the F-35 by a Chinese subsidiary of Honeywell International
Inc. did not require a formal waiver because it involved a unit of a U.S. company, the official said. Honeywell now
builds that part in Michigan. However, Honeywell acknowledged in January that the U.S. Justice Department was
investigating import and export procedures at the company after the incident.
Officials at Lockheed, Northrop, Boeing and Raytheon referred all questions to the U.S. government. Without the
waivers noted above, the companies could have faced stiff penalties for violating U.S. laws; instead the Pentagon
is likely to seek compensation from the companies.
The defense official said temporary waivers were granted in each of these cases under the explicit expectation
that the companies would tighten up their buying procedures to reflect changes in procurement rules.
"It's not a 'get out of jail' free card. This is something we should be good at. We shouldn't be caught short on
these," said a Pentagon official in a Reuters article. "Hundreds of regulations change yearly and there's a whole
group of folks whose job it is to make sure that those (changes) are properly implemented in contracts.
On March 27, 2014, the Defense Department hosted a public meeting aimed at providing input for government
implementation of new anti-counterfeiting requirements for defense suppliers. Over two years ago, the DOD
proposed several rules meant to partially implement the strict anti-counterfeiting language in the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA FY12). The DOD says that the March 27 public hearing was
meant consider "in particular, the definition and implementation of trusted suppliers." At least one rule is very
close to coming online, an event which we believe will heavily impact defense suppliers of electronics with
regard to counterfeit and “cloned” electronics for the DoD supply chain. That rule was proposed under DFARS
Case 2012-D055. The DOD says that it is now preparing to publish the final rule under that case, meaning that for
the first time the new regulations will begin to take effect.
� So Where Are we On Regulating Counterfeit Technology in the Supply Chain?
Two years ago, Congress passed the The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012: Section
818, Detection and Avoidance of Counterfeit Electronic Parts, provides new rules regarding counterfeit electronic
parts. This policy requires contractors to provide items that have been marked with organically-generated DNA
marking material produced by Applied DNA Sciences and any of its authorized licensees. Suppliers were notified of
the new requirement by special notices from the DLA Internet Bid Board System, the Supplier Information Resource
Center, and the Federal Business Opportunities websites.
The intent of the updated rule is to hold contractors responsible for detecting and avoiding the use or inclusion
of counterfeit electronic parts or suspect counterfeit electronic parts. Approximately 400 to 1,200 prime
contractors covered by the rule will have to change their existing purchasing systems—a mix of computer
applications and manual procedures required to do business with the government that document purchases
from a chain of suppliers.
Security Industry MonitorIdentity Solutions Sector
March 2014
66
The rule was published by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) in September 2012 as an amendment to
the overall Defense Acquisition Regulations System, and reached partial implementation in March 2012. In July
2013, the OMB received comments from industry participants. Unless the date is pushed back (which is a
possibility), the OSD will consider these comments, and then write a rule that is expected to be finalized in March
2014. At that point, companies will be unreimbursed or fined for not complying with directives trying to drive
counterfeit parts out of critical defense systems.
In October 2013, in its Annual Industrial Capabilities Report to Congress, the Office of the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy came out with a damning statement on page
B-41, noting that “One of the worst trends to emerge in military systems spare parts involves counterfeit electronic
parts—those that appear genuine, but which actually are substandard, altogether different, or simply empty
packages. With Logistics Technology R&D investment (PE-0603712S), DLA demonstrated a capability to assure the
source of microcircuits, which will be a considerable step in defeating counterfeiters, and will be far less expensive
than the current approaches to guarantee the source of parts. Known as DNA marking, the technique uses custom
botanical DNA marks, tags, or codes that are applied to parts during normal business operations.”
As of March 11, 2014, the OSD had noted that its will continue to accept comments on Section 818, but only until April
of 2014. In other words, the extensions for comments keep getting shorter, and now there is only one more month.
This pressure by the DLA has increased the population of users. In December 2013, Applied DNA Sciences
introduced its “Counterfeit Prevention Authentication (CPA) Program.” In short, the program:
� Allows anyone procuring parts to have authenticity (if DNA mark is applied by the manufacturer) or
traceability on the part level (if DNA mark is applied further down the supply chain).
� Allows other agencies and defense contractors to leverage the DLA's effort by procuring DNA marked
parts from the current 29 DNA marking companies.
� Presents the opportunity for other agencies and defense contractors to flow down requirements (as DLA
did) to additional suppliers.
Twenty-six companies are currently licensed to mark parts with APDN’s SigNature DNA, including two primes, six
component manufacturers, and both authorized and independent distributors.
What has happened in the last several months not only reinforces our belief that the DoD will not back down
from its position of intolerance for counterfeit devices in critical infrastructure, but instead will actually expand
the definition of what it perceives to be at risk—using the same DNA technology it has already mandated.
Originally, counterfeiting was the main concern. Now, however, the government and Congress has moved beyond
simply stopping counterfeiting to what is termed Supply Chain Risk Management, or SCRM. SCRM is a broader term
encompassing separate items such as counterfeits (often engaged by economically motivated individuals, etc.) but
now also includes “Clones” ( new, qualifying items that are manufactured out of a foreign “fab” facility which
increasingly is being funded at a foreign nation state level and which make it into our military supply chains). These
clones may initially pass inspection, but their mean time between failure might be a tiny fraction of qualifying devices.
In our opinion, there is a compelling case for not underestimating the harm that supply chain sloppiness caused,
due the foreign facilities or devices not being produced according to certain standards. This leaves us both
physically and logically vulnerable to equipment failure and espionage. can cause the national interest when it
comes to military and infrastructure technology has just been made by Robert S. Metzger in Bloomberg’s Federal
Contracts Report (Spring 2014), who states that the line between national security, counterfeit parts in the DoD
supply chain, and cybersecurity had blurred.
March 2014
67
Security Industry Monitor
Identity Solutions Sector
Mr. Metzger, a partner/shareholder in the law firm of Joseph O’Donnell, P.C., is considered the leading advisor on
government contract and compliance challenges. He represents and advises prominent U.S. and international
firms in aerospace, defense, electronics, information technology, infrastructure, professional services, software,
and telecommunications. Mr. Metzger’s message is essentially that foreign counterfeit parts coming into critical
U.S. infrastructure and military programs are becoming just as significant of a cybersecurity problem as they are
a mean-time failure problem. In addition, Mr. Metzger notes in his fourth article in Federal Contracts Reports,
published in the spring 2014 issue, that since enactment of Section 818 in late 2011, the federal government’s
perception of the threat has changed and so too has the emphasis of policy and regulatory initiatives being
taken in response. He believes that the increasing emphasis of DoD and other federal agencies (including the
GSA) will be on protection against those counterfeits that present cyber risks.
Mr. Metzger is concerned that evidence is piling up that “marked” counterfeit items from abroad go
hand-in-hand with cybersecurity breaches and that the government is already directing special attention to
avoidance of parts which harbor malicious code and which, if installed in military equipment, in a secure
network, or in a key system used for information processing or telecommunications, for example, could have
disabling effects upon such ‘‘trusted systems and networks’’ and other ‘‘critical functions’’ of government. Parts
that carry a cyber threat are ‘‘counterfeit,’’ in the sense that they are not what they purport to be, and have been
modified or subjected to ‘‘tampering’’ without authorization.
He adds: “The nexus between counterfeit parts and cyber risk has recently been recognized in a Joint Report,
Improving Cybersecurity and Resilience through Acquisitions, issued by the Department of Defense and the General
Services Administration on January 23, 2014. This report implements Section 8(e) of Executive Order (EO) 13656.
The Joint Report observes that counterfeit components can be introduced during both initial acquisition and
sustainment, and that such nonconforming parts create vulnerabilities that include premature system failure
and latent security gaps that could be exploited by an adversary.”
When one combines security “sloppiness” of many logistics and channel players in the U.S. with the dire
warnings that cyber warfare is being fought just as much through “marked” counterfeit parts as phishing of
DDoS attacks over the Internet, this becomes worrisome and has dramatically hardened the DLA’s and Congress’
attitude toward those distributors who still complain about having to implement “costly new technology” or
that “they can’t afford” to DNA mark the items they receive for provenance and certification.
Our view of this article by Metzger lead us to believe that in his opinion, the national interest in achieving greater
supply chain and cyber security is so compelling that, the federal government will act irrespective of industry’s
doubts. The pace of implementation of supply chain and cyber actions is likely to accelerate this year and the
breadth of such actions likely will encompass most or all federal procurement functions. Companies that ignore
or resist these trends do so at the peril of their businesses.
The legislation (DFARS—Defense Acquisition Regulations Systems) in place appears to be at the same time
focusing on the joint counterfeit/cyber threat, and at the same time broadening in scope in response to the
above to put the onus on defense contractors to manage their own supply chains. This means that the
government will impose rework charges, but also much farther reaching penalties and fixes (some are
expensive), in theory reaching up to and including de-barring, although that would be a last resort, in our view.
Security Industry MonitorIdentity Solutions Sector
March 2014
68
Other Counterfeit Breaches
Chinese Seizures in 2013
On March 11, 2014, an article in The Washington Post reported that in 2013, Chinese police seized almost
60,000 suspects involved in intellectual property infringement cases with a total estimated value of
173 billion yuan ($28 billion), citing the state media (Xinhua News Agency).
According to the report, more than 90 million tons of counterfeit and substandard goods were confiscated last
year, and 1,260 criminal networks “smashed,” the official Xinhua News Agency said, citing Ministry of Public
Security official Gao Feng. Gao also said that during a campaign against the sale of fake drugs online, police
seized a record 300 million pills worth 2.2 billion yuan ($360 million).
Aston Martin Sports Cars
A report published by Reuters on February 10, 2014, stated that Aston Martin put out a recall on to cover most of
its sports cars built since late 2007 after discovering a Chinese sub-supplier was using counterfeit plastic material
in a part supplied to the British luxury sports carmaker. Aston Martin said it would recall 17,590 cars, including all
of its left-hand drive models built since November 2007 and all right-hand drive models built since May 2012,
which affects about 75% of all vehicles built in that period, a spokeswoman said.
Outfit7 Entertainment
Outfit7, the entertainment company behind the global phenomenon Talking Tom and Friends, won a legal case
against Chinese app company, NanJing oooo3d Ltd. NanJing oooo3d has been ordered to pay compensation to
Outfit7 for the loss of goodwill and significant value suffered to the brand. In one of the first lawsuits filed in the
U.S. courts against mobile app IP infringement, NanJing oooo3d was found guilty of copying the Talking Tom
virtual character as well as the look and feel of the globally successful Talking Tom mobile apps.
French Wines
According to the Atlantic Monthly, China is one of the world's biggest wine consumers, importing nearly
$1 billion worth of wine (67.9 million gallons) from the European Union last year and that its growing appetite
for wine has brought with it a booming counterfeit market. The magazine noted that one sales director told
Reuters that most wine counterfeiting happens "in secondary or third-tier cities where they don't have much
wine knowledge." Expensive European wine, particularly French varieties, are popular with counterfeiters.
Spirits companies are eager to crack down on the frauds. Some companies have begun to use tamper-proof caps
and authentication technologies; others even established bottle buyback programs, and some have begun
testing an advanced DNA marker; some can even provide provenances for the wine. Some winemakers have
their bottles smashed after tastings to prevent them from being illegally refilled. Wine counterfeits may increase
even more now that China has announced it will investigate wine imports from the EU, threatening
anti-dumping tariffs or import curbs in response to Europe's anti-dumping duties on Chinese solar panels.
March 2014
69
Security Industry Monitor
Identity Solutions Sector
Busted: Fake Health and Beauty Supplies Ring Biggest Known Counterfeiting Enterprise in U.S.
Acccording to a CNN report on March 9, 2014, the largest known counterfeit enterprise in the U.S. has been
broken up. A pair of New York men were booked on charges of running a multimillion-dollar ring that peddled
fake products that were distributed throughout the East Coast, including everyday health and beauty items such
as ChapStick, Johnson's Baby Oil, Vaseline, and Always sanitary pads. Authorities seized more than $2 million
worth of products and were looking at bank accounts to determine the size of the enterprise. Law enforcement
authorities seized four tractor-trailers filled with knockoff health products from five locations on Long Island on
March 6, 2014. Brothers Pardeep Malik, 59, and Hamant Mullick, 60, are accused of running an enterprise whose
products also turned up in Pennsylvania and Florida, according to the Nassau County District Attorney's Office.
A manufacturer described the operation as the biggest known counterfeit enterprise in the U.S., while another
company called it the only known such manufacturing operation in the country for its products, prosecutors said.
Malik and Mullick, both charged with felony trademark counterfeiting, were being held on bond of $100,000 each, the
district attorney's office said.
A Review of the Rules That Will Govern the DoD Supply Chain
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012: Section 818, Detection and Avoidance of Counterfeit
Electronic Parts, provided new rules regarding counterfeit electronic parts. This policy requires contractors to
provide items that have been marked with organically-generated DNA marking material produced by Applied
DNA Sciences and any of its authorized licensees. Suppliers were notified of the new requirement by special
notices from the DLA Internet Bid Board System, the Supplier Information Resource Center, and the Federal
Business Opportunities websites. The rule was published by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) in
September 2012, as an amendment to the overall Defense Acquisition Regulations System, and reached partial
implementation in March 2012. In July 2013, the OMB received comments from industry participants. Unless the
date is pushed back (which is a possibility), the OSD will consider these comments, and then write a rule that is
expected to be finalized in April 2014. At that point, companies will be unreimbursed or fined for not complying
with directives trying to drive counterfeit parts out of critical defense systems.
The intent of the updated rule is to hold contractors responsible for detecting and avoiding the use or inclusion
of counterfeit electronic parts or suspect counterfeit electronic parts. Approximately 400 to 1,200 prime
contractors covered by the rule will have to change their existing purchasing system—a mix of computer
applications and manual procedures required to do business with the government that document purchases
from a chain of suppliers. Most, but not all, of the prime contractors (some of the largest ones claim they will be
in compliance), agree with the intent of the mandate, but want more time to comply with what they deem to be
not enough clarity on the rules coming out of the Pentagon.
Separate from the National Defense Authorization Act, the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), on August 1, 2012,
the DoD’s Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) began requiring the use of DNA authentication marking for future
procurements of items falling within Federal Supply Class 5962, Electronic Microcircuits. The requirement only
applies to procurements associated with the DLA. In an effort to enhance existing safeguards to prevent
counterfeit parts from entering the DLA supply chain, the DLA introduced this new marking requirement for the
electronic microcircuits supply class. The contractors covered under the rule have been in most cases
distributors. However, certain prime contractors and manufacturers also supply 5962 parts to the DLA and are
covered under the rule.
Security Industry MonitorIdentity Solutions Sector
March 2014
70
M&A Review and Outlook
� Identity Solutions product and service companies experienced a significant improvement in M&A
activity in the second half of 2013 compared to the first half of 2013
The third and fourth quarters of 2013 saw significant improvement in ID security M&A activity with more than
40 transactions taking place.
Figure 28: M&A Transactions in the Identity Solutions Sector,
Fourth Quarter 2010 to Fourth Quarter 2013
Sources: Imperial Capital, LLC and Capital IQ.
Notable Middle Market Transactions
� Symantec bought PasswordBank on July 23, 2013
On July 23, 2013, Symantec bought enterprise-focused authentication software start-up PasswordBank in a
move aimed at beefing up its enterprise security software roster.
� Assurant Expands Global Mobile Services by Acquiring Lifestyle Services Group from Phones 4u
Finance plc
On September 5, 2013, Assurant, INC. announced an agreement to purchase Lifestyle Services Group, a mobile
phone insurance provider, for up to $160 million (£107 million) in cash from Phones 4u Finance plc.
� F5 Networks, Inc. announced that it agreed to acquire Versafe Ltd for $92 million
On September 19, 2013, F5 Networks, Inc. (NASDAQ: FFIV) announced that it has agreed to acquire Versafe Ltd.,
an Israeli provider of web anti-fraud, anti-phishing, and anti-malware solutions.
� Experian purchased 41st Parameter, Inc for $324 million
On October 1, 2013, Experian plc announced that it had signed a definitive agreement to acquire 41st
Parameter, Inc, a leading provider of fraud detection services based in the U.S., for $324 million.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Q4 2010 Q1 2011 Q2 2011 Q3 2011 Q4 2011 Q1 2012 Q2 2012 Q3 2012 Q4 2012 Q1 2013 Q2 2013 Q3 2013 Q4 2013
Identity Solutions Services Identity Solutions Products
March 2014
71
Security Industry Monitor
Identity Solutions Sector
� CACI announced intent to acquire Six3 Systems, Inc for $820 million
On October 9, 2013, CACI International Inc announced that it had signed a definitive agreement to acquire Six3
Systems, Inc., a provider of highly specialized support to the national security community in the areas of cyber
and signals intelligence; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; and intelligence operations, from private
equity firm GTCR for $820 million.
� Synaptics closes acquisition of Validity Sensors for $255 million
On November 7, 2013, Synaptics Inc. announced it had completed its acquisition of Validity Sensors, Inc.,
designer and developer of biometric fingerprint sensors for information, communication, and entertainment
devices, for $255 million.
� First American Financial announced agreement to acquire Interthinx, Inc for $155 million
On February 7, 2014, First American Financial Corporation announced the signing of an agreement with Verisk
Analytics, Inc. to acquire Interthinx, Inc., provider of fraud-prevention solutions and decision-support tools for
the mortgage industry, for $155 million.
� HID Global Acquires Biometric Leader Lumidigm in February 2014
On February 10, 2014, HID Global, announced the acquisition of Lumidigm, a global leader in authentication
solutions that use multispectral imaging technology, software, and biometric fingerprint sensors to authenticate
identities with a high degree of certainty.
Imperial Capital served as the sole financial advisor to Lumidigm on the transaction.
Registered Direct and Private Placement Snapshot
The fourth quarter of 2013 experienced an improvement over the first quarter of 2013.
� Applied DNA Sciences, Inc. announced a private placement of 5,500 series B convertible preferred
shares, 10,695,187 common shares, and 10,695,187 series A warrants for gross proceeds of $7.5 million
On July 19, 2013, Applied DNA Sciences, Inc. issued $7.5 million dollars worth of convertible preferred stock,
common shares, and Series A, B, and C warrants. The preferred stock is convertible into common shares at a fixed
conversion price of $0.187. Applied DNA Sciences, Inc. provides botanical-DNA based security and
authentication solutions in Europe and the U.S.
� Payfone, Inc. announced that it will receive $10 million in an equity round of funding
On October 7, 2013, the company announced that it will receive $10 million in an equity round of funding from
one investor under Reg D. Payfone, Inc. a provider of mobile authentication services.
Security Industry MonitorIdentity Solutions Sector
March 2014
72
� i-Sprint Innovations Pte. Ltd. executed a private placement of its common shares to raise $10 million
On January 28, 2014, the company announced that it will issue 118,973,914 common shares at
HKD 0.6458 ($0.08) per share to new investor, Peregrine Greater China Capital Appreciation Fund, L.P., a
fund managed by Bull Capital Partners Limited for gross proceeds of HKD 76,833,073 ($10 million). The
investor will acquire 41.67% stake in the company through this transaction. i-Sprint Innovations Pte. Ltd.
provides credential and access management solutions for banking and financial, government, and telecom
sectors in Singapore and internationally.
� Xceedium Inc announced that it will receive $6.5 million in funding
On February 20, 2014, Xceedium Inc, developer of privileged access management solutions, announced that it
will receive $6.5 million in funding through a convertible debt transaction.
Public Debt and Equity Offering Snapshot
There were two notable public offerings YTD 2014, an improvement from the previous two quarters.
� Fingerprint Cards AB executed a follow-on offering of its Class B Shares
On January 22, 2014, Fingerprint Cards AB executed a follow-on offering of its Class B Shares for total gross
proceeds of $21.3 million.
� RX Safes, Inc. announced IPO on February 6, 2014
RX Safes, Inc. is a maker of fingerprint medical security storage solutions for consumers and healthcare
professionals. It focuses on identity-based security utilizing biometric fingerprint recognition technology. The
company offers medication lock boxes for consumers to address the problem of unauthorized access to
prescription pain and other dangerous medications stored in the home.
Bankruptcies
There were no significant Identity Solutions bankruptcies through the second quarter of 2013.
March 2014
73
Security Industry Monitor
Identity Solutions Sector
Notable Transactions
Figure 29: Select M&A Transactions in the Identity Solutions Sector, 2013 and YTD 2014
Sources: Capital IQ and Imperial Capital, LLC.
Announced
/ Filing
Date
Closed
DateTarget Business Description Buyer
Target
Implied TEV
($mm)
TEV /
Revenue
TEV /
EBITDA
2/10/2014 02/10/2014 Lumidigm, Inc.Lumidigm, Inc. designs and develops biometric identity
management and authentication solutions.HID Global Corporation NA NA NA
2/5/2014 NA Interthinx, Inc.Interthinx, Inc. provides fraud-prevention solutions and
decision-support tools for the mortgage industry.
First American Financial
Corporation$155 NA NA
10/9/2013 11/07/2013 Validity Sensors, Inc.
Validity Sensors, Inc. designs and develops biometric
f ingerprint sensors for information, communication, and
entertainment devices.
Synaptics Inc. $255 NA NA
10/8/2013 11/15/2013 Six3 Systems Inc.
Six3 Systems Inc. designs and develops intelligence, defense,
and civilian solutions for government agencies in the United
States.
CACI International Inc. $820 1.8x 13.5x
10/1/2013 10/01/2013The 41st Parameter
Inc.
The 41st Parameter Inc., a fraud detection softw are company,
provides fraud detection and intervention solutions.Experian plc $324 NA NA
9/17/2013 09/17/2013 Versafe Ltd.Versafe Ltd. develops security applications for identity theft
and online fraud prevention applications.F5 Netw orks, Inc. $88 NA NA
9/5/2013 10/25/2013Lifestyle Services
Group Limited
Lifestyle Services Group Limited provides mobile device
protection solutions, packaged account products, and bespoke
services to the retail banking and telecommunications sectors.
Assurant Inc. $107 0.9x NA
7/18/2013 07/18/2013Passw ordBank
Technologies, S.L.
Passw ordBank Technologies, S.L. operates as an information
and communications technology f irm.Symantec Corporation $19 NA NA
6/12/2013 06/28/2013LPI Level Platforms
Inc.
LPI Level Platforms Inc. provides remote monitoring,
management, and automation softw are for information
technology (IT) solution providers.
Avg Netherlands B.V.;
AVG Technologies
Canada Inc.
NA NA NA
5/14/2013 05/14/2013 PrivacyChoice LLC PrivacyChoice LLC provides online privacy scanning solutions. AVG Technologies N.V. NA NA NA
5/14/2013 05/14/2013Sense Security
Technologies Inc.
Sense Technologies Inc. engages in the design, development,
manufacture, and marketing of biometric identif ication products
and systems for time and attendance, and homeland security
markets.
Homeland Security
CorporationNA NA NA
4/3/2013 04/03/2013
RSA Security, Inc.,
Know ledge Based
Authentication
Know ledge Based Authentication of RSA Know ledge Based
Authentication of RSA Security, Inc. comprises the consumer
Know ledge Based Authentication (KBA) technology, w hich
utilizes know ledge-based authentication to validate user
identities in real-time.
LexisNexis Risk
Solutions, Inc.NA NA NA
4/1/2013 04/01/2013Infoglide Softw are
Corporation
Infoglide Softw are Corporation develops and markets identity
resolution softw are for government, f inancial services,
healthcare, insurance, retail, and telecommunications markets.
Fair Isaac Corporation $7 NA NA
2/25/2013 03/15/2013Angel.com
Incorporated
Angel.com Incorporated offers cloud-based customer
experience management (CEM) solutions.
Genesys
Telecommunications
Laboratories, Inc.
$111 3.8x NA
01/07/2013 01/07/2013 Codebench, Inc.Codebench, Inc. develops physical security and identity
management sof tw are solutions.HID Global Corporation NA NA NA
Security Industry MonitorIdentity Solutions Sector
March 2014
74
[This page intentionally left blank.]
March 2014
75
Security Industry Monitor
Information Security Sector
Section IV
Information Security Sector
Security Industry MonitorInformation Security Sector
March 2014
76
[This page intentionally left blank.]
March 2014
77
Security Industry Monitor
Information Security Sector
Information Security Sector
Sector Outlook and Commentary
Information security gained significant attention recently with the well-publicized data breach at national
retailer Target in December 2013. This breach, one of the largest in history, resulted in the exposure of 40 million
credit card and debit card numbers and the personal information of 70 million people. The attack impacted a
substantial portion of the American public and continues to make news headlines, elevating security from an
“IT” problem to a strategic issue for the executive leadership and boards of a numerous consumer-facing
organizations. In this monitor, we discuss the details of this breach, which was notable for the initial execution of
the attack though a third-party vendor. It also highlighted the security challenges facing large organizations
with complex IT infrastructures—even those with top-tier defenses. This attack was a major topic at this year’s
RSA Conference, one of the premier annual industry events, which saw strong expansion in attendance to
approximately 30,000 people, from 24,000 in 2013. The escalation in the volume and sophistication of attacks
continues to drive broadening market demand for more effective security solutions beyond traditional,
signature-based defenses.
This year’s event generated considerable controversy due to a reported payment to RSA (a division of EMC and
host of the conference) from the National Security Agency (NSA) to weaken the default algorithm used in many
of RSA’s toolkits. Rebuilding trust will be a major focus within the security industry and between the industry and
government in 2014 and beyond. Other key themes at the conference included the increasing skills shortage in
IT security, intelligence-driven security, the security of hybrid cloud environments, the evolution of mobile
security toward data and application management, shared threat intelligence, and incident response. We also
highlight increased prioritization of cybersecurity by the federal government based on details of President
Obama’s budget request for FY15. The recent budget deal represents a breakthrough on the funding of key
cybersecurity programs, following multi-year political gridlock. This includes significant expansion of the
EINSTEIN and Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation (CDM) programs which aim to provide ongoing situational
awareness to protect federal civilian agencies and “.gov” networks.
In addition, industry consolidation has been gaining strong momentum in recent months, with two major
transactions since the beginning of the year. We highlight FireEye’s acquisition of privately-held Mandiant, a
leading provider of incident response services, for approximately $1 billion in cash and stock. We also note
VMware’s acquisition of privately-held AirWatch, an early leader in the Enterprise Mobility Management (EMM)
sector, for approximately $1.5 billion. We expect further strategic acquisition activity over the coming quarters,
as larger technology companies and security vendors seek to integrate new security technologies and achieve
early penetration of emerging market categories. Until the cost of breaches is raised for attackers, there will likely
be continued high-profile attacks, driving a healthy demand environment for new security solutions. Market
researcher and vendor HP Security Research reported a 20% increase in threats and breaches in 2013, with
breach-associated damages rising 30%.
Security Industry MonitorInformation Security Sector
March 2014
78
Federal Cybersecurity Gaining Higher Prioritization in FY 2015
Cybersecurity remains a critical priority across the federal government, with continued attacks by highly-resourced and
sophisticated attackers, including adversarial nation-states. The president’s budget request for FY15 calls for overall
information technology (IT) spending of $43.655 billion for the major civilian agencies, essentially flat with the previous
fiscal year. In contrast, the proposal for the Department of Defense (DoD) is 6% lower at $35.370 billion, driving the overall
federal IT proposal down 2.9% to $79.025 billion compared with the enacted budget for FY14. Notwithstanding this
reduction, partially from data center consolidation savings, DoD indicated plans to substantially increase spending for
cybersecurity to $5.1 billion in FY 2015, up from $4.7 billion in the prior fiscal year. Although the definition of what
constitutes “cybersecurity” related spending is not consistent in the federal sector, we believe there is a significant overall
uptrend for initiatives associated with U.S. Cyber Command, as well as spending by the various military services and
specific areas such as encryption, information assurance, as well as research and development for cyber attack and cyber
defense. For example, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel indicated plans to substantially expand U.S. Cyber Command to
4,900 personnel by year-end 2016, up from 900 last year. This relatively new command will build both offensive and
defensive capabilities, and will address a comprehensive array of cyber contingencies.
The president’s request calls for a discretionary budget of $38.2 billion for the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS), representing a 2.5% decline from the enacted budget for FY14. However, cybersecurity was allocated
$1.25 billion, up substantially from $792 million approved in the current fiscal year, according to DHS Secretary Jeh
Johnson. One of the key priorities is Network Security Deployment which was budgeted for $377.7 million, with
expanded implementation of the EINSTEIN3 Accelerated (E3A) program, a core cybersecurity initiative. This program is
focused on detecting malicious traffic coming into the networks of federal civilian agencies, as well as preventing any
adverse impact. Another major priority is the Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation (CDM) program, which was
budgeted for $143.5 million. This program is managed by DHS and aims to “defend federal IT networks from
cybersecurity threats by providing continuous monitoring sensors, diagnosis, mitigation tools, and CMaaS
(Continuous Monitoring-as-a-Service) to strengthen the security posture of government networks.” A third key priority
is cyber and cyber-related investigations, such as identity theft, economic cybercrime, export-controlled data theft,
and child exploitation, which was budgeted for $173.5 million. Other priorities included cybersecurity/information
analysis research and development ($67.5 million), the Homeland Secure Data Network ($28 million), enhanced
cybersecurity services supporting the president’s cybersecurity executive order 13636 ($8.5 million), and U.S. Secret
Service Cybersecurity Presidential Protection Measures ($3.9 million).
Figure 30: Federal IT Budget, FY01 to FY15(1)
(1) President’s Budget Request.
Sources: U.S. Government.
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015*
Major Civilian Agencies Dept of Defense Total for Major Agencies
(in $ billions)
March 2014
79
Security Industry Monitor
Information Security Sector
EINSTEIN Program Evolving to Next Major Phase
The EINSTEIN program initially involved the deployment of a detection system at the Internet access points of
participating federal agencies, spurred by the rapid escalation of attacks against federal civilian agencies in early 2000s.
EINSTEIN is a multi-phase program that has evolved significantly since 2004 and is now on its third iteration. The first
version of EINSTEIN was intended to provide real-time detection of incoming network traffic anomalies by analyzing
network flow records, which were then passed on to US-CERT (United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team).
One of the early challenges was real-time information sharing because, at that time, agencies had thousands of
connections to the Internet and the program was voluntary, resulting in limited agency participation. The program
subsequently evolved into EINSTEIN 2 in 2008, which provided monitoring of both incoming and outgoing network
traffic and would alert US-CERT if there was a match with any signatures. EINSTEIN 2 utilized passive intrusion detection
systems with custom signatures. By the end of FY13, about 70% of executive branch agencies had deployed EINSTEIN 2.
The latest iteration of the program, called EINSTEIN 3, represents a major advancement, as it additionally
incorporates intrusion prevention systems (IPS) to keep malicious traffic from impacting agencies’ networks.
EINSTEIN 3 was launched in July 2013 and utilizes deep packet inspection tools to analyze content and block
suspicious traffic. Critically, EINSTEIN 3 is capable of analyzing electronic content (e.g., emails), which has raised
privacy concerns because it can collect personally identifiable information (PII). DHS issued a privacy impact
assessment on 4/19/13, which indicates procedures to “minimize (i.e., overwrite, redact, or replace) PII data that
is not necessary to understand the cyber threat.” Of particular note, E3A is delivered by federal agencies’ Internet
Service Providers (ISPs) as a managed security service under the DHS, which allows monitoring of “.gov” traffic
entering and leaving federal civilian executive branch agency networks.
Threat indicators (based on traffic metadata such as IP addresses and packet payload) developed by DHS’ Office
of Cybersecurity and Communications are provided to ISPs to enable them to automatically block both
incoming and outgoing malicious traffic. These indicators are focused on specific types of traffic and DHS
intends to maintain the privacy of legitimate traffic by avoiding overly broad data collection. ISPs are also
required to segregate “.gov” traffic. According to a report by the U.S. General Accountability Office in February
2013, EINSTEIN has improved situational awareness, but needs to significantly develop its predictive analysis and
real-time information sharing capabilities. DHS responded to the inspector general report and indicated that it
does not expect the latter capability will be fully operational until FY18.
Continuous monitoring represents a significant evolution in the security of federal civilian agencies and the
Department of Defense, in our view. While this capability potentially offers rapid detection of threats, agencies have
discovered implementation challenges due to the massive quantity of network data and log files that need to be
analyzed. For example, according to the Commerce Department’s Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) Rod Turk, it
has proven difficult to discover malicious activity and generate actionable intelligence, given the agency’s substantial
volume of data and array of systems. Mr. Turk also highlighted the morphing of malicious activities, representing
another key challenge. He indicated that the Commerce Department, which has tens of thousands of active end-users,
is considering the implementation of various tools to recognize malicious patterns to improve security. This
methodology analyzes the entire lifecycle of threats, from initial entry to exfiltration. However, it creates significant
storage problems because it is necessary to keep this traffic data for a period of time. The United States Air Force
(USAF) stores this data for three months, though certain records are retained beyond this timeframe, according to the
USAF’s chief technology officer Frank Konieczny. USAF additionally aims to gain visibility on all its applications,
extending beyond the collection of network data. By tagging these applications, USAF can compare the actual flow
traffic of applications with their expected behavior to detect suspicious activity. An offline analytical cloud is currently
under development by USAF, in collaboration with the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), which will be
used to analyze this transaction data and it eventually could generate regional-level alerts.
Security Industry MonitorInformation Security Sector
March 2014
80
RSA Conference USA 2014 Highlights
We attended the RSA Conference USA 2014, which is one of the premier annual events for the information
security industry. The conference was held February 24–28, 2014 in San Francisco, California. There was record
attendance this year, which reached an estimated 30,000 people, up substantially from 24,000 people in 2013.
We attribute this strong expansion to the urgent need for more effective defenses due to the rapid escalation in
volume and sophistication of threats. We believe these threats could potentially impact all types of organization
across multiple vertical markets, driven by the increasing complexity of IT infrastructures. There were over
350 exhibitors at the conference, encompassing numerous security vendors offering solutions for a broad array
of problems. This year’s event sparked significant controversy in the security community due to reported
collaboration between RSA (a division of EMC and host of the conference) and the National Security Agency
(NSA), including a payment to weaken the default algorithm used in many of RSA’s toolkits. While several
prominent security experts boycotted the RSA Conference and instead held a rival conference called TrustyCon
at a nearby location, there was nominal overall impact this year.
Art Coviello, Executive Chairman of RSA, indirectly addressed the controversy in his opening keynote and
indicated that this algorithm was used because of RSA’s trust in key standards bodies (e.g., National Institute of
Standards and Technology [NIST]), which enabled RSA to meet government certification requirements. However,
he also expressed his support for separating the NSA’s roles of foreign intelligence collection and the
development of defenses for data security. Mr. Coviello’s comments were obliquely echoed by Richard Clarke,
former special advisor to the president on cybersecurity, who emphasized that security stakeholders should be
focused on fixing vulnerabilities in encryption software rather than exploiting them. We believe rebuilding trust
within the security industry and between the industry and government will likely remain a major focus of the
security industry far beyond the RSA Conference, as participants pursue a more optimal balance between
national security and privacy rights.
Key Themes at RSA
� Increasing Skills Shortage in IT Security
The escalation of threats in recent years has created a significant shortage of talent with strong IT security skills,
which is putting increasing pressure across the industry, including vendors, enterprises, academia, and
government agencies. In response to this skills shortage, vendors are making their products easier to use and
manage in order to help IT security teams become more efficient. Several vendors have emphasized improving
the graphical user interface (GUI) of their products, while others have focused on providing greater security
operations automation. Approximately 25% of enterprise and mid-market organizations (>250 employees)
reported that there is “problematic shortage” of IT security skills, according to market researcher ESG Research.
Many organizations are experiencing impact from staffing shortages, as well as security personnel without the
necessary set of skills.
ESG recommended organizations assess their IT team to identify gaps in the skills of the security staff and
examine their day-to-day activities to uncover inefficient processes. Organizations should also seek to leverage
third-party resources and outsource to service providers wherever possible, including areas such as email
security, web security, continuous monitoring, incident detection, and security investigations. Given the
shortage of IT security skills, it has also become increasingly critical for organizations to consider this factor when
contemplating new IT initiatives, not just when purchasing new security technologies. Organizations
significantly raise their risk exposure without sufficient security resources to support a new IT initiative. Also,
recruitment and retention of skilled security professionals is another key issue for many organizations. While
competitive compensation is important, organizations can offer other benefits, such as continuing education
March 2014
81
Security Industry Monitor
Information Security Sector
and training, greater opportunity for exposure to partners, and a career development path in IT security. Of
particular note, certain organizations have begun taking a proactive approach to the skills shortage, such as
offering scholarships and creating internship programs with leading universities.
� Intelligence-Driven Security
Beyond the NSA controversy, there was significant focus at the RSA Conference on the recent attack on Target
and other major retailers, which has gained C-level and Board-level attention at numerous consumer-facing
organizations. We believe the high-profile nature of this attack could spur accelerated spending for more
effective security solutions across the supply chain, particularly as traditional signature-based defenses are
generally ineffective against targeted attacks, zero day exploits, and advanced persistent threats (APTs).
One key approach highlighted by Mr. Coviello was intelligence-driven security, which involves the application of
“Big Data” analytics to generate timely and actionable information and the usage of predictive analytics and
pattern recognition to implement agile controls. This type of security system benefits from the sharing of
information, though it still requires skilled personnel and comprehensive risk assessment. The ultimate
objectives are rapid breach detection and response in order to avoid the loss of critical data.
� Cloud Security
While security spending remains primarily focused on perimeter-based technologies and prevention solutions,
these have proven inadequate against the rapid innovation of highly motivated and well-funded attackers.
Given the rising demand for cloud-based services, one topical theme was the shift by organizations toward
hybrid cloud environments, with many security vendors highlighting their cloud strategies and extending their
products to address this emerging opportunity. Organizations may increasingly focus their security resources on
protecting their most critical data, while leveraging public cloud providers for a larger part of their IT
infrastructure. However, technology solutions alone are not the answer to a comprehensive security program.
In his keynote, Art Gilliland, SVP and GM of Enterprise Security Products at HP, indicated the need for greater
investment in people and processes, given the perpetual arms race with attackers. He noted that information
security professionals place too much emphasis on deploying technology solutions, with approximately 86% of
security budgets focused on the infiltration stage. HP Security Research recently reported a 20% increase in
threats and breaches in 2013, with breach-associated damages rising 30%. Given these trends, he recommended
organizations focus on prioritizing their security based on core business needs, instead of attempting to protect
the entire enterprise against all risks. He additionally highlighted the transition to cloud and mobile, with
numerous companies rewriting applications to minimize coding weaknesses. HP identified security
vulnerabilities and/or encryption problems with substantially most of 2,000 applications in the enterprise
application stores of Fortune 1000 companies.
� Mobile Security
Mobile devices in the enterprise remained a core theme at this year’s conference, with ongoing focus on the
Bring-Your-Own-Device (BYOD) trend. Enterprises are gradually looking to enable personal mobile devices to
interact with applications needed for specific business lines, in addition to email, calendar, and contacts. While
past years at the RSA Conference emphasized the implementation of mobile device management (MDM) tools
to control devices, there was greater emphasis this year on data and application management, though it is
increasingly challenging to effectively “blacklist” or “whitelist” mobile applications due to their short popularity,
sometimes within six months. The rapid escalation of mobile malware was a particular concern at the
conference, with demonstrations on “touchlogging” of Android and iOS devices, which is malware that allows
the observation of logs on where the screen was touched by the user.
Security Industry MonitorInformation Security Sector
March 2014
82
� Threat Intelligence
Another major theme was the need to leverage threat intelligence, which was highlighted by several speakers
and vendors at the conference. This was a core focus of the keynote by James Comey, the new FBI Director, who
emphasized the need for collaboration between the commercial information security community and law
enforcement agencies. He called for public-private partnerships to share threat intelligence to develop more
comprehensive security visibility. Highlighting the urgency, he indicated that cybersecurity was the number one
domestic security priority, ahead of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Notwithstanding, he
acknowledged the challenges of sharing threat intelligence, citing mistrust in the government and reluctance of
companies to provide information that could potentially impact their competitive advantage or privacy rights.
He also noted the absence of any unilateral threat reporting infrastructure and lack of verified threat intelligence.
One possible solution is the implementation of incentives to foster collaboration and ensure government
agencies address the business concerns of enterprises. He envisioned a national registry of cyber criminals based
on patterns and behaviors derived from the combined intelligence of a multitude of sources, which could be
shared instantly with all stakeholders—a core requirement due to the scale and speed of attacks. Art Gilliland
similarly highlighted the need for the industry to share actionable, real-time threat intelligence, which he
advocated could be achieved through automated integration with different vendors based on open standards
such as STIX (Structured Threat Information Expression) and OTX (Open Threat Exchange).
� Incident Response
Incident response (IR) was another topical theme, following the Target attack and acquisition of industry leader
Mandiant by FireEye in January 2014. Most organizations discover that they have been comprised through
notification by third parties, and Mandiant previously reported the median number of days to detection was 243 days.
While certain vertical markets are more open to sharing threat intelligence to improve incident response, such as
financial services, others remain cautious despite the mutual benefit. However, organizations are increasingly sharing
data with third-party services, which “anonymize” this information. Given the need for faster IR to an attack,
automation represents a potential solution, though at this stage, it appears beneficial primarily as a tool to assist IR
professionals by speeding certain workflow steps rather than the replacement of experienced personnel.
March 2014
83
Security Industry Monitor
Information Security Sector
Analysis of the Target Data Breach
In December 2013, national retailer Target reported one of the largest and highest profile data breaches in
history, resulting in the exposure of 110 million records, including 40 million credit card and debit card numbers
and the personal information of 70 million people. The attackers did not initially penetrate Target itself, but
instead focused on a third-party vendor that was connected to Target’s network. The attack was initiated by a
“spearphishing” email sent to an employee of this vendor, a heating and refrigeration company. While this
message appeared legitimate to the employee, it actually possessed malware that enabled the attacker to steal
the network credentials of this vendor. This attack was launched almost two months prior to the theft of card
data from Target’s point-of-sales (POS) terminals. Industry sources suggest that the malware, called Citadel, is a
bot program that steals passwords. Investigators reportedly focused on this vendor’s inability to quickly detect
this email malware infection and discovered that the vendor relied primarily on the free version of Malwarebytes
Anti-Malware for its internal systems. This version was designed for individual users and does not provide
real-time protection as an “on demand” scanner.
This third party vendor was connected to Target’s network exclusively for functions such as billing, project
management, and contract submission. However, it is not publicly known how the attackers were able to move
laterally from one of these external systems to Target’s internal network and specifically the portions
encompassing its payment system (and POS terminals) and databases of customer information. Target may have
believed that it had properly segmented its network, and did not therefore mandate ancillary vendors to
implement more secure two-factor authentication for remote network access. This is usually required of vendors
with need for direct access to critical information, for whom Target would issue a one-time token or other
authentication solution. Industry sources believe the attackers could have bridged Target’s network
segmentation by escalating their Active Directory (AD) privileges. AD credentials are typically used by internal
administrators to access systems, perform maintenance, and provide login credential for vendors. It is not yet
clear if the vendor possessed any AD credentials; though it is likely the vendor had active access to the Target
server running external applications.
Target’s POS terminals in nearly every U.S store were confirmed to possess malware, which ultimately enabled
the attacker to extract customers’ payment card data. According to security vendor and market researcher
McAfee Labs (Intel), this was not a particularly advanced attack as the malware used in this attack was based on
the BlackPOS malware family, an “off-the-shelf” exploit kit. This kit can be purchased online and then modified
for a specific environment, even by attackers with limited programming skills. The attackers likely tested this
modification against common anti-malware applications to ensure they would not be detected, a standard
evasion practice. Indeed, attackers can readily purchase software that test the defenses of a specific
organization, as well as exploit kits that facilitate evasion. Ultimately, the attacker was successfully able to upload
this malware to Target’s POS terminals and capture payment card data using a method known as RAM (memory)
scraping. This type of POS malware emerged around 2009 and exploits the moment when a card is swiped at a
POS terminal and the data from the card’s magnetic stripe is briefly stored in plain-text format in the memory of
the system just prior to encryption. (Encryption of data in POS system memory is not a feasible solution because
the system needs to process data that is decrypted.)
Security Industry MonitorInformation Security Sector
March 2014
84
Stolen data was collected and stored on a compromised Target server and then sent outside the network to three
staging servers in the U.S. and then downloaded to a virtual private server in Russia. The stolen data was reportedly
sent from Target between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Central Standard Time in order to mask it with
other legitimate traffic during normal business hours. After successful exfiltration, the attackers soon began selling
the stolen data such as credit card numbers on various online “carding” marketplaces, typically in large batches of
1-4 million numbers. The largest online black markets have become well established and highly organized, with
buyers typically paying with anonymous virtual currencies (e.g., Bitcoin). According to Chief Financial Officer John
Mulligan, Target invests “hundreds of millions of dollars” in various security technologies, such as firewalls, intrusion
detection, and malware detection, but its defenses were inadequate against this attack. Mr. Mulligan also indicated
that Target performs ongoing assessments and penetration testing by third parties to benchmark the company
and assess compliance with Target’s processes and control standards.
Recent industry reports suggested that Target actually received early warning of the attack with its FireEye
malware detection system, which detected the uploading of exfiltration malware. However, this alert was
ignored by Target’s security team. It is possible that the team did not fully interpret or evaluate this activity
without the benefit of hindsight, according to a response from Target. Effective security requires organizations
to combine technology with processes and policies, given the substantial volume of alerts on a daily basis
(including numerous false positives) from different parts of their security systems. To better prioritize and
respond to these alerts, Target likely needs to improve its security escalation procedures, including incident
ownership, incident hand-off, and incident closure. Security is especially challenging for large organizations with
complex IT infrastructures and Target may not have had a sufficient number of security specialists to adequately
review and respond to these alerts. Target recently announced that it was in the process of hiring a new chief
information officer (CIO) and chief information security officer (CISO), a newly-created position.
In addition to Target, several other major retailers were impacted by similar POS attacks in 2013, including
Neiman Marcus, Michaels Stores, Harbor Freight Tools, White Lodging, ‘witchcraft, and Easton-Bell Sports. While
these retailers were compliant with PCI-DSS (Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard) and Target itself
was certified as recently as September 2013, POS RAM scraper malware is able to circumvent PCI-DSS (which
requires the encryption of payment data when stored on media or transmitted). Target is already taking steps to
strengthen its payment security, including accelerated adoption of the EMV (Europay, MasterCard, Visa) standard
by January 2015. However, we note EMV would not have prevented this specific attack which exploited the
system memory of Target’s POS terminals (not the cards directly).
EMV cards (also known as “chip and pin” cards) have embedded chips with encrypted data and cardholders must
enter a PIN (personal identification number) to authenticate transactions at a POS terminal. While the EMV
standard is embraced globally, there has been nominal adoption in the US, as the entire payment ecosystem
remains primarily tied to PCI-DSS. Also, EMV cards offer no advantage for securing online or phone (i.e., “card not
present”) transactions. One possible solution, though not announced by Target, would be the implementation of
tokens for authentication. An alternative solution could monitor for changes on POS terminals even if custom
POS malware is able successfully evade detection from other security systems.
March 2014
85
Security Industry Monitor
Information Security Sector
Figure 31: EMV Card and POS Terminal
Sources: Marvin Technology and Shoreline Solutions.
As of yet, it is not publicly known if these retailer attacks originated from the same attacker, though off-the-shelf
malware was used to execute many of these attacks. While POS malware has existed for several years, the
frequency and scale of these recent data breaches have substantially raised the awareness of the risks by
consumer-facing organizations which could drive increased prioritization of IT security budgets. Many
organizations will likely enhance their security posture to more effectively address these types of attacks, and we
could see new compliance mandates in the near future. There is now a global infrastructure supporting the
cybercrime industry, from the sale of exploit kits to online black markets, which continues to expand due to the
escalating volumes of highly valuable data and attractive profit motive for attackers. Until this equation
becomes more balanced by raising the cost of attacks, it appears that future data breaches, both announced and
unannounced, will remain a regular occurrence.
Mobile Security Shifting Focus Toward Applications and Data
Perimeters continue to become more opaque with the rapid proliferation of mobile devices, which represents a
major security challenge for most enterprises and organizations. According to market researcher Gartner, the
global smartphone market grew 42.3% to 967.8 million units in 2013, compared with 680.1 million in 2012. Of
particular note, smartphones unit sales eclipsed the number of basic feature phones and constituted the
majority of the 1.8 billion global mobile phone market in 2013. Users are now broadly embracing smartphones
and tablets for personal and work applications, which offer compelling productivity and convenience benefits.
Mobile devices have become powerful tools that leverage high-speed wireless connectivity to enable users to
untether from their desktops and engage with customers, partners, colleagues, or other constituents anywhere.
Regardless of formal policies, users are increasingly employing their personal mobile devices for work purposes,
a trend commonly known as Bring-Your-Own-Device or BYOD. However, unlike corporate-owned devices, these
personal devices are typically outside the control of their organization’s IT department. Given the surge of
mobile malware and the urgent need to protect corporate data on these devices, organizations are widely
seeking to implement new mobile security capabilities. Although adoption is still relatively early stage,
organizations initially turned to mobile device management (MDM) tools which have since evolved into
enterprise mobility management (EMM) suites. According to market researcher Aberdeen Group, 75% of IT
organizations indicated having a BYOD program, but half of this group only nominally manages their mobile
environment—implying the substantial majority have not yet formalized a mobile security strategy.
Security Industry MonitorInformation Security Sector
March 2014
86
Figure 32: Worldwide Smartphone Sales to End Users by Operating System
Sources: Gartner.
MDM software manages, monitors, secures, and supports the mobile devices of an organization. It commonly
handles enrollment, device registration (typically over-the-air), device and application settings, authentication
and access, remote monitoring, blacklisting (or whitelisting) of applications, software distribution, and can
disable the device. It sets up a common configuration for every mobile device in the organization (such as
settings for email, Wi-Fi, VPM, etc.) and enforces policies. These policies can be stricter or more lenient
depending on the organization; policy examples include minimum password requirements and screen auto-lock
time. In order to secure these devices and protect corporate data, IT staff can use their MDM to lock out devices
or even wipe the entire device if it is no longer in the control of the user. MDM is particularly useful in managing
multiple mobile operating systems, which is typical of BYOD environments. Key issues for organizations include
deployment considerations, cost, and adaptability.
However, users are not universally accepting of the restrictive nature of MDM, which impedes the convenience and
flexibility of their mobile devices. As a result, organizations re-examined their security problems and broadly realized
that their key security priorities were not device security, but rather the protection of critical corporate applications
and their associated data. As a result, moving beyond MDM, a number of mobile security product categories emerged
to focus on this core problem. These categories are now broadly referred to as EMM. Initially, a number of vendors
(included MDM vendors) developed the mobile application management (MAM) category. Early MAM vendors
included companies such as Apperian, Good Technology, MobileIron (acquired AppCenter), and Zenprise (acquired
by Citrix). MAM can restrict the abilities of a mobile application by wrapping a security layer around it. Additional EMM
categories that have subsequently emerged include content management, network management, service
management, and device policy control. According to market researcher Radicati Group, the worldwide EMM market
is estimated to reach $3.1 billion in 2017, up from $838 million in 2013.
Figure 33: Worldwide EMM Revenue, 2013 to 2017
Sources: Radicati Group.
Operating System 2013 2013 2012 2012
(in thousands) Units Mkt Sh Units Mkt Sh
Android 758,719.9 78.4% 451,621.0 66.4%
iOS 150,785.9 15.6% 130,133.2 19.1%
Microsoft 30,842.9 3.2% 16,940.7 2.5%
BlackBerry 18,605.9 1.9% 34,210.3 5.0%
Other OS 8,821.2 0.9% 47,203.0 6.9%
Total 967,775.8 100.0% 680,108.2 100.0%
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
2013 2014 2015 2016 20170
in $ millions
March 2014
87
Security Industry Monitor
Information Security Sector
With MAM, users have the flexibility to keep personal content on their mobile device, while also having the
ability to securely use their corporate applications. Moreover, the IT department can distribute, manage, and
secure these applications through an enterprise application store, regardless of whether or not the mobile
device is user-owned (i.e., BYOD) or corporate-owned/personally-enabled (COPE). In order to protect corporate
data but segregate personal data, organizations can employ secure containers which are device agnostic and
managed by the IT department. If necessary, containers that are governed by corporate security policies can be
wiped. The key advantage is the delineation between personal and corporate data. However, this
“containerization” approach can be circumvented if an attacker gains root access to the mobile device, which
generally cannot be detected by the container. In addition, as an application must be linked to a container, it is
necessary during the development of the application that it uses a vendor’s application programming interface
(API) and software development kit (SDK). Market researcher Gartner notes container vendors include
companies such as AirWatch (acquired by VMware), Divide (formerly called Enterproid), Excitor, Fixmo, Good
Technology, LRW Technologies, MobileIron, NitroDesk, and Zenprise (Citrix).
As organizations continue to refine their requirements and supported business tasks, they will likely evaluate
different EMM vendors based on the feature set that most closely matches the organization’s use case, such as
support for certain mobile platforms. In addition, certain organizations may not need one or more EMM
categories, such as application management or content management. Other considerations include the mobile
environment (BYOD or COPE), international policy enforcement, non-employee devices (e.g., contractors,
partners, etc.), and device types. Organizations also need to plan for potential changes in the mobile market
beyond the most commonly supported mobile operating systems, iOS (Apple) and Android (Google). For
example, according to Gartner, unit sales of Microsoft Windows Phone devices achieved the highest growth of
all mobile operating systems, climbing 82% in 2013. Although Microsoft had only a 3.2% share of the global
smartphone market, we believe it, or other emerging operating systems, could see wider enterprise adoption
over the next several years.
EMM suites offer simpler deployment and management than using multiple point solutions
(i.e., “best-of-breed”), though organizations typically prioritize certain features based on their requirements.
The delivery and integration of these core features, such as a secure email client or containerization
technology, represent key considerations when organizations evaluate different EMM suites. In some cases,
vendors add new features through acquisitions or partnerships, which may not be as closely integrated as
natively developed capabilities. From a security perspective, it is preferable to deploy an integrated EMM
suite, though organizations can add a handful of products without materially impacting manageability or
security. For example, one notable vendor (Good Technology) has gained strong penetration into regulated
industries due to its secure mobile messaging capabilities; however, organizations may not necessarily
choose this same vendor for their EMM suites. Organizations will balance the benefits of using
“best-of-breed” tools with deploying an EMM suite from a major vendor (e.g., IBM, SAP), which can provide
enterprise support and other services. To reduce the burden on constrained IT teams, enterprises may
increasingly adopt cloud-based EMM services and managed service providers, given the potential benefits
of pricing flexibility, regular updates, and efficient delivery of key features (e.g., MAM). Ultimately, however,
the success of any EMM deployment will be determined by the quality of the user experience, evolving far
beyond from the constrained model of MDM.
Security Industry MonitorInformation Security Sector
March 2014
88
According to Gartner, the MDM market totaled $784 million in 2012, with market penetration of less than 30%.
However, the MDM market became crowded with approximately 125 vendors and Gartner has reported significant
pricing pressure. MDM has increasingly become a commodity because of its limited functionality and the shift away
from managing devices to managing application security. Pricing has fallen to below $30 per device, down from as
high as $60 to $150 per device in 2010. With the need to innovate, the early vendors of the MDM market, such as
AirWatch (VMware), Fiberlink (IBM), Good Technology, MobileIron, SAP, and Zenprise (Citrix), have either developed
“containerization” capabilities or partnered with MAM vendors. While customer organizations will continue to need
basic MDM functionality, albeit at lower prices, there is increasing demand for the ability to apply corporate security
policies to mobile devices, whether through application containers or other approaches such as application
shielding. One nascent technology is mobile device virtualization, which appears similar to containerization but
enables the use of multiple operating systems on the same hardware. Virtualization allows users to have two
separate environments for work and personal usage on their mobile device. However, the technology is still
immature and not yet device agnostic, with additional concerns about performance. Vendors also need to
collaborate with device OEMs (original equipment manufacturers) during the design process in order to use
hypervisors. Of particular note, Apple has not yet allowed mobile virtualization vendors to enable “dual persona”
iPhones or iPads, which could become a major hindrance to broad industry adoption.
Industry Consolidation
VMware Acquires Privately-Held AirWatch
On 1/22/14, virtualization provider VMware (VMW) announced the acquisition of privately-held AirWatch, a leading
provider of enterprise mobile management (EMM) and security solutions. VMW paid approximately $1.175 billion in
cash and $365 millionn of installment payments and assumed unvested equity. The boards of directors of both
companies approved the transaction.
We believe this acquisition could significantly expand VMW’s market position in mobile security and could
enable VMW to strongly capitalize on the BYOD opportunity.
Based in Atlanta, Georgia, AirWatch primarily serves enterprises and mid-sized organizations and it offers MDM,
MAM, and Mobile Content Management (MCM) solutions. These solutions enable enterprises to securely
manage the plethora of mobile devices used by their employees. AirWatch possesses over 10,000 customers
worldwide and has more than 1,600 employees. AirWatch is considered a top-tier vendor in the MDM software
market and was ranked in the “Leaders Quadrant” by Gartner (in a market report published May 2013). Other
notable market leaders in the report included MobileIron, Citrix, Good Technology, Fiberlink, and SAP.
We highlight the active strategic consolidation of the EMM market over the past year, most notably
IBM/Fiberlink (December 2013), Oracle/Blitzer Mobile (November 2013), and Citrix/Zenprise (1 year ago). We
think VMW’s acquisition of AirWatch could accelerate the pace of acquisitions in the sector and sets the
valuation bar at a new level. We believe the remaining EMM/MDM leaders, Good Technology and MobileIron,
and other smaller vendors are potential acquisition candidates.
At this stage of the market, we think MAM and MCM offer greater opportunity for technical differentiation than
MDM. Given the significant growth potential of the BYOD market, we see greater urgency to achieve faster
time-to-market through strategic acquisitions rather than internal development. We also highlight strong
opportunities for larger security and technology vendors to integrate new and innovative capabilities that can
leverage their expansive go-to-market resources and global distribution channels.
March 2014
89
Security Industry Monitor
Information Security Sector
FireEye Acquires Privately-Held Mandiant
On 1/2/14, threat detection innovator FireEye (FEYE) began the New Year by announcing the acquisition of
privately-held Mandiant for approximately $1 billion in cash and stock. Management hosted a conference call to
discuss the transaction, which closed on 12/30/13. FEYE paid approximately $106.5 million of net cash and
issued 21.5 million shares and options.
From a technology perspective, one of the key drivers for the acquisition was Mandiant’s endpoint-based threat
detection capabilities, with particular expertise around incident response and endpoint forensics. FireEye
indicated that it intends to combine its network-based virtual machine advanced threat detection capabilities
with Mandiant’s endpoint expertise to offer a comprehensive platform to detect, prevent, and respond/contain
advanced attacks, with potentially significantly reduced time to remediation.
We believe customer organizations widely possess limited visibility of their endpoints, save the first day of
issuance to the employee or end-user. As such, we believe there is substantial market need for real-time
endpoint forensic data capture and analysis tools for threat detection and response. According to Gartner,
specific vendors include companies such as Mandiant, Guidance Software (GUID), Bit9/Carbon Black (recently
merged), RSA (EMC), ManTech/HBGary (MANT), CounterTack, and Crowdstrike.
We anticipate the increasingly sophisticated threat environment and the escalating complexity of IT infrastructures
will continue to drive strong market demand for innovative security solutions, particularly on the endpoint. We believe
customer organizations remain highly vulnerable and have critical need to bolster their security posture.
Akamai Acquires Privately-Held Prolexic Technologies
On 12/2/13, Akamai announced a definitive agreement to acquire Prolexic Technologies, a privately-held provider of
cloud-based Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) mitigation services, for approximately $370 million in cash.
Prolexic was founded in 2003 and possesses a customer base exceeding 400 enterprises worldwide across multiple
industries. While Akamai did not indicate Prolexic’s historic growth rate, we highlight Prolexic’s previously reported
achieving revenue growth of 63% in 2012, following 45% growth in 2011. Akamai estimates Prolexic will benefit its
organic growth rate by approximately 4 percentage points in the first year as a combined company.
Based on various industry sources, we believe DDoS attacks are escalating in frequency, size, and sophistication,
with measurable business impact from downtime and lost revenue and traffic. For example, we highlight the
recent DDoS attack on social website Meetup, which disrupted operations for several days and cost “hundreds of
thousands of dollars” according to CEO. Reportedly, the attacker demanded an initial ransom of $300, but the
company would not negotiate due to almost certain escalation in the final price without any assurances.
Security Industry MonitorInformation Security Sector
March 2014
90
M&A Review and Outlook
� M&A activity in the Information Security sector remained constant in the second half of 2013 versus the
preceding three quarters and rose significantly year over year
Figure 34: M&A Transactions in the Information Security Sector,
Fourth Quarter 2010 to Second Fourth 2013
Sources: Imperial Capital, LLC and Capital IQ.
Notable Middle Market Transactions
� Proofpoint, Inc. acquired Sendmail, Inc.
On October 1, 2013, Proofpoint announced that it acquired Silicon Valley based Sendmail, Inc., a leading
provider of solutions that simplify business messaging complexity and reduce IT infrastructure costs for
enterprises throughout the world.
� Cisco completed acquisition of Sourcefire for $2.7 billion
On October 7, 2013, Cisco announced it completed the acquisition of Sourcefire, a leader in intelligent
cybersecurity solutions, for $76 per share for a total of $2.7 billion.
� Oracle bought Bitzer Mobile
On November 15, 2013, Oracle recently announced the acquisition of enterprise mobile security startup Bitzer
Mobile, a provider of mobile applications management solutions designed to allow companies to provide
employees with access to corporate data and applications from their mobile devices.
� IBM closed its acquisition of Fiberlink Communications
On December 18, 2013, IBM announced it completed the acquisition of Fiberlink Communications, a privately
held mobile management and security company based in Blue Bell, Pennsylvania.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Q4 2010 Q1 2011 Q2 2011 Q3 2011 Q4 2011 Q1 2012 Q2 2012 Q3 2012 Q4 2012 Q1 2013 Q2 2013 Q3 2013 Q4 2013
IT Security Services IT Security Products
March 2014
91
Security Industry Monitor
Information Security Sector
� FireEye computer security firm acquired Mandiant
On December 30, 2013, FireEye, a provider of security software, acquired Mandiant, a company known for
emergency responses to computer network breaches for $826.5 million.
� Avigilon signed definitive agreement to acquire video analytics company VideoIQ
On December 31, 2013, Avigilon Corporation, a leader in high-definition (HD) surveillance solutions,
announced it signed a definitive agreement to acquire the video analytics company VideoIQ, Inc. for cash
consideration of $32 million.
� Google acquired IT security startup Imperium on January 15, 2014
On January 15, 2014, Google acquired Indian cyber security startup Imperium. Terms of the transaction were
not disclosed.
� VMware acquired mobile security firm AirWatch for $1.54 billion
On January 24, 2014, Under the terms of the deal, VMware purchased AirWatch, an Atlanta-based provider of
enterprise mobile management and security solutions, for approximately $1.175 billion in cash and around
$365 million in installment payments and assumed unvested equity.
� Akamai Technologies, Inc. bought Prolexic for $402 million
On February 18, 2014, Akamai Technologies announced it completed its acquisition of Prolexic Technologies,
Inc., a privately held company based in Hollywood, Florida that provides cloud-based security solutions for
protecting data centers and enterprise IP applications from distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks.
� Synopsys entered software quality and security market with Coverity acquisition
On February 19, 2014, Synopsys acquired Coverity for $375 million. Coverity products reduce the risk of quality and
security defects, which can lead to the catastrophic failures that plague many of today's large software systems.
� Lockheed Martin announces its intent to acquire Industrial Defender
On March 12, 2014, Lockheed Martin entered into a definitive agreement to acquire Industrial Defender, a
leading provider of cyber security solutions for control systems in the oil and gas, utility and chemical industries.
Registered Direct and Private Placement Snapshot
Private Placement activity in the second quarter of 2013 declined from the second quarter of 2012.
� ClearDATA Networks, Inc raised $7.0 million in Series B funding
On August 6, 2013, ClearDATA Networks, Inc., provider of cloud computing and IT security services for health
care providers, announced $7.0 million in Series B financing to fund marketing and sales initiatives.
Security Industry MonitorInformation Security Sector
March 2014
92
� Cyvera announced it received €11 million in a round of funding on August 13, 2013
On August 13, 2013, Cyvera Ltd, developer and provider of cyber defense solutions that protect organizations
from targeted cyber-attacks and mass attacks, announced that it has received €11 million in its second round of
funding led by Battery Ventures IX, L.P.
� Taasera, Inc. announced that it will receive $10 million in a round of funding
On October 11, 2013, Taasera, Inc., developer of cloud based security solutions, announced that it will receive
$10 million in a round of funding. the company issued common shares and option, warrant or other right to
acquire another security to the investors.
� Bit9, Inc. announced that it will receive $38.2 million in equity funding on February 10, 2014
On February 10, 2014, Bit9, Inc. announced that it will receive $38,235,562 in equity funding on February
10, 2014. Bit9, Inc. provides threat protection solutions for endpoints and servers.
� Shape Security, Inc. announced that it will receive $40 million in funding
On February 21, 2014, Shape Security, developer of web defense products announced that it will receive
$40,000,163 in funding to nine investors.
Public Debt and Equity Offering Snapshot
The Information Security sector saw a decrease in the second quarter of 2013 over the second quarter of 2012.
� FireEye went public on September 20, 2013, raising $304 million
On September 20, 2013, FireEye priced its IPO at $20 per share raising $304 million. FireEye provides
companies with technology and services to protect against malware and cyber-attacks.
� Barracuda Networks raised $75 million November 12, 2013 in its initial public offering
On November 12, 2013, Barracuda Networks, Inc. priced its IPO at $18 per share raising $75 million. Barracuda
Networks provides an array of security and storage solutions primarily for mid-market customers.
� Varonis Systems, Inc. raised $95 million in an initial public offering on February 28, 2014
On February 28, 2013, Varonis Systems sold 4.8 million shares at an IPO price of $22, raising $95 million. Varonis
makes a software platform that large enterprises can use to manage their unstructured data, such as letters,
memos and emails
Bankruptcies
There were no major Information Security bankruptcies in the second half of 2013.
March 2014
93
Security Industry Monitor
Information Security Sector
Notable Transactions Figure 35: Select M&A Transactions in the Information Security Sector, 2013 and YTD 2014
Continued on next page.
Announce
d / Filing
Date
Closed
DateTarget Business Description Buyer
Target
Implied
TEV
($mm)
TEV /
Revenue
TEV /
EBITDA
3/12/2014 NA Industrial Defender, Inc.
Industrial Defender, Inc. provides defense-in-depth security, sustainable
compliance management, and policy and reporting solutions to monitor,
manage, and protect assets.
Lockheed Martin
CorporationNA NA NA
2/19/2014 03/25/2014 Coverity, Inc.Coverity, Inc. provides source code analysis tools for identifying software
defects and security vulnerabilities in the software development lifecycle.Synopsys Inc. $350.0 NA NA
1/21/2014 02/24/2014 AirWatch, LLCAirWatch, LLC develops mobile security and enterprise mobility
management solutions.VMware, Inc. $1,540.0 NA NA
1/15/2014 01/15/2014 Impermium Corporation
As of January 15, 2014, Impermium Corporation was acquired by Google
Inc. Impermium Corporation provides subscription-based social content
cleaning services for Web sites and social networks defending them
against social spam, fake registrations, racist and inappropriate language,
and other forms of abuse.
Google Inc. NA NA NA
12/31/2013 01/13/2014 VideoIQ, Inc. VideoIQ, Inc. manufactures and sells video surveillance systems. Avigilon Corporation $32.0 2.9x NA
12/30/2013 12/30/2013 Mandiant Corporation
Mandiant, LLC, an information security company, provides security
incident response management solutions to Fortune 500 companies,
financial institutions, government agencies, the U.S. and foreign police
departments, and law firms.
FireEye, Inc. $826.5 8.1x NM
12/2/2013 02/18/2014 Prolexic Technologies Inc.Prolexic Technologies Inc. provides managed distributed denial of service
(DDoS) detection and protection services.
Akamai Technologies,
Inc.$402.6 NA NA
11/13/2013 12/18/2013Fiberlink Communications
Corporation
Fiberlink Communications Corporation provides mobile computing
solutions.
International Business
Machines CorporationNA NA NA
11/15/2013 11/15/2013 Bitzer Mobile, Inc.As of November 15, 2013, Bitzer Mobile, Inc. was acquired by Oracle
Corporation.Oracle Corporation NA NA NA
7/22/2013 10/07/2013 Sourcefire, Inc. Sourcefire, Inc. provides intelligent cybersecurity technologies worldwide. Cisco Systems, Inc. $2,193.6 8.9x NM
10/1/2013 10/01/2013 Sendmail, Inc.
Sendmail, Inc. provides solutions for email connectivity, routing, and
message delivery between people, systems, and applications located on-
premises, in-cloud, an on mobile devices.
Proofpoint, Inc. $23.0 NA NA
6/25/2013 06/25/2013 Palisade Systems, Inc.Palisade Systems, Inc. provides enterprise content security and data
protection solutions.
Absolute Software
CorporationNA NA NA
6/20/2013 06/20/2013
Perlego Systems, Inc.
(nka:Fixmo Carrier
Services)
Fixmo Carrier Services provides Software-as-a-Service based solutions
for smartphones.Fixmo Inc. NA NA NA
6/20/2013 06/20/2013 ZeroVulnerabilityLabs, Inc.As of June 20, 2013, ZeroVulnerabilityLabs, Inc. was acquired by
Malwarebytes Corporation.
Malwarebytes
CorporationNA NA NA
6/10/2013 06/10/2013 Fox Technologies, Inc.
Fox Technologies, Inc. provides enterprise access management solutions
that centralize administration, enforcement, and auditing of granular
authentication and authorization policies for privileged and end users.
Parallax Capital Partners,
LLC; Parallax Capital
Fund, L.P.
NA NA NA
6/5/2013 06/05/2013
Latis Networks, Inc.,
Managed Security Services
Division
Managed Security Services Division of Latis Networks, Inc. offers
managed firewall, client-owned unified threat management (UTM), file
integrity monitoring, log management, managed high-speed intrusion
detection/prevention, vulnerability scanning, managed virtual private
network (VPN), managed Web application firewall, and managed Web
security.
SilverSky, Inc. NA NA NA
5/21/2013 05/31/2013 Solera Networks, Inc.Solera Networks, Inc. operates as a network forensics and security
analytics platform provider.Blue Coat Systems Inc. $225 18.8x NA
5/14/2013 05/14/2013 PrivacyChoice LLC PrivacyChoice LLC provides online privacy scanning solutions. AVG Technologies N.V. NA NA NA
5/19/2013 06/25/2013 Websense, Inc.
Websense, Inc. provides Web, email, and data security solutions to
protect an organization’s data and users from cyber-threats, malware
attacks, information leaks, legal liability, and productivity loss worldwide.
Vista Equity Partners;
Vista Equity Fund 4$971.1 2.7x 16.6x
5/14/2013 05/14/2013 FuGen Solutions, Inc.FuGen Solutions, Inc. provides cloud-based identity federation services for
governments, enterprises, service providers, and vendors.
8K Miles Software
Services Ltd$7.5 NA NA
5/13/2013 05/31/2013 Feedback Data plcFeedback Data plc designs and manufactures access control, and time
and attendance products.
Belgravium Technologies
PLC$0.6 0.3x NA
Security Industry MonitorInformation Security Sector
March 2014
94
Figure 36: Select M&A Transactions in the Information Security Sector, 2013 and YTD 2014, continued
Sources: Capital IQ, Imperial Capital, LLC.
Announce
d / Filing
Date
Closed
DateTarget Business Description Buyer
Target
Implied
TEV
($mm)
TEV /
Revenue
TEV /
EBITDA
5/9/2013 05/09/2013 Third Defense Inc.
As of May 9, 2013, Third Defense Inc. was acquired by Caliber Security
Partners LLC. Third Defense Inc. provides Security Program Management
(SPM) software, a suite of various Web applications that include risk
communicator, risk register, metrics manager, vuln tracker, and service
manager applications.
Caliber Security Partners
LLCNA NA NA
5/9/2013 05/09/2013Netronome Systems, Inc.,
SSL Appliance Product Line
As of May 9, 2013, SSL Appliance Product Line of Netronome Systems,
Inc. was acquired by Blue Coat Systems Inc. Netronome Systems, Inc.,
SSL Appliance Product Line comprises SSL inspection appliances that
allow SSL decryption in networks ranging from 100 Mbps to 10 Gbps full
duplex.
Blue Coat Systems Inc. NA NA NA
5/5/2013 07/10/2013 Stonesoft OyjStonesoft Corporation delivers software based information security
solutions to secure information flow and enhance security management.McAfee, Inc. $389.0 7.4x NA
4/26/2013 05/17/2013 Arkoon Network Security
Arkoon Network Security provides information technology security
solutions for protecting sensitive data and infrastructures to companies
and public entities in France and internationally.
Cassidian SAS $19 1.1x 7.7x
4/9/2013 04/09/2013 Mail Distiller LtdMail Distiller, Ltd. provides managed email filtering services to eradicate
viruses and abolish spam and time-wasting e-mail content.Proofpoint, Inc. NA NA NA
4/8/2013 04/08/2013 Shavlik Technologies, LLCShavlik Technologies, LLC provides cloud-based IT management
solutions for small and medium businesses.LANDesk Software, Inc. NA NA NA
4/3/2013 04/03/2013 3LM, Inc.3LM, Inc. provides android mobile application management solutions for
IT administrators to manage devices and mobilize their enterprise.BoxTone Inc. NA NA NA
09/13/2012 06/25/2013 Websense, Inc.
Websense, Inc. provides Web, email, and data security solutions to
protect an organization’s data and users from cyber-threats, malware
attacks, information leaks, legal liability, and productivity loss worldwide.
Vista Equity Partners;
Vista Equity Fund 4$971 2.7x 17.9x
09/13/2012 05/10/2013Earthwave Corporation Pty
Limited
Earthwave Corporation Pty Limited provides managed and in-cloud
security services.
Dimension Data Holdings
plcNA NA NA
09/13/2012 04/03/2013 SecureConnect Inc.SecureConnect Inc. provides Internet security and payment card industry
(PCI) compliance services to businesses in the United States.TrustWave Holdings, Inc. NA NA NA
1/29/2013 01/31/2013 Cognitive Security s.r.o. Cognitive Security s. Cisco Systems, Inc. NA NA NA
1/23/2013 01/23/2013BitSec Global Forensics,
Inc.
BitSec Global Forensics, Inc. provides computer forensics and information
security training services.Network Designs, Inc. NA NA NA
March 2014
Appendix
95
Security Industry Monitor
Section V
Appendix
Security Industry MonitorAppendix
March 2014
96
[This page intentionally left blank.]
March 2014
97
AppendixSecurity Industry Monitor
Comparable Companies Figure 36: Select Security Industry Comparable Companies
Continued on next page.
Ticker Company Name Ticker Company Name
NASDAQNM:ACXM Acxiom Corporation NYSE:EMC EMC Corporation
TASE:AFHL AFCON Holdings Ltd. TSEC:5484 EverFocus Electronics Corporation
NasdaqGS:AKAM Akamai Technologies, Inc. LSE:EXPN Experian plc
TSX:AF AlarmForce Industries Inc. NASDAQGS:FFIV F5 Networks, Inc.
NYSE:ALLE Allegion Plc NYSE:FSS Federal Signal Corp.
NASDAQNM:ASEI American Science & Engineering Inc. NasdaqGS:FEYE FireEye, Inc.
NASDAQNM:ALOG Analogic Corporation NASDAQNM:FLIR FLIR Systems, Inc.
NYSE:AXE Anixter International Inc. NasdaqGS:FTNT Fortinet Inc.
OTCBB:ANVS ANV Security Group, Inc. NYSE:FBHS Fortune Brands Home & Security, Inc.
OTCPK:APDN Applied DNA Sciences Inc. LSE:GFS G4S plc
NasdaqGM:ARTX Arotech Corporation ENXTAM:GTO Gemalto NV
NASDAQGS:ARUN Aruba Networks, Inc. TSEC:3356 Geovision, Inc.
NASDAQGS:ASCM.A Ascent Capital Group, Inc. AMEX:GSB GlobalSCAPE, Inc.
OM:ASSA B Assa Abloy AB OTCPK:GRDH Guardian 8 Holdings
TSEC:8072 Av Tech Corporation NasdaqGM:GUID Guidance Software, Inc.
TSEC:3669 AVer Information Inc. OM:GUNN Gunnebo AB
NYSE:AVG AVG Technologies N.V. SZSE:002415 Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Co., Ltd.
TSX:AVO Avigilon Corporation NYSE:HPQ Hewlett-Packard Company
OM:AXIS Axis AB (publ) NYSE:HON Honeywell International Inc.
NYSE:CUDA Barracuda Networks, Inc. NASDAQ:IDSY ID Systems Inc.
XTRA:BSL Basler AG NasdaqCM:INVE Identive Group, Inc.
NASDAQNM:CA CA Technologies NASDAQCM:ISNS Image Sensing Systems, Inc.
NASDAQGS:CAVM Cavium, Inc. OTCPK:IWSY ImageWare Systems Inc.
NASDAQNM:CHKP Check Point Software Technologies Ltd. NYSE:IMPV Imperva Inc.
NYSE:CKP Checkpoint Systems Inc. OTCPK:IMSC Implant Sciences Corp.
NYSE:CBR Ciber, Inc. AIM:IND IndigoVision Group plc
NasdaqGS:CSCO Cisco Systems, Inc. NYSE:BLOX Infoblox Inc.
AMEX:API Advanced Photonix Inc. NYSE:IR Ingersoll-Rand Plc
NasdaqGS:CTXS Citrix Systems, Inc. ENXTPA:INSD INSIDE Secure
AMEX:MOC Command Security Corp. NasdaqGS:INTC Intel Corporation
TSX:CSU Constellation Software Inc. NYSE:IBM International Business Machines Corporation
NasdaqGS:CTRL Control4 Corporation NASDAQNM:INTX Intersections Inc.
NYSE:CXW Corrections Corporation of America OTCBB:ISCI ISC8 Inc.
OTCPK:CSTI Costar Technologies, Inc AMEX:ITI Iteris, Inc.
NYSE:CTS CTS Corporation TASE:ITRN Ituran Location & Control Ltd.
NasdaqCM:CYRN CYREN Ltd. NASDAQGS:JDSU JDS Uniphase Corporation
NYSE:DHR Danaher Corp. NYSE:JCI Johnson Controls Inc.
NYSE:DBD Diebold, Incorporated GTSM:5251 JSW Pacific Corporation
NASDAQNM:DMRC Digimarc Corporation NYSE:JNPR Juniper Networks, Inc.
NasdaqCM:DGLY Digital Ally Inc. SWX:KABN Kaba Holding AG
GTSM:5489 DynaColor, Inc. NasdaqGS:KTOS Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc.
XTRA:ELN Electronics Line 3000 Ltd. NYSE:LLL L-3 Communications Holdings Inc.
NASDAQNM:LOJN LoJack Corporation NYSE:SSNI Silver Spring Networks, Inc.
OM:LOOM B Loomis AB NASDAQGS:SWHC Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation
OTCPK:MACE Mace Security International Inc. LSE:SMIN Smiths Group plc
NASDAQNM:MAGS Magal Security Systems Ltd. NYSE:SWI SolarWinds, Inc.
XTRA:D7S Matica Technologies AG NasdaqGS:SPLK Splunk, Inc.
DB:MBQ Mobotix AG NYSE:SWK Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.
NYSE:MSI Motorola Solutions, Inc. OTCBB:SFOR StrikeForce Technologies, Inc.
NYSE:MSA MSA Safety Incorporated NasdaqGS:SYMC Symantec Corporation
NASDAQNM:NSSC Napco Security Technologies, Inc. TSEC:9925 Taiwan Shin Kong Security Co. Ltd.
TSE:6701 NEC Corporation NASDAQNM:TSYS TeleCommunication Systems Inc.
NASDAQNM:UEPS Net 1 Ueps Technologies Inc. SEHK:8051 TeleEye Holdings Ltd.
AIM:NWT Newmark Security plc NYSE:ADT The ADT Corporation
TASE:NICE NICE Systems Ltd. NYSE:BCO The Brink's Company
NASDAQGS:OVTI OmniVision Technologies, Inc. NYSE:GEO The GEO Group, Inc.
NASDAQNM:OTIV On Track Innovations Ltd. NasdaqGS:KEYW The KEYW Holding Corporation
TASE:ORAD Orad Ltd. NYSE:TMO Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc.
NASDAQNM:OSIS OSI Systems, Inc. TSE:4704 Trend Micro Inc.
NYSE:PANW Palo Alto Networks, Inc. NASDAQNM:TRMB Trimble Navigation Limited
NASDAQ:PNTR Pointer Telocation Ltd. NYSE:TYC Tyco International Ltd.
OM:PREC Precise Biometrics AB NYSE:TYL Tyler Technologies, Inc.
NASDAQGS:PKT Procera Networks, Inc. NASDAQGS:UBNT Ubiquiti Networks, Inc.
NasdaqGM:PFPT Proofpoint, Inc. NYSE:UTX United Technologies Corp.
CATS:PSG Prosegur Compañía de Seguridad, S.A. NasdaqGS:VRNS Varonis Systems, Inc.
ASX:QTG Q Technology Group Limited NASDAQSC:VDSI VASCO Data Security International Inc.
LSE:QQ. QinetiQ Group Plc NASDAQGS:VRNT Verint Systems Inc.
NasdaqGS:QLYS Qualys, Inc. AMEX:VSR Versar Inc.
NasdaqGS:RDWR Radware Ltd. AMEX:VII Vicon Industries Inc.
AMEX:RWC RELM Wireless Corp. TSEC:3454 Vivotek Inc
NasdaqGS:RVBD Riverbed Technology, Inc. NYSE:VMW VMware, Inc.
NYSE:ROP Roper Industries Inc. NASDAQCM:WAVX Wave Systems Corp.
Appendix Security Industry Monitor
March 2014
98
Figure 36: Select Security Industry Comparable Companies continued
Sources: Imperial Capital, LLC.
Figure 37: Physical Security Sector—Select Comparable Companies
Sources: Imperial Capital, LLC.
Ticker Company Name Ticker Company Name
ENXTPA:SAF Safran SA SZSE:002414 Wuhan Guide Infrared Co., Ltd.
ENXTPA:SU Schneider Electric S.A. NZSE:WYN Wynyard Group Limited
TSE:9735 Secom Co. Ltd. TSEC:6131 Yoko Technology Corp.
OM:SECU B Securitas AB NASDAQNM:ZBRA Zebra Technologies Corp.
LSE:SEPU Sepura PLC SZSE:002236 Zhejiang Dahua Technology Co.,Ltd.
SZSE:002528 Shenzhen Infinova Limited BSE:531404 Zicom Electronic Security Systems Limited
DB:SIE Siemens Aktiengesellschaft NasdaqGS:ZIXI Zix Corporation
Ticker Company Name Ticker Company Name
AMEX:API Advanced Photonix Inc. NasdaqGS:KTOS Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc.
TASE:AFHL AFCON Holdings Ltd. NYSE:LLL L-3 Communications Holdings Inc.
TSX:AF AlarmForce Industries Inc. NASDAQNM:LOJN LoJack Corporation
NYSE:ALLE Allegion Plc OM:LOOM B Loomis AB
NASDAQNM:ASEI American Science & Engineering Inc. OTCPK :MACE Mace Security International Inc.
NASDAQNM:ALOG Analogic Corporation NASDAQNM:MAGS Magal Security Systems Ltd.
NYSE:AXE Anixter International Inc. DB :MBQ Mobotix AG
OTCBB:ANVS ANV Security Group, Inc. NYS E :MS A MSA Safety Incorporated
NasdaqGM:ARTX Arotech Corporation NASDAQNM:NS S C Napco Security Technologies, Inc.
NASDAQGS:ASCM.A Ascent Capital Group, Inc. AIM:NWT Newmark Security plc
OM:ASSA B Assa Abloy AB TAS E :NICE NICE Systems Ltd.
TSEC:8072 Av Tech Corporation NASDAQGS :OVTI OmniVision Technologies, Inc.
TSEC:3669 AVer Information Inc. TAS E :OR AD Orad Ltd.
TSX:AVO Avigilon Corporation NASDAQNM:OS IS OSI Systems, Inc.
OM:AXIS Axis AB (publ) NASDAQ:PNTR Pointer Telocation Ltd.
XTRA:BSL Basler AG CATS :PS G Prosegur Compañía de Seguridad, S.A.
NYSE:CKP Checkpoint Systems Inc. AS X:QTG Q Technology Group Limited
AMEX:MOC Command Security Corp. LS E :QQ. QinetiQ Group Plc
TSX:CSU Constellation Software Inc. AME X:RWC RELM Wireless Corp.
NasdaqGS:CTRL Control4 Corporation NYS E :R OP Roper Industries Inc.
NYSE:CXW Corrections Corporation of America E NXTPA:S U Schneider Electric S.A.
OTCPK:CSTI Costar Technologies, Inc TS E :9735 Secom Co. Ltd.
NYS E :CTS CTS Corporation OM:S E CU B Securitas AB
NYS E :DHR Danaher Corp. LS E :S E PU Sepura PLC
NYSE:DBD Diebold, Incorporated S ZS E :002528 Shenzhen Infinova Limited
NasdaqCM:DGLY Digital Ally Inc. DB :S IE Siemens Aktiengesellschaft
GTSM:5489 DynaColor, Inc. NASDAQGS :SWHC Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation
XTRA:ELN Electronics Line 3000 Ltd. LS E :SMIN Smiths Group plc
TSEC:5484 EverFocus Electronics Corporation NYS E :SWK Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.
NYSE:FSS Federal Signal Corp. TS E C :9925 Taiwan Shin Kong Security Co. Ltd.
NASDAQNM:FLIR FLIR Systems, Inc. NASDAQNM:TS YS TeleCommunication Systems Inc.
NYSE:FBHS Fortune Brands Home & Security, Inc. S E HK :8051 TeleEye Holdings Ltd.
LSE:GFS G4S plc NYS E :ADT The ADT Corporation
TSEC:3356 Geovision, Inc. NYS E :BCO The Brink's Company
OTCPK:GRDH Guardian 8 Holdings NYS E :GEO The GEO Group, Inc.
OM:GUNN Gunnebo AB NYS E :TMO Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc.
SZSE:002415 Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Co., Ltd. NASDAQNM:TRMB Trimble Navigation Limited
NYSE:HON Honeywell International Inc. NYS E :TYC Tyco International Ltd.
NASDAQ:IDSY ID Systems Inc. NYS E :TYL Tyler Technologies, Inc.
NASDAQCM:ISNS Image Sensing Systems, Inc. NASDAQGS :UBNT Ubiquiti Networks, Inc.
OTCPK:IMSC Implant Sciences Corp. NYS E :UTX United Technologies Corp.
AIM:IND IndigoVision Group plc NASDAQGS :VR NT Verint Systems Inc.
NYSE:IR Ingersoll-Rand Plc AME X:VS R Versar Inc.
OTCBB:ISCI ISC8 Inc. AME X:VII Vicon Industries Inc.
AME X:IT I Iteris, Inc. TS E C :3454 Vivotek Inc
TASE:ITRN Ituran Location & Control Ltd. S ZS E :002414 Wuhan Guide Infrared Co., Ltd.
NYSE:JCI Johnson Controls Inc. TS E C :6131 Yoko Technology Corp.
GTSM:5251 JSW Pacific Corporation S ZS E :002236 Zhejiang Dahua Technology Co.,Ltd.
SWX:KABN Kaba Holding AG BS E :531404 Zicom Electronic Security Systems Limited
March 2014
99
AppendixSecurity Industry Monitor
Figure 38: Identity Solutions Sector—Select Comparable Companies
Sources: Imperial Capital, LLC.
Figure 39: Information Security Sector—Select Comparable Companies
Sources: Imperial Capital, LLC.
Ticker Company Name Ticker Company Name
NASDAQNM:ACXM Acxiom Corporation ENXTPA:INSD INSIDE Secure
OTCPK:APDN Applied DNA Sciences Inc. NASDAQNM:INTX Intersections Inc.
TSX:AVO Avigilon Corporation XTRA:D7S Matica Technologies AG
NYSE:CKP Checkpoint Systems Inc. NASDAQNM:UEPS Net 1 Ueps Technologies Inc.
NASDAQNM:DMRC Digimarc Corporation NASDAQNM:OTIV On Track Innovations Ltd.
LSE:EXPN Experian plc OM:PREC Precise Biometrics AB
ENXTAM:GTO Gemalto NV ENXTPA:SAF Safran SA
NasdaqCM:INVE Identive Group, Inc. NASDAQSC:VDSI VASCO Data Security International Inc.
OTCPK:IWSY ImageWare Systems Inc. NASDAQNM:ZBRA Zebra Technologies Corp.
Ticker Company Name Ticker Company Name
NasdaqGS:AKAM Akamai Technologies, Inc. OTCPK:ISCI ISC8 Inc.
NASDAQGS:ARUN Aruba Networks, Inc. NASDAQGS:JDSU JDS Uniphase Corporation
NYSE:AVG AVG Technologies N.V. NYSE:JNPR Juniper Networks, Inc.
NYSE:CUDA Barracuda Networks, Inc. NYSE:MSI Motorola Solutions, Inc.
NASDAQNM:CA CA Technologies TSE:6701 NEC Corporation
NASDAQGS:CAVM Cavium, Inc. NYSE:PANW Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
NASDAQNM:CHKP Check Point Software Technologies Ltd. NASDAQGS:PKT Procera Networks, Inc.
NYSE:CKP Checkpoint Systems Inc. NasdaqGM:PFPT Proofpoint, Inc.
NYSE:CBR Ciber, Inc. NasdaqGS:QLYS Qualys, Inc.
NasdaqGS:CSCO Cisco Systems, Inc. NasdaqGS:RDWR Radware Ltd.
NasdaqGS:CTXS Citrix Systems, Inc. NasdaqGS:RVBD Riverbed Technology, Inc.
NasdaqCM:CYRN CYREN Ltd. NYSE:SSNI Silver Spring Networks, Inc.
NYSE:EMC EMC Corporation NYSE:SWI SolarWinds, Inc.
NASDAQGS:FFIV F5 Networks, Inc. NasdaqGS:SPLK Splunk, Inc.
NasdaqGS:FEYE FireEye, Inc. OTCBB:SFOR StrikeForce Technologies, Inc.
NasdaqGS:FTNT Fortinet Inc. NasdaqGS:SYMC Symantec Corporation
AMEX:GSB GlobalSCAPE, Inc. NasdaqGS:KEYW The KEYW Holding Corporation
NasdaqGM:GUID Guidance Software, Inc. TSE:4704 Trend Micro Inc.
NYSE:HPQ Hewlett-Packard Company NasdaqGS:VRNS Varonis Systems, Inc.
NYSE:IMPV Imperva Inc. NYSE:VMW VMware, Inc.
NYSE:BLOX Infoblox Inc. NASDAQCM:WAVX Wave Systems Corp.
NasdaqGS:INTC Intel Corporation NZSE:WYN Wynyard Group Limited
NYSE:IBM International Business Machines Corporation NasdaqGS:ZIXI Zix Corporation
March 2014
Security Industry Monitor
Appendix
100
Valuations—Security Industry Companies
Physical Security Companies
Figure 40: Large Industrials
Enterprise Value is defined as market capitalization plus net debt, minority interest and preferred equity.
NA and NM values are excluded from mean and median calculations.
Any foreign securities are converted to USD for historical LTM figures as of the filing date, and for the equity price as of the most recent closing date.
Sources: Imperial Capital, LLC, Capital IQ, and Company SEC Filings.
($ in thousands except stock price)
Stock Price % of 52 Market Enterprise LTM LTM Gross LTM EBITDA EV / Sales EV / EBITDA P/E Net Debt / PEG
Ticker Company (3/17/2014) Week High Cap Value (EV) Revenue Margin % Margin % LTM CY2013 CY2014 LTM CY2013 CY2014 CY2013 LTM EBITDA CY2014
Physical Security - Large Industrials
SIE Siemens AG $130.34 92.5% $110,061.4 $122,454.1 $103,672.8 27.7% 10.3% 1.2x 1.6x 1.6x 11.5x 14.0x 11.1x 18.6x 1.1x 1.1
UTX United Technologies Corp. 114.24 96.5 104,552.3 121,638.3 62,626.0 28.0 17.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 10.9 11.1 10.1 18.5 1.4 1.4
HON Honeywell International Inc. 93.38 97.4 73,022.5 74,114.5 39,055.0 27.4 16.6 1.9 1.9 1.8 11.4 10.4 9.8 18.9 0.1 1.6
DHR Danaher Corp. 74.92 95.1 52,330.3 52,780.2 19,118.0 52.1 21.8 2.8 2.8 2.6 12.7 12.7 11.6 22.0 0.1 1.5
SU Schneider Electric SA 87.82 94.2 50,182.4 54,939.0 32,432.7 37.8 16.0 1.7 2.3 2.1 10.6 14.1 13.3 16.5 0.9 2.5
JCI Johnson Controls Inc. 46.35 88.3 30,777.7 37,612.7 43,216.0 16.0 9.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 9.7 9.4 9.4 16.3 1.7 0.9
TYC Tyco International Ltd. 43.32 98.2 19,940.6 21,076.6 10,694.0 36.7 14.2 2.0 2.0 1.9 13.9 12.9 12.2 22.7 0.7 1.4
ASSA B Assa Abloy AB 51.58 95.3 19,097.3 21,872.6 7,541.2 38.0 16.1 2.9 3.2 3.1 18.0 17.8 16.3 24.4 2.3 1.5
IR Ingersoll-Rand Co. Ltd. 57.87 80.7 16,090.5 17,736.9 12,350.5 29.9 12.0 1.4 1.4 1.4 12.0 11.3 10.2 22.1 1.1 1.3
ROP Roper Industries Inc. 136.46 95.7 13,584.3 15,589.5 3,238.1 58.1 32.0 4.8 4.8 4.4 15.1 14.7 13.3 24.4 1.9 1.6
SWK Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. 80.31 86.6 12,507.5 16,415.5 11,001.2 36.0 13.9 1.5 1.5 1.4 10.7 10.5 9.7 16.3 2.5 1.6
TRMB Trimble Navigation Limited 38.59 96.1 10,027.4 10,651.7 2,288.1 56.3 20.2 4.7 4.7 4.2 23.0 23.1 20.0 25.7 1.3 1.4
VRNT Verint Systems Inc. 46.56 95.0 2,488.9 2,765.0 880.5 68.3 20.1 3.1 3.1 2.7 15.6 12.6 9.8 16.6 1.5 1.6
Mean 93.2% 39.4% 16.9% 2.0x 2.2x 2.0x 12.4x 12.4x 11.0x 20.2x 1.3x 1.5
Median 95.1% 36.7% 16.1% 1.9x 2.0x 1.9x 11.8x 12.6x 10.2x 18.9x 1.3x 1.5
March 2014
AppendixSecurity Industry Monitor
101
Figure 41: Public Safety and Justice
Enterprise Value is defined as market capitalization plus net debt, minority interest and preferred equity.
NA and NM values are excluded from mean and median calculations.
Any foreign securities are converted to USD for historical LTM figures as of the filing date, and for the equity price as of the most recent closing date.
Sources: Imperial Capital, LLC, Capital IQ, and Company SEC Filings.
($ in thousands except stock price)
Stock Price % of 52 Market Enterprise LTM LTM Gross LTM EBITDA EV / Sales EV / EBITDA P/E Net Debt / PEG
Ticker Company (3/17/2014) Week High Cap Value (EV) Revenue Margin % Margin % LTM CY2013 CY2014 LTM CY2013 CY2014 CY2013 LTM EBITDA CY2014
Physical Security - Public Safety & Justice
CSU Constellation Software Inc. $233.81 95.3% $4,954.8 $5,353.2 $1,210.8 32.3% 12.8% 4.4x 4.5x 3.1x 34.6x 23.4x 15.8x 26.0x 2.6x 0.6
LLL L-3 Communications Holdings Inc. 116.39 98.2 9,991.8 13,211.8 12,629.0 10.2 11.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 8.8 9.1 8.9 13.9 2.1 5.4
CXW Corrections Corporation of America 32.96 79.6 3,821.8 4,948.9 1,694.3 28.0 21.9 2.9 2.9 3.0 13.3 13.3 12.5 16.2 3.0 2.6
TYL Tyler Technologies Inc. 90.93 84.2 2,993.9 2,915.0 416.6 46.4 18.9 7.0 7.0 6.2 37.0 33.5 27.2 N/M N/M 2.0
QQ. QinetiQ Group Plc 3.71 93.6 2,413.6 2,220.1 2,010.7 16.9 18.6 1.1 1.8 1.8 5.9 13.0 13.8 14.3 N/M 39.0
OSIS OSI Systems, Inc. 63.98 81.5 1,275.2 1,310.0 869.0 35.4 15.3 1.5 1.5 1.4 9.8 10.1 7.2 21.3 0.3 0.8
FSS Federal Signal Corp. 14.90 93.8 935.5 1,003.8 851.3 24.1 10.0 1.2 1.2 1.1 11.7 12.2 10.0 17.1 0.8 1.2
ASEI American Science & Engineering Inc. 66.94 89.6 521.1 372.0 167.0 41.6 13.9 2.2 2.2 2.2 16.1 16.1 16.5 N/M N/M 15.7
KTOS Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. 7.10 77.3 407.4 996.4 950.6 25.2 8.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 12.6 9.7 10.1 N/M 7.5 3.7
SEPU Sepura PLC 2.29 88.3 316.2 320.7 145.3 47.2 10.0 2.2 3.5 3.2 22.1 27.5 24.0 20.1 0.3 N/A
TSYS TeleCommunication Systems Inc. 2.15 67.0 128.1 213.7 362.3 38.4 5.9 0.6 0.6 0.6 10.0 6.1 6.0 N/M 4.0 1.4
ARTX Arotech Corp. 4.36 73.8 81.6 82.4 89.8 25.9 6.2 0.9 0.9 0.9 14.7 12.3 12.1 15.6 0.1 N/A
ITI Iteris, Inc. 2.15 86.0 70.5 50.0 66.5 38.5 5.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 13.2 15.4 9.1 N/M N/M 2.2
ORAD Orad Ltd. 0.51 99.1 21.5 41.2 43.5 29.4 12.2 0.9 N/A N/A 7.8 N/A N/A N/M 3.7 N/A
Mean 85.2% 31.4% 12.3% 1.4x 1.6x 1.7x 12.7x 13.5x 11.6x 18.1x 2.4x 6.8
Median 86.0% 30.8% 12.0% 1.1x 1.2x 1.3x 12.6x 12.7x 11.1x 17.3x 2.3x 2.2
March 2014
Security Industry Monitor
Appendix
102
Physical Security Companies, continued
Figure 42: Security Equipment
Continued on Next Page.
($ in thousands except stock price)
Stock Price % of 52 Market Enterprise LTM LTM Gross LTM EBITDA EV / Sales EV / EBITDA P/E Net Debt / PEG
Ticker Company (3/17/2014) Week High Cap Value (EV) Revenue Margin % Margin % LTM CY2013 CY2014 LTM CY2013 CY2014 CY2013 LTM EBITDA CY2014
Physical Security - Security Equipment
IR Ingersoll-Rand Plc $57.87 80.7% $16,090.5 $17,736.9 $12,350.5 29.9% 12.0% 1.4x 1.4x 1.4x 12.0x 11.3x 10.2x 22.1x 1.1x 1.3
002415 Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology 3.39 73.5 13,605.2 12,861.4 1,774.1 100.0 28.0 7.2 1.2 0.9 25.9 4.6 2.3 24.4 N/M 0.5
SMIN Smiths Group plc 22.22 87.1 8,763.1 9,905.0 4,720.4 45.5 19.5 2.1 3.2 3.1 10.7 15.8 14.9 14.6 1.2 3.8
FBHS Fortune Brands Home & Security, Inc. 43.47 90.7 7,205.5 7,323.8 4,157.4 34.6 11.4 1.8 1.8 1.6 15.5 15.1 11.9 29.2 0.2 1.6
002236 Zhejiang Dahua Technology Co.,Ltd. 5.04 65.2 5,774.9 5,537.5 893.6 100.0 17.9 6.2 1.1 0.7 34.6 4.7 3.3 N/M N/M 0.5
ALLE Allegion Plc 53.63 96.1 5,174.7 6,322.3 2,093.5 41.2 19.7 3.0 3.0 2.9 15.3 14.6 14.6 27.2 2.7 N/A
FLIR FLIR Systems, Inc. 34.45 97.2 4,853.2 4,699.3 1,496.4 49.4 22.1 3.1 3.2 3.1 14.2 13.9 13.2 24.5 N/M 1.9
UBNT Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. 52.67 95.9 4,623.7 4,391.8 452.5 43.9 33.6 9.7 9.7 7.3 28.8 30.3 20.7 N/M N/M 0.8
AXE Anixter International Inc. 103.40 89.3 3,366.3 4,145.0 6,226.5 22.8 6.2 0.7 0.7 0.6 10.8 10.9 10.1 18.3 2.0 1.2
DBD Diebold, Incorporated 40.31 100.0 2,591.5 2,665.9 2,857.5 23.4 7.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 13.4 12.5 11.3 29.6 0.3 2.2
AXIS Axis AB (publ) 33.81 86.1 2,348.6 2,296.1 733.7 51.5 14.7 3.1 0.5 N/A 21.2 2.9 N/A N/M N/M N/A
MSA Mine Safety Appliances 53.61 96.8 1,994.8 2,176.2 1,112.1 44.7 15.5 2.0 1.9 1.8 12.6 12.7 11.1 23.2 1.0 1.1
002414 Wuhan Guide Infrared Co., Ltd. 3.17 73.6 1,902.3 1,863.6 58.8 100.0 14.0 31.7 N/A N/A N/M N/A N/A N/M N/M N/A
KABN Kaba Holding AG 485.00 95.2 1,843.7 1,836.9 1,109.8 68.5 14.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 11.3 11.1 10.6 19.2 N/M 1.8
AVO Avigilon Corporation 27.44 88.3 1,178.8 1,080.0 167.9 54.2 17.1 6.4 6.0 3.9 37.7 32.0 19.9 N/M N/M 0.7
002528 Infinova 2.94 81.0 1,040.3 937.3 158.7 100.0 7.1 5.9 N/A N/A N/M N/A N/A N/M N/M N/A
ALOG Analogic Corporation 80.00 80.0 993.1 882.1 543.5 41.2 11.3 1.6 1.6 1.5 14.4 10.9 9.9 22.7 N/M 0.9
OVTI OmniVision Technologies, Inc. 17.34 84.7 971.5 601.5 1,459.2 18.4 7.0 0.4 0.4 0.5 5.9 4.7 5.4 8.1 N/M 0.8
SWHC Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation 13.85 89.0 761.0 818.6 634.9 40.8 27.7 1.3 1.3 1.3 4.7 4.5 5.2 9.4 0.3 0.5
CTS CTS Corporation 20.89 97.9 704.4 655.7 409.5 30.1 11.5 1.6 1.2 1.5 13.9 12.0 10.4 26.4 N/M 1.4
CKP Checkpoint Systems Inc. 13.96 76.5 578.4 571.5 695.5 39.2 8.4 0.8 0.8 0.8 9.8 7.7 6.2 N/M N/M 0.6
CTRL Control4 Corporation 23.37 71.9 535.3 453.7 128.5 50.3 6.4 3.5 3.5 3.0 N/M 41.2 29.6 N/M N/M 1.5
3454 Vivotek Inc 6.37 90.0 449.2 416.3 136.7 46.2 24.1 3.0 N/A N/A 12.6 N/A N/A N/M N/M N/A
GUNN Gunnebo AB 5.65 86.6 429.0 545.7 819.8 30.6 7.3 0.7 0.7 0.7 9.1 8.9 8.0 22.5 1.9 0.3
3356 Geovision, Inc. 6.53 93.2 415.7 381.8 76.8 55.5 31.0 5.0 0.2 0.1 16.0 0.6 0.4 21.2 N/M 0.6
SEPU Sepura PLC 2.29 88.3 316.2 320.7 145.3 47.2 10.0 2.2 3.5 3.2 22.1 27.5 24.0 20.1 0.3 N/A
5489 DynaColor, Inc. 2.78 97.5 277.1 262.5 75.3 42.3 23.3 3.5 0.1 0.1 15.0 0.5 0.4 18.6 N/M 0.9
8072 Av Tech Corporation 2.77 88.1 276.5 165.5 94.9 37.9 27.6 1.7 N/A N/A 6.3 N/A N/A 12.6 N/M N/A
MBQ Mobotix AG 20.13 78.2 264.6 265.7 118.2 74.9 25.0 2.2 3.0 2.7 9.0 11.6 10.5 14.9 0.0 1.1
NSSC Napco Security Systems Inc. 6.65 86.4 129.1 138.8 74.6 30.9 8.7 1.9 N/A N/A 21.4 N/A N/A N/M 1.5 N/A
3669 AVer Information Inc. 0.90 95.5 87.2 58.2 55.2 52.7 6.0 1.1 N/A N/A 17.4 N/A N/A N/M N/M N/A
AFHL AFCON Holdings Ltd. 15.88 81.5 72.7 129.8 287.2 18.1 5.3 0.5 N/A N/A 8.5 N/A N/A N/M 3.8 N/A
IDSY ID Systems Inc. 5.76 84.2 70.2 59.9 39.9 44.8 N/M 1.5 1.5 1.2 N/M N/M 12.6 N/M N/M 48.0
MAGS Magal Security Systems Ltd. 3.94 78.1 63.7 28.0 60.8 43.0 3.8 0.5 N/A N/A 12.3 N/A N/A N/M N/M N/A
5251 JSW Pacific Corporation 2.36 78.0 60.0 46.9 43.4 29.8 17.0 1.1 N/A N/A 6.4 N/A N/A N/M N/M N/A
IMSC Implant Sciences Corp. 0.87 62.1 53.8 98.4 8.0 29.9 N/M 12.3 12.3 3.9 N/M N/M N/M N/M N/M NM
5484 EverFocus Electronics Corporation 0.46 96.2 53.4 46.7 74.9 29.2 N/M 0.6 N/A N/A N/M N/A N/A N/M N/M N/A
6131 Yoko Technology Corp. 0.55 98.8 53.3 43.4 32.9 18.2 N/M 1.3 0.0 0.1 N/M N/A N/A N/M N/M N/A
March 2014
AppendixSecurity Industry Monitor
103
Figure 43: Security Equipment, continued
Enterprise Value is defined as market capitalization plus net debt, minority interest and preferred equity.
NA and NM values are excluded from mean and median calculations.
Any foreign securities are converted to USD for historical LTM figures as of the filing date, and for the equity price as of the most recent closing date.
Sources: Imperial Capital, LLC, Capital IQ, and Company SEC Filings.
Figure 43: Explosives Detection and Security Sensors
Enterprise Value is defined as market capitalization plus net debt, minority interest and preferred equity.
NA and NM values are excluded from mean and median calculations.
Any foreign securities are converted to USD for historical LTM figures as of the filing date, and for the equity price as of the most recent closing date.
Sources: Imperial Capital, LLC, Capital IQ, and Company SEC Filings.
($ in thousands except stock price)
Stock Price % of 52 Market Enterprise LTM LTM Gross LTM EBITDA EV / Sales EV / EBITDA P/E Net Debt / PEG
Ticker Company (3/17/2014) Week High Cap Value (EV) Revenue Margin % Margin % LTM CY2013 CY2014 LTM CY2013 CY2014 CY2013 LTM EBITDA CY2014
Physical Security - Security Equipment
IR Ingersoll-Rand Plc $57.87 80.7% $16,090.5 $17,736.9 $12,350.5 29.9% 12.0% 1.4x 1.4x 1.4x 12.0x 11.3x 10.2x 22.1x 1.1x 1.3IND
IndigoVision Group plc 7.15 97.7 53.8 50.9 56.4 57.7 7.9 0.9 1.5 0.9 11.4 17.7 11.3 16.7 N/M N/A
RWC RELM Wireless Corp. 3.33 81.4 45.4 37.4 27.0 43.5 7.6 1.4 N/A N/A 18.3 N/A N/A N/M N/M N/A
ISNS Image Sensing Systems, Inc. 5.49 66.3 27.3 21.1 26.3 62.4 N/M 0.8 0.8 0.7 N/M N/A N/A N/M N/M NM
MACE Mace Security International Inc. 0.36 61.0 21.2 19.2 12.3 36.0 N/M 1.6 N/A N/A N/M N/A N/A N/M N/M N/A
API Advanced Photonix Inc. 0.63 71.7 19.7 23.5 28.1 34.8 N/M 0.8 0.8 0.7 N/M N/M 18.3 N/M N/M N/A
DGLY Digital Ally Inc. 8.28 47.4 18.4 20.7 19.0 56.7 N/M 1.1 N/A N/A N/M N/A N/A N/M N/M N/A
GRDH Guardian 8 Corp Holdings 0.46 46.0 16.6 17.5 0.0 73.9 N/M N/M 33.2 4.1 N/M N/A N/A N/M N/M N/A
CSTI Costar Technologies, Inc 11.60 90.3 16.6 14.0 26.4 29.4 8.3 0.5 N/A N/A 6.4 N/A N/A N/M N/M N/A
531404 Zicom Electronic Security Systems Limited 0.94 61.3 16.6 69.2 134.0 23.2 12.4 0.5 N/A 0.0 4.2 N/A 0.1 N/M 3.2 N/A
NWT Newmark Security plc 0.03 92.8 13.5 10.9 30.5 39.8 19.9 0.4 0.6 0.6 1.8 3.7 4.0 4.8 N/M N/A
ELN Electronics Line 3000 0.73 55.9 10.0 7.7 16.1 38.8 6.0 0.5 0.7 0.6 8.0 4.6 5.1 3.8 N/M 0.2
QTG Q Technology Group Limited 0.02 67.9 3.3 5.2 20.7 17.6 N/M 0.3 N/A N/A N/M N/A N/A N/M N/M N/A
ANVS ANV Security Group, Inc. 0.01 10.0 0.6 0.5 0.4 93.9 N/M 1.5 N/A N/A N/M N/A N/A N/M N/M N/A
Mean 81.0% 46.8% 14.7% 2.0x 1.6x 1.5x 13.0x 9.8x 9.8x 18.7x 1.4x 3.2
Median 86.2% 42.7% 12.4% 1.5x 1.2x 1.2x 12.6x 10.9x 10.5x 19.6x 1.2x 0.9
($ in thousands except stock price)
Stock Price % of 52 Market Enterprise LTM LTM Gross LTM EBITDA EV / Sales EV / EBITDA P/E Net Debt / PEG
Ticker Company (3/17/2014) Week High Cap Value (EV) Revenue Margin % Margin % LTM CY2013 CY2014 LTM CY2013 CY2014 CY2013 LTM EBITDA CY2014
Physical Security - Explosives Detection & Security Sensors
TMO Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc. $123.12 96.5% $48,237.4 $52,899.4 $13,090.3 42.5% 21.3% 4.0x 4.1x 3.2x 19.0x 19.3x 13.1x 23.0x 1.7x 1.3
LLL L-3 Communications Holdings Inc. 116.39 98.2 9,991.8 13,211.8 12,629.0 10.2 11.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 8.8 9.1 8.9 13.9 2.1 5.4
SMIN Smiths Group plc 22.22 87.1 8,763.1 9,905.0 4,720.4 45.5 19.5 2.1 2.1 2.0 10.7 10.4 9.4 14.6 1.2 3.8
QQ. QinetiQ Group Plc 3.71 93.6 2,413.6 2,220.1 2,010.7 16.9 18.6 1.1 1.0 1.0 5.9 8.3 8.3 14.3 N/M 39.0
MSA Mine Safety Appliances Co. 53.61 96.8 1,994.8 2,176.2 1,112.1 44.7 15.5 2.0 1.9 1.8 12.6 12.7 11.1 23.2 1.0 1.1
OSIS OSI Systems, Inc. 63.49 80.9 1,265.5 1,300.3 869.0 35.4 15.3 1.5 1.5 1.4 9.8 10.0 7.1 21.2 0.3 0.8
ALOG Analogic Corporation 79.66 79.7 988.9 877.9 543.5 41.2 11.3 1.6 1.6 1.5 14.3 10.9 9.8 22.6 N/M 0.9
ASEI American Science & Engineering Inc. 66.80 89.4 520.0 370.9 167.0 41.6 13.9 2.2 2.2 2.2 16.0 16.0 16.5 N/M N/M 15.7
IMSC Implant Sciences Corp. 0.87 62.1 53.8 98.4 8.0 29.9 N/M 12.3 12.3 3.9 N/M N/M N/M N/M N/M NM
APC Advanced Power Components plc 0.89 76.9 51.9 50.3 33.5 30.3 2.5 1.5 2.2 1.9 N/M N/M 28.5 N/M N/M N/A
API Advanced Photonix Inc. 0.63 71.7 19.7 23.5 28.1 34.8 N/M 0.8 0.8 0.7 N/M N/M 18.3 N/M N/M N/A
QTG Q Technology Group 0.02 67.9 3.3 5.2 20.7 17.6 N/M 0.3 N/A N/A N/M N/A N/A N/M N/M N/A
Mean 83.4% 32.5% 14.4% 1.7x 1.9x 1.6x 12.0x 10.2x 11.4x 19.0x 1.2x 8.5
Median 84.0% 35.1% 15.3% 1.5x 1.8x 1.7x 11.7x 10.2x 9.8x 21.2x 1.2x 2.6
March 2014
Security Industry Monitor
Appendix
104
Physical Security Companies, continued
Figure 44: Alarm Monitoring
Enterprise Value is defined as market capitalization plus net debt, minority interest and preferred equity.
NA and NM values are excluded from mean and median calculations.
Any foreign securities are converted to USD for historical LTM figures as of the filing date, and for the equity price as of the most recent closing date.
Sources: Imperial Capital, LLC, Capital IQ, and Company SEC Filings.
Figure 45: Guard Services / Cash-in-Transit
Enterprise Value is defined as market capitalization plus net debt, minority interest and preferred equity.
NA and NM values are excluded from mean and median calculations.
Any foreign securities are converted to USD for historical LTM figures as of the filing date, and for the equity price as of the most recent closing date.
Sources: Imperial Capital, LLC, Capital IQ, and Company SEC Filings.
($ in thousands except stock price)
Stock Price % of 52 Market Enterprise LTM LTM Gross LTM EBITDA EV / Sales EV / EBITDA P/E Net Debt / PEG
Ticker Company (3/17/2014) Week High Cap Value (EV) Revenue Margin % Margin % LTM CY2013 CY2014 LTM CY2013 CY2014 CY2013 LTM EBITDA CY2014
Physical Security - Alarm Monitoring
ADT The ADT Corporation $28.53 56.7% $5,228.9 $9,585.9 $3,339.0 58.0% 41.2% 2.9x 2.9x 2.8x 7.0x 5.6x 5.4x 15.6x 3.2x 1.6
PSG Prosegur Compania de Seguridad SA 5.93 82.7 3,398.8 4,452.9 5,088.7 23.4 12.4 0.9 1.1 1.0 7.1 8.6 7.8 15.7 1.7 1.4
ASCM.A Ascent Capital Group, Inc. 75.36 84.6 1,060.7 2,469.8 451.0 83.6 64.0 5.5 0.6 0.5 8.6 4.8 4.3 N/M 4.9 NM
AF AlarmForce Industries Inc. 9.78 87.9 116.7 103.9 45.1 76.5 28.8 2.3 2.1 1.9 8.0 5.2 5.6 22.2 N/M N/A
VII Vicon Industries Inc. 3.41 78.4 15.4 7.1 36.9 38.2 N/M 0.2 0.0 0.0 N/M 0.0 0.0 N/M N/M N/A
Mean 78.1% 55.9% 36.6% 2.3x 1.3x 1.2x 7.6x 4.9x 4.6x 17.8x 3.2x 1.5
Median 82.7% 58.0% 35.0% 2.3x 1.1x 1.0x 7.5x 5.2x 5.4x 15.7x 3.2x 1.5
Stock Price % of 52 Market Enterprise LTM LTM Gross LTM EBITDA EV / Sales EV / EBITDA P/E Net Debt / PEG
Ticker Company (3/17/2014) Week High Cap Value (EV) Revenue Margin % Margin % LTM CY2013 CY2014 LTM CY2013 CY2014 CY2013 LTM EBITDA CY2014
Physical Security - Guard Services
9735 Secom Co. Ltd. $54.35 85.7% $11,862.2 $11,002.5 $7,731.2 33.6% 19.6% 1.4x 0.0x 0.0x 7.3x 0.1x 0.1x 18.5x N/M 1.6
GFS G4S plc 3.93 74.9 6,068.2 8,836.4 12,305.1 18.3 7.3 0.7 0.7 0.7 9.9 7.9 7.5 14.5 3.0 1.6
SECU B Securitas AB 11.34 96.6 4,141.5 5,671.5 10,219.6 17.4 6.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 8.5 9.0 8.5 14.4 2.3 1.1
PSG Prosegur Compania de Seguridad SA 5.93 82.7 3,398.8 4,452.9 5,088.7 23.4 12.4 0.9 1.1 1.0 7.1 8.6 7.8 15.7 1.7 1.4
NICE NICE Systems Ltd. 40.57 94.2 2,503.1 2,300.7 949.3 61.6 18.4 2.4 2.4 2.3 13.2 9.7 9.4 15.8 N/M 1.2
GEO The GEO Group, Inc. 31.99 81.3 2,305.9 3,839.0 1,522.1 26.1 18.4 2.5 2.5 2.4 13.7 13.2 12.1 19.8 5.5 2.1
LOOM B Loomis AB 24.18 92.8 1,817.7 2,157.7 1,767.7 23.2 16.3 1.2 0.2 0.2 7.5 1.2 1.1 15.6 1.2 2.0
BCO Brinks Co. 29.32 82.1 1,420.0 1,686.1 3,942.2 18.9 8.6 0.4 N/A 0.4 5.0 N/A N/A N/M 0.5 1.1
ITRN Ituran Location & Control Ltd. 24.08 96.4 505.0 467.9 170.2 52.5 31.9 2.7 0.8 0.7 8.6 N/A N/A 18.0 N/M N/A
LOJN LoJack Corporation 6.51 95.0 122.4 96.7 140.2 55.0 2.5 0.7 0.7 0.6 27.1 17.0 7.1 N/M N/M 2.4
PNTR Pointer Telocation Ltd. 9.88 74.7 76.0 99.4 97.9 32.3 10.7 1.0 N/A N/A 9.5 N/A N/A N/M 1.7 N/A
MOC Command Security Corp. 2.05 78.8 19.0 26.5 156.0 13.0 2.5 0.2 0.2 N/A 6.9 N/A N/A 15.5 1.9 N/A
Mean 86.3% 31.3% 12.9% 0.9x 0.6x 0.6x 8.8x 9.7x 8.1x 16.4x 2.2x 1.6
Median 84.2% 24.8% 11.6% 0.8x 0.7x 0.6x 8.5x 9.0x 7.8x 15.7x 1.8x 1.6
March 2014
AppendixSecurity Industry Monitor
105
Identity Solutions Companies
Figure 46: Intelligent Video
Enterprise Value is defined as market capitalization plus net debt, minority interest and preferred equity.
NA and NM values are excluded from mean and median calculations.
Any foreign securities are converted to USD for historical LTM figures as of the filing date, and for the equity price as of the most recent closing date.
Sources: Imperial Capital, LLC, Capital IQ, and Company SEC Filings.
($ in thousands except stock price)
Stock Price % of 52 Market Enterprise LTM LTM Gross LTM EBITDA EV / Sales EV / EBITDA P/E Net Debt / PEG
Ticker Company (3/17/2014) Week High Cap Value (EV) Revenue Margin % Margin % LTM CY2013 CY2014 LTM CY2013 CY2014 CY2013 LTM EBITDA CY2014
Identity Solutions - Intelligent Video
002415 Hangzhou HIKvision Digital Technology $3.37 73.5% $13,533.3 $12,789.5 $1,774.1 NA 28.0% 7.2x N/M N/M 25.8x N/M N/M 4.4x N/M 0.5
002236 Zhejiang Dahua Technology Co.,Ltd. 5.01 65.2 5,744.4 5,507.0 893.6 NA 17.9 6.2 1.0 0.7 34.4 4.7 3.3 5.0 N/M 0.5
FLIR FLIR Systems Inc. 34.34 96.9 4,837.8 4,683.8 1,496.4 49.4 22.1 3.1 3.2 3.1 14.1 13.9 13.1 28.1 N/M 1.9
NICE NICE Systems Ltd. 41.17 95.5 2,540.2 2,337.9 949.3 61.6 18.4 2.5 2.5 2.3 13.4 9.9 9.6 N/M N/M 1.2
VRNT Verint Systems Inc. 46.19 94.3 2,469.1 2,745.2 880.5 68.3 20.1 3.1 3.0 2.6 15.5 12.5 9.8 N/M 1.5 1.6
AXIS Axis AB 33.88 85.8 2,353.6 2,301.1 733.7 51.5 14.7 3.1 3.7 3.0 21.3 23.7 18.1 4.9 N/M N/A
002414 Wuhan Guide Infrared Co., Ltd. 3.15 73.6 1,892.2 1,853.5 58.8 100.0 14.0 31.5 N/A N/A N/M N/A N/A N/M N/M N/A
AVO Avigilon Corporation 27.75 88.9 1,192.0 1,093.2 167.9 54.2 17.1 6.5 1.7 1.4 38.2 11.3 8.6 N/M N/M 0.7
002528 Infinova 2.93 81.0 1,034.8 931.8 158.7 100.0 7.1 5.9 8.5 7.0 N/M 31.3 25.5 14.6 N/M N/A
3454 Vivotek Inc 6.38 90.0 449.8 416.9 136.7 46.2 24.1 3.1 N/A N/A 12.6 N/A N/A 0.6 N/M N/A
3356 Geovision, Inc. 6.54 93.2 416.3 382.3 76.8 55.5 31.0 5.0 0.2 0.1 16.1 0.6 0.4 0.7 N/M 0.7
MBQ Mobotix AG 20.22 78.5 265.7 266.9 118.2 74.9 25.0 2.3 2.4 2.0 9.0 9.0 7.3 21.4 0.0 1.1
BSL Balsar AG 45.25 93.1 147.9 166.3 85.5 50.8 18.1 1.9 2.6 2.3 10.7 46.3 29.7 27.7 1.2 0.8
IND IndigoVision Group plc 7.11 97.2 53.6 50.6 56.4 57.7 7.9 0.9 1.5 0.9 11.3 14.1 9.0 25.0 N/M N/A
ISNS Image Sensing Systems 5.40 65.2 26.9 20.7 26.3 62.4 N/M 0.8 0.8 0.7 N/M 5.8 3.7 N/M N/M NM
DGLY Digital Ally Inc. 8.15 46.7 18.1 20.4 19.0 56.7 N/M 1.1 N/A N/A N/M N/A N/A N/M N/M N/A
CSTI Costar Technologies, Inc 11.50 89.5 16.4 13.8 26.4 29.4 8.3 0.5 N/A N/A 6.3 N/A N/A 8.2 N/M N/A
VII Vicon Industries Inc. 3.46 79.5 15.6 7.3 36.9 38.2 N/M 0.2 N/A N/A N/M N/M N/A N/M N/M N/A
Mean 82.6% 59.8% 18.3% 3.1x 2.2x 1.9x 15.0x 11.6x 9.2x 12.8x 0.9x 1.0
Median 87.4% 56.1% 18.1% 3.1x 2.5x 2.1x 13.8x 11.3x 9.0x 8.2x 1.2x 0.8
March 2014
Security Industry Monitor
Appendix
106
Identity Solutions Companies, continued
Figure 47: Chinese Video Companies
Enterprise Value is defined as market capitalization plus net debt, minority interest and preferred equity.
NA and NM values are excluded from mean and median calculations.
Any foreign securities are converted to USD for historical LTM figures as of the filing date, and for the equity price as of the most recent closing date.
Sources: Imperial Capital, LLC, Capital IQ, and Company SEC Filings.
($ in thousands except stock price)
Stock Price % of 52 Market Enterprise LTM LTM EBITDA EV / Sales EV / EBITDA
Ticker Company (3/17/2014) Week High Cap Value (EV) Revenue Margin % LTM CY2013 CY2014 LTM CY2013 CY2014
Identity Solutions - Intelligent Video
002415 Hangzhou HIKvision Digital Technology $3.39 73.5% $13,605.2 $12,861.4 $1,774.1 28.0% 7.2x N/M N/M 25.9x N/M N/M
002236 Zhejiang Dahua Technology Co.,Ltd. 5.04 65.2 5,774.9 5,537.5 893.6 17.9 6.2 1.1 0.7 34.6 4.7 3.3
002414 Wuhan Guide Infrared Co., Ltd. 3.17 73.6 1,902.3 1,863.6 58.8 14.0 31.7 N/A N/A N/M N/A N/A
002528 Infinova 2.94 81.0 1,040.3 937.3 158.7 7.1 5.9 8.6 7.0 N/M 31.5 25.7
9925 Taiwan Shin Kong Security Co. Ltd. 1.38 95.4 519.5 399.1 245.3 19.2 1.6 N/A N/A 8.5 N/A N/A
5388 Sercomm 2.29 96.9 469.6 414.0 638.5 6.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 9.9 0.4 0.2
3454 Vivotek Inc 6.37 90.0 449.2 416.3 136.7 24.1 3.0 N/A N/A 12.6 N/A N/A
3356 Geovision, Inc. 6.53 93.2 415.7 381.8 76.8 31.0 5.0 0.2 0.1 16.0 0.6 0.4
5489 DynaColor, Inc. 2.78 97.5 277.1 262.5 75.3 23.3 3.5 0.1 0.1 15.0 0.5 0.4
8072 AV Tech Corporation 2.77 88.1 276.5 165.5 94.9 27.6 1.7 N/A N/A 6.3 N/A N/A
3669 AVer Information Inc. 0.90 95.5 87.2 58.2 55.2 6.0 1.1 N/A N/A 17.4 N/A N/A
5251 JSW Pacific Corporation 2.36 78.0 60.0 46.9 43.4 17.0 1.1 N/A N/A 6.4 N/A N/A
5484 EverFocus Electronics Corporation 0.46 96.2 53.4 46.7 74.9 N/M 0.6 N/A N/A N/M N/A N/A
6131 Yoko Technology Corp. 0.55 98.8 53.3 43.4 32.9 N/M 1.3 0.0 0.1 N/M N/A N/A
8051 TeleEye Holdings Ltd. 0.55 88.3 7.4 5.7 5.3 N/M 1.1 N/A N/A N/M N/A N/A
ANVS ANV Security Group, Inc. 0.01 10.0 0.6 0.5 0.4 N/M 1.5 N/A N/A N/M N/A N/A
Mean 82.2% 18.5% 2.8x 0.3x 0.2x 15.1x 1.5x 1.1x
Median 81.0% 18.5% 1.6x 0.1x 0.1x 15.0x 0.5x 0.4x
March 2014
AppendixSecurity Industry Monitor
107
Identity Solutions Companies, continued
Figure 48: Products
Enterprise Value is defined as market capitalization plus net debt, minority interest and preferred equity.
NA and NM values are excluded from mean and median calculations.
Any foreign securities are converted to USD for historical LTM figures as of the filing date, and for the equity price as of the most recent closing date.
Sources: Imperial Capital, LLC, Capital IQ, and Company SEC Filings.
($ in thousands except stock price)
Stock Price % of 52 Market Enterprise LTM LTM Gross LTM EBITDA EV / Sales EV / EBITDA P/E Net Debt / PEG
Ticker Company (3/17/2014) Week High Cap Value (EV) Revenue Margin % Margin % LTM CY2013 CY2014 LTM CY2013 CY2014 CY2013 LTM EBITDA CY2014
Identity Solutions - Products
MMM 3M Company $132.07 94.0% $87,521.7 $90,697.7 $30,871.0 47.8% 26.0% 2.9x 2.9x 2.8x 11.3x 11.3x 10.7x 19.6x 0.3x 1.6
ITW Illinois Tool Works 81.82 97.0 34,762.7 37,494.7 14,135.0 39.5 21.5 2.7 2.6 2.5 12.4 11.9 11.0 22.2 0.9 3.2
SAF Safran SA 66.51 87.6 27,698.5 30,372.9 20,265.8 47.2 13.9 1.5 2.1 1.9 10.7 12.2 11.6 18.0 0.9 1.2
ASSA B Assa Abloy AB 51.58 95.3 19,097.3 21,872.6 7,541.2 38.0 16.1 2.9 0.5 0.4 18.0 2.5 2.2 24.4 2.3 1.5
GTO Gemalto 113.86 89.8 9,823.4 9,211.4 3,289.4 38.9 15.7 2.8 3.8 3.5 17.8 22.0 18.4 26.3 N/M 1.2
ZBRA Zebra Technologies 69.25 95.2 3,488.1 3,074.8 1,038.2 48.5 18.7 3.0 3.0 2.7 15.8 15.7 12.4 26.0 N/M 2.0
BRC Brady Corp. 27.11 75.8 1,413.7 1,622.9 1,206.1 50.8 14.6 1.3 1.3 1.3 9.2 9.7 8.6 15.5 1.2 1.3
DLAR De La Rue 13.19 75.4 1,315.2 1,466.1 762.0 56.8 20.6 1.9 2.9 2.8 9.4 13.3 12.2 13.7 0.9 N/A
UEPS Net 1 Ueps Technologies 10.12 77.8 463.2 536.7 489.8 53.3 17.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 6.4 6.1 4.6 9.2 0.9 0.7
VDSI VASCO Data Security 8.05 89.0 315.5 216.9 155.0 64.4 10.6 1.4 1.4 1.3 13.2 13.2 9.3 N/M N/M N/A
DMRC Digimarc 31.23 84.6 232.1 202.5 35.0 73.3 N/M 5.8 N/A N/A N/M N/A N/A N/M N/M N/A
IWSY ImageWare Systems 2.25 78.9 190.8 187.4 5.3 79.2 N/M 35.4 36.6 15.9 N/M N/A N/A N/M N/M NM
IGP Intercede Group 3.19 100.0 155.4 143.4 12.7 99.7 N/M 11.3 17.3 12.7 N/M N/M N/M N/M N/M N/A
INSD INSIDE Secure 4.31 89.9 146.5 120.5 154.6 31.2 N/M 0.8 0.8 0.8 N/M 23.3 43.2 N/M N/M NM
HOL Hologram Industries 0.79 84.6 141.8 365.0 304.2 20.1 28.8 1.2 N/A N/A 4.2 N/A N/A N/M 2.5 N/A
APDN Applied DNA Sciences Inc. 0.14 49.3 109.5 105.3 2.3 100.0 N/M 45.5 44.3 23.8 N/M N/A N/A N/M N/M N/A
OTIV On Track Innovations 3.02 68.9 98.7 96.6 41.1 49.8 N/M 2.4 3.0 3.1 N/M N/M N/M N/M N/M N/A
PREC Precise Biometrics AB 0.26 31.3 88.1 72.4 5.4 54.3 N/M 13.3 1.9 1.2 N/M N/A N/M N/M N/M N/A
DSS Document Security Systems 1.61 65.4 79.3 80.4 0.6 NA N/M N/M N/A N/A N/M N/A N/A N/M N/M N/A
PREC Precia Société Anonyme 119.93 95.8 66.8 56.0 116.3 76.1 11.2 0.5 0.6 0.6 4.3 N/A N/A 12.0 N/M N/A
INVE Identive Group 0.90 58.0 66.7 65.7 97.5 40.0 N/M 0.7 N/A N/A N/M N/A N/A N/M N/M N/A
OSG OpSec Security Group 0.59 63.7 45.7 65.7 86.9 36.1 5.7 0.8 N/A N/A 13.2 N/A N/A N/M 4.0 N/A
D7S Matica Technologies AG 1.64 69.5 12.1 8.1 41.9 34.0 5.5 0.2 N/A N/A 3.5 N/A N/A N/M N/M N/A
Mean 81.3% 56.3% 17.9% 3.3x 3.0x 1.9x 10.4x 12.5x 11.0x 18.7x 1.2x 1.6
Median 86.1% 50.8% 16.6% 2.4x 2.1x 1.6x 10.7x 12.2x 11.0x 18.8x 0.9x 1.4
March 2014
Security Industry Monitor
Appendix
108
Identity Solutions Companies, continued
Figure 49: Location Technologies
Enterprise Value is defined as market capitalization plus net debt, minority interest and preferred equity.
NA and NM values are excluded from mean and median calculations.
Any foreign securities are converted to USD for historical LTM figures as of the filing date, and for the equity price as of the most recent closing date.
Sources: Imperial Capital, LLC, Capital IQ, and Company SEC Filings.
($ in thousands except stock price)
Stock Price % of 52 Market Enterprise LTM LTM Gross LTM EBITDA EV / Sales EV / EBITDA P/E Net Debt / PEG
Ticker Company (3/17/2014) Week High Cap Value (EV) Revenue Margin % Margin % LTM CY2013 CY2014 LTM CY2013 CY2014 CY2013 LTM EBITDA CY2014
Identity Solutions - Location & Tracking
GRMN Garmin Ltd. $53.46 97.1% $10,432.7 $9,103.7 $2,631.9 53.5% 24.8% 3.5x 3.5x 3.5x 13.9x 14.6x 14.0x 21.3x N/M 2.8
TRMB Trimble Navigation Ltd. 38.50 95.8 10,004.0 10,628.3 2,288.1 56.3 20.2 4.6 4.7 4.2 22.9 23.0 19.9 25.6 1.3 1.4
MANH Manhattan Associates, Inc. 40.33 100.0 3,083.1 2,950.1 414.5 56.3 25.8 7.1 7.2 6.5 27.5 25.7 23.0 N/M N/M N/A
TOM2 TomTom NV 6.41 73.8 1,424.7 1,310.9 1,326.8 54.1 12.5 1.0 1.4 1.4 7.9 9.0 10.3 18.6 N/M NM
CAMP CalAmp Corp. 32.70 93.8 1,128.5 1,099.8 224.4 33.1 10.7 4.9 4.9 4.1 45.8 41.1 28.3 N/M N/M 1.3
CKP Checkpoint Systems Inc. 13.96 76.5 578.4 571.5 695.5 39.2 8.4 0.8 0.8 0.8 9.8 7.7 6.2 N/M N/M 0.6
ITRN Ituran Location & Control Ltd. 24.08 96.4 505.0 467.9 170.2 52.5 31.9 2.7 0.8 0.7 8.6 N/A N/A 18.0 N/M N/A
ABT Absolute Software Corporation 6.43 88.0 278.3 222.2 86.4 77.1 20.3 2.6 2.5 2.2 12.7 17.2 14.1 N/M N/M N/A
DGII Digi International 9.99 78.4 258.5 160.7 195.7 50.4 8.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 9.6 10.1 8.0 N/M N/M 2.2
NMRX Numerex 12.77 79.9 241.4 217.3 77.8 41.3 4.9 2.8 2.8 2.3 N/M 29.0 19.1 N/M N/M 2.3
TSYS TeleCommunication Systems 2.16 67.3 128.7 214.3 362.3 38.4 5.9 0.6 0.6 0.6 10.0 6.1 6.1 N/M 4.0 1.4
LOJN LoJack Corp. 6.51 95.0 122.4 96.7 140.2 55.0 2.5 0.7 0.7 0.6 27.1 17.0 7.1 N/M N/M 2.4
GPS BSM Technologies 2.12 68.1 98.2 95.5 21.0 60.6 14.1 4.6 4.3 3.4 32.3 23.0 15.0 N/M N/M N/A
UBI Ubisense Group 4.20 90.2 96.8 96.8 37.6 36.4 N/M 2.6 3.5 2.7 N/M N/M 36.7 N/M N/M N/A
PNTR Pointer Telocation Ltd. 9.88 74.7 76.0 99.4 97.9 32.3 10.7 1.0 N/A N/A 9.5 N/A N/A N/M 1.7 N/A
USAT USA Technologies 2.04 76.7 72.5 73.3 39.4 37.5 15.7 1.9 1.9 1.6 11.8 11.0 8.1 N/M N/M 1.9
IDSY ID Systems 5.76 84.2 70.2 59.9 39.9 44.8 N/M 1.5 1.5 1.2 N/M N/M 12.6 N/M N/M 48.0
NVTL Novatel Wireless 2.00 45.2 68.4 51.5 335.1 20.4 N/M 0.2 0.2 0.2 N/M N/M N/M N/M N/M NM
ESYS Elecsys 13.80 79.1 52.7 55.1 29.3 37.3 14.3 1.9 N/A 1.8 13.2 N/A N/A N/M 0.6 1.4
LTRX Lantronix 2.22 67.1 32.5 26.5 45.1 47.5 N/M 0.6 0.6 0.6 N/M N/M 18.9 N/M N/M 2.7
IMP Intermap Technologies Corp. 0.28 56.4 25.7 23.7 27.9 21.6 17.2 0.8 N/A N/A 4.9 N/A N/A N/M N/M N/A
ACT Active Control Technology, Inc. 0.05 83.3 0.8 0.6 4.2 35.8 N/M 0.2 N/A N/A N/M N/A N/A N/M N/M N/A
Mean 79.5% 44.2% 14.0% 1.5x 1.7x 1.5x 14.2x 17.0x 14.2x 20.7x 1.9x 6.0
Median 79.1% 41.3% 13.3% 1.0x 1.4x 1.3x 10.9x 17.1x 14.1x 18.6x 1.5x 1.9
March 2014
AppendixSecurity Industry Monitor
109
Identity Solutions Companies, continued
Figure 50: Services
Enterprise Value is defined as market capitalization plus net debt, minority interest and preferred equity.
NA and NM values are excluded from mean and median calculations.
Any foreign securities are converted to USD for historical LTM figures as of the filing date, and for the equity price as of the most recent closing date.
Sources: Imperial Capital, LLC, Capital IQ, and Company SEC Filings.
($ in thousands except stock price)
Stock Price % of 52 Market Enterprise LTM LTM Gross LTM EBITDA EV / Sales EV / EBITDA P/E Net Debt / PEG
Ticker Company (3/17/2014) Week High Cap Value (EV) Revenue Margin % Margin % LTM CY2013 CY2014 LTM CY2013 CY2014 CY2013 LTM EBITDA CY2014
Identity Solutions - Services
EXPN Experian $17.50 81.6% $17,377.9 $20,691.9 $4,784.0 45.1% 34.2% 4.3x 4.3x 4.0x 12.7x 12.4x 11.6x 19.7x 2.0x 1.8
VRSN VeriSign 50.65 80.4 6,770.0 6,420.8 965.1 80.6 61.0 6.7 6.7 6.3 10.9 10.4 9.8 21.6 N/M 1.4
PAY VeriFone Systems 32.86 96.6 3,651.1 4,439.9 1,709.5 37.6 10.3 2.6 2.6 2.4 25.2 14.3 13.5 26.5 4.3 7.2
ACXM Acxiom Corporation 36.63 93.2 2,797.8 2,740.2 1,097.5 23.8 16.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 15.1 13.3 12.3 N/M N/M 3.8
FICO Fair Isaac Corporation 53.43 84.2 1,865.4 2,247.5 737.8 68.7 25.9 3.0 3.0 2.9 11.8 11.8 10.7 16.7 2.0 1.2
HPY Heartland Payment Systems 44.05 87.3 1,616.7 1,697.2 2,135.4 15.0 7.6 0.8 2.8 2.6 10.5 11.6 10.7 19.5 0.5 1.2
EGOV NIC 19.00 73.1 1,235.7 1,161.4 249.3 42.9 25.8 4.7 4.6 4.3 18.1 17.2 15.8 N/M N/M 1.5
WYY WidePoint 1.67 85.6 121.9 123.4 49.9 27.8 0.8 2.5 2.6 2.0 N/M N/M 30.4 N/M 4.0 2.6
INTX Intersections 6.45 58.1 116.7 97.8 324.0 66.5 8.2 0.3 N/A N/A 3.7 N/A N/A N/M N/M N/A
ADAT Authentidate Holding Corp. 1.03 54.8 39.5 36.2 6.1 31.8 N/M 5.9 2.8 2.1 N/M N/M 15.6 N/M N/M N/A
Mean 79.5% 44.0% 21.1% 3.3x 3.2x 2.9x 13.2x 12.7x 12.5x 20.8x 2.5x 2.6
Median 82.9% 40.3% 16.6% 2.8x 2.8x 2.6x 12.2x 12.4x 12.0x 19.7x 2.0x 1.7
March 2014
Security Industry Monitor
Appendix
110
Information Security Companies
Figure 51: Information Security Pure Plays
Enterprise Value is defined as market capitalization plus net debt, minority interest and preferred equity.
NA and NM values are excluded from mean and median calculations.
Any foreign securities are converted to USD for historical LTM figures as of the filing date, and for the equity price as of the most recent closing date.
Sources: Imperial Capital, LLC, Capital IQ, and Company SEC Filings.
($ in thousands except stock price)
Stock Price % of 52 Market Enterprise LTM LTM Gross LTM EBITDA EV / Sales EV / EBITDA P/E Net Debt / PEG
Ticker Company (3/17/2014) Week High Cap Value (EV) Revenue Margin % Margin % LTM CY2013 CY2014 LTM CY2013 CY2014 CY2013 LTM EBITDA CY2014
Information Security Pure Plays
SYMC Symantec $20.30 74.9% $14,038.5 $12,242.5 $6,799.0 83.6% 28.8% 1.8x 1.8x 1.8x 6.2x 5.9x 5.9x 10.7x N/M 1.4
CHKP Check Point Software 68.38 97.8 13,150.3 11,983.5 1,394.1 88.4 55.4 8.6 8.6 8.1 15.5 14.6 14.1 20.1 N/M 2.0
WYN Wynyard Group Limited 72.73 94.9 9,319.8 13,981.8 5,009.0 52.2 22.9 2.8 2.8 2.6 12.2 12.1 11.3 19.1 4.1 1.8
FFIV F5 Networks 109.94 94.2 8,294.2 7,716.0 1,522.3 82.6 30.8 5.1 5.1 4.4 16.4 13.1 11.4 23.5 N/M 1.3
PANW Palo Alto Networks 78.25 97.8 5,795.6 5,357.4 482.9 73.2 N/M 11.1 11.1 8.1 N/M N/M N/M N/M N/M 3.2
4704 Trend Micro 31.02 75.2 4,183.5 2,846.5 1,030.1 82.1 33.9 2.8 0.0 0.0 8.2 0.1 0.1 23.4 N/M 1.7
FTNT Fortinet 23.08 94.1 3,757.8 3,266.5 615.3 70.7 14.1 5.3 5.4 4.7 37.7 25.5 23.8 N/M N/M 2.7
RVBD Riverbed Technology 19.73 86.7 3,156.6 3,222.2 1,041.0 72.9 14.2 3.1 3.1 2.8 21.8 9.9 9.4 19.6 0.4 1.2
CAVM Cavium 43.10 94.5 2,266.6 2,174.0 304.0 62.3 10.9 7.2 7.2 6.1 N/M N/M 21.3 N/M N/M 1.1
ARUN Aruba Networks 19.44 75.3 2,075.6 1,797.4 637.5 69.9 1.7 2.8 1.5 1.4 N/M 4.5 4.1 N/M N/M 1.1
IMPV Imperva 61.10 91.0 1,594.1 1,476.4 137.8 78.4 N/M 10.7 10.8 8.3 N/M N/M N/M N/M N/M NM
PFPT Proofpoint 42.71 93.5 1,570.1 1,473.5 137.9 69.9 N/M 10.7 11.1 8.4 N/M N/M N/M N/M N/M NM
AVG AVG Technologies 20.84 78.5 1,134.6 1,122.2 407.1 83.1 33.2 2.8 2.8 2.9 8.3 7.9 8.6 10.2 N/M N/A
PKT Qualys 27.76 92.7 900.9 804.5 108.0 77.2 11.0 7.5 7.5 6.2 N/M 44.4 37.4 N/M N/M 4.5
SSNI Silver Spring Networks 17.00 50.3 811.8 667.5 326.9 35.3 N/M 2.0 2.0 1.8 N/M N/M 42.0 N/M N/M 8.3
RDWR Radware 17.46 89.7 782.6 647.7 193.0 81.0 14.2 3.4 3.4 3.0 23.6 22.3 15.8 25.5 N/M 1.1
GUID Guidance Software 10.60 93.0 307.4 287.8 110.5 66.1 N/M 2.6 2.6 2.5 N/M N/M 28.6 N/M N/M 26.3
ZIXI Zix 4.29 85.4 255.9 228.3 48.1 84.2 22.4 4.7 4.7 4.3 21.2 16.8 15.8 22.6 N/M 1.3
PKT Procera Networks 11.74 71.2 238.9 132.3 74.7 54.7 N/M 1.8 1.8 1.5 N/M N/M N/M N/M N/M 5.0
ARTX Arotech Corporation 4.36 73.1 81.6 82.4 89.8 25.9 6.2 0.9 0.9 0.9 14.7 12.3 12.1 15.6 0.1 N/A
GSB GlobalSCAPE 2.35 60.3 44.1 39.1 24.3 95.8 19.2 1.6 1.6 1.5 8.3 N/A N/A 14.7 N/M 1.2
VSR Versar Inc. 4.12 72.9 40.0 38.2 113.3 10.2 5.0 0.3 0.3 N/A 6.7 4.5 N/A N/M N/M N/A
WAVX Wave Systems 0.98 28.3 39.4 38.7 24.4 91.5 N/M 1.6 N/A N/A N/M N/A N/A N/M N/M N/A
BMC BMC Software 2.02 64.9 25.0 22.6 16.6 N/A 32.5 1.4 N/A N/A 4.2 N/A N/A N/M N/M N/A
FIRE Sourcefire 3.52 86.5 21.1 20.4 18.9 38.5 9.3 1.1 N/A N/A 11.6 N/M N/A N/M N/M N/A
ISCI ISC8 Inc. 0.03 22.6 6.1 12.1 0.5 66.3 N/M 24.1 N/A N/A N/M N/A N/A N/M N/M N/A
SFOR StrikeForce Technologies 0.00 2.4 0.7 7.0 0.5 96.9 N/M 13.1 N/A N/A N/M N/A N/A N/M N/M N/A
Mean 75.6% 69.0% 20.3% 3.2x 3.4x 3.2x 12.6x 11.3x 13.6x 18.6x 1.6x 3.8
Median 85.4% 73.1% 16.7% 2.8x 2.8x 2.8x 11.9x 12.1x 12.1x 19.6x 0.4x 1.7
March 2014
AppendixSecurity Industry Monitor
111
Information Security Companies, continued
Figure 52: Diversified Technology Leaders
Enterprise value is defined as market capitalization plus net debt, minority interest, and preferred equity.
Since the March 2011 Security Monitor, the following companies have been acquired: Novell Inc.
Italicized, NA, and NM values are excluded from mean and median calculations.
Any foreign securities are converted to USD for historical LTM figures as of the filing date, and for the equity price as of the most recent closing date.
Sources: Imperial Capital, LLC, Capital IQ, and Company SEC filings.
($ in thousands except stock price)
Stock Price % of 52 Market Enterprise LTM LTM Gross LTM EBITDA EV / Sales EV / EBITDA P/E Net Debt / PEG
Ticker Company (3/17/2014) Week High Cap Value (EV) Revenue Margin % Margin % LTM CY2013 CY2014 LTM CY2013 CY2014 CY2013 LTM EBITDA CY2014
Diversified Technology Leaders
IBM International Business Machines Corp. $185.37 85.9% $193,033.4 $221,835.4 $99,751.0 48.6% 25.1% 2.2x 2.2x 2.2x 8.9x 7.9x 8.0x 11.0x 1.1x 1.0
ORCL Oracle Corp. 38.33 96.2 172,385.7 160,055.7 37,552.0 81.6 43.4 4.3 4.3 4.1 9.8 8.7 8.2 13.7 N/M 1.2
CSCO Cisco Systems, Inc. 21.58 81.5 111,164.6 81,271.6 47,873.0 59.4 27.1 1.7 1.7 1.7 6.3 5.1 5.0 10.6 N/M 1.4
HPQ Hewlett-Packard Company 29.53 96.2 55,962.9 64,886.9 112,093.0 23.4 11.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 4.9 4.6 4.7 8.1 0.6 2.0
EMC EMC Corporation 27.49 99.3 55,691.9 53,671.9 23,222.0 62.3 24.2 2.3 2.3 2.2 9.6 7.9 7.2 15.3 N/M 1.2
MSI Motorola Inc. 64.71 95.6 16,427.6 15,691.6 8,696.0 49.1 18.1 1.8 1.8 1.8 10.0 9.0 8.6 13.8 N/M 3.0
CA CA Technologies 31.74 87.6 14,212.2 13,129.2 4,582.0 85.8 34.2 2.9 2.9 3.0 8.4 7.1 7.6 10.0 N/M 1.4
JNPR Juniper Networks, Inc. 25.28 87.9 12,668.3 10,821.7 4,669.1 63.2 17.0 2.3 2.3 2.2 13.6 10.0 8.6 20.6 N/M 1.1
6701 NEC Corp. 2.95 84.2 7,662.9 13,494.4 28,390.7 29.7 5.7 0.5 0.3 0.3 8.4 6.2 5.9 N/M 3.0 3.3
JDSU JDS Uniphase Corp. 14.27 85.9 3,332.0 2,822.9 1,703.2 46.2 8.8 1.7 1.7 1.5 18.8 13.3 10.6 25.9 N/M 1.5
CBR CIBER, Inc. 4.72 94.6 361.5 317.6 877.3 25.4 2.9 0.4 0.4 0.4 12.3 N/M 6.8 N/M N/M 1.1
Mean 90.4% 52.3% 19.8% 2.1x 2.1x 1.9x 10.1x 8.1x 7.6x 14.3x 1.6x 1.7
Median 87.9% 49.1% 18.1% 2.2x 2.2x 2.0x 9.7x 7.9x 7.8x 13.7x 1.1x 1.4
March 2014
Security Industry Monitor
Appendix
112
Government and Integration Services Companies
Figure 53: Government Services
Enterprise Value is defined as market capitalization plus net debt, minority interest and preferred equity.
NA and NM values are excluded from mean and median calculations.
Any foreign securities are converted to USD for historical LTM figures as of the filing date, and for the equity price as of the most recent closing date.
Sources: Imperial Capital, LLC, Capital IQ, and Company SEC Filings.
($ in thousands except stock price)
Stock Price % of 52 Market Enterprise LTM LTM Gross LTM EBITDA EV / Sales EV / EBITDA P/E Net Debt / PEG
Ticker Company (3/17/2014) Week High Cap Value (EV) Revenue Margin % Margin % LTM CY2013 CY2014 LTM CY2013 CY2014 CY2013 LTM EBITDA CY2014
Government Services
LMT Lockheed Martin Corporation $163.90 97.3% $52,326.6 $55,861.6 $45,358.0 10.1% 11.8% 1.2x 1.2x 1.2x 10.5x 9.9x 8.8x 17.3x 0.7 2.1
GD General Dynamics Corp 108.27 95.3 37,055.4 35,662.4 31,218.0 18.5 13.6 1.1 1.1 1.2 8.4 8.4 8.5 15.4 N/M 2.0
RTN Raytheon Corp 100.48 98.4 31,601.0 32,200.0 23,706.0 21.8 14.1 1.4 1.4 1.4 9.7 9.6 8.8 17.2 0.1 1.5
SAF Safran SA 66.55 87.6 27,713.0 30,387.4 20,265.8 47.2 13.9 1.5 2.1 1.9 10.8 12.2 11.6 18.0 0.9 1.2
NOC Northrop Grumman Corp 121.56 97.0 26,346.5 27,126.5 24,661.0 21.8 14.7 1.1 1.1 1.1 7.5 7.6 7.5 14.9 0.2 2.2
HRS Harris Corp 73.35 97.4 7,833.6 9,174.3 4,978.4 34.9 21.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 8.5 9.1 8.5 14.7 1.2 4.8
MMS MAXIMUS Inc 45.93 90.9 3,116.9 2,997.7 1,451.6 28.6 16.6 2.1 2.1 1.7 12.5 12.8 10.6 26.0 N/M 1.1
QQ. QinetiQ Group plc 3.71 93.6 2,413.6 2,220.1 2,010.7 16.9 18.6 1.1 1.0 1.0 5.9 8.3 8.3 14.3 N/M 39.0
CACI CACI International Inc 75.99 94.1 1,783.1 3,139.6 3,577.6 31.3 9.2 0.9 0.9 0.8 9.5 9.8 8.5 12.4 4.1 1.2
UIS Unisys Corp 30.10 83.5 1,330.1 1,186.6 3,456.5 24.5 7.7 0.3 0.3 0.3 4.5 3.4 3.0 11.6 N/M 0.8
MANT ManTech International Corp 29.51 94.9 1,093.1 1,024.1 2,310.1 13.6 7.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 6.0 6.2 7.4 14.6 N/M 3.0
ICFI ICF International Inc 40.98 92.4 810.3 841.3 949.3 37.7 9.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 9.9 9.7 8.3 20.7 0.4 1.3
KEYW The KEYW Holding Corporation 20.65 89.4 769.4 852.0 298.7 33.3 7.0 2.9 2.8 2.7 40.9 33.6 25.2 N/M 4.0 4.4
EGL Engility Holdings, Inc. 43.85 96.8 760.5 941.8 1,407.4 13.7 9.1 0.7 0.7 0.6 7.3 7.0 7.2 14.9 1.3 3.5
KTOS Kratos Defense & Security Solutions 7.10 77.3 407.4 996.4 950.6 25.2 8.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 12.6 9.7 10.1 N/M 7.5 3.7
NCIT NCI, Inc. 11.30 86.2 146.1 147.1 332.3 12.9 5.9 0.4 0.5 0.5 7.5 7.6 8.5 21.1 0.0 3.6
VSR Versar, Inc. 4.12 72.9 40.0 38.2 113.3 10.2 5.0 0.3 0.3 N/A 6.7 4.5 N/A N/M N/M N/A
Mean 92.0% 24.5% 11.8% 1.1x 1.1x 1.1x 8.7x 9.1x 8.8x 16.6x 1.9x 4.7
Median 93.9% 23.2% 10.5% 1.1x 1.1x 1.1x 8.5x 9.3x 8.5x 15.2x 0.9x 2.2
March 2014
AppendixSecurity Industry Monitor
113
Government and Integration Services Companies, continued
Figure 54: Security Systems Integration—Diversified
Enterprise Value is defined as market capitalization plus net debt, minority interest and preferred equity.
NA and NM values are excluded from mean and median calculations.
Any foreign securities are converted to USD for historical LTM figures as of the filing date, and for the equity price as of the most recent closing date.
Sources: Imperial Capital, LLC, Capital IQ, and Company SEC Filings.
($ in thousands except s tock price)
Stock Price % of 52 Market Enterprise LTM LTM Gross LTM EBITDA EV / Sales EV / EBITDA P/E Net Debt / PEG
Ticker Company (3/17/2014) Week High Cap Value (EV) Revenue Margin % Margin % LTM CY2013 CY2014 LTM CY2013 CY2014 CY2013 LTM EBITDA CY2014
Security Systems Integration - Divers ified
S IE S iemens AG $130.07 92.3% $109,832.3 $118,831.3 $75,282.0 27.7% 10.3% 1.6x 1.6x 1.5x 15.4x 13.6x 10.7x 18.6x 1.1x 1.1
UTX United Technologies Corp. 114.23 96.5 104,547.4 121,633.4 62,626.0 28.0 17.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 10.9 11.1 10.1 18.5 1.4 1.4
JC I Johnson Controls Inc. 46.26 88.1 30,718.0 37,553.0 43,216.0 16.0 9.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 9.7 9.4 9.4 16.3 1.7 0.9
TYC Tyco International Ltd. 43.36 98.3 19,960.1 21,096.1 10,694.0 36.7 14.2 2.0 2.0 1.9 13.9 12.9 12.2 22.7 0.7 1.4
SWK S tanley B lack & Decker, Inc. 80.30 86.6 12,505.9 16,413.9 11,001.2 36.0 13.9 1.5 1.5 1.4 10.7 10.4 9.7 16.3 2.5 1.6
TYL Tyler Technologies , Inc. 90.72 84.0 2,987.0 2,908.1 416.6 46.4 18.9 7.0 7.0 6.2 36.9 33.4 27.2 N/M N/M 2.0
DBD Diebold Inc. 40.22 100.0 2,585.7 2,660.1 2,857.5 23.4 7.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 13.4 12.4 11.3 29.5 0.3 2.2
KTOS Kratos Defense & S ecurity S olutions , Inc 7.14 77.8 410.0 999.0 950.6 25.2 8.3 1.1 1.0 1.0 12.6 9.8 10.1 N/M 7.5 3.7
CBR C IBE R , Inc. 4.72 94.6 361.5 317.6 877.3 25.4 2.9 0.4 0.4 0.4 12.3 13.1 6.8 N/M N/M 1.1
Mean 90.7% 29.6% 11.5% 1.2x 1.2x 1.2x 11.9x 11.3x 9.9x 20.7x 2.3x 1.8
Median 91.4% 26.7% 11.4% 1.1x 1.0x 1.0x 12.3x 11.1x 10.1x 18.5x 1.5x 1.5
Glossary of Terms SeSecurityndustry Monitor
March 2014
114
[This page intentionally left blank.]
The information contained herein represents a summary of public information. Imperial Capital, LLC neither makes any projections with regard to outcome nor makes any recommendation with respect to investment in or transferability of the securities discussed herein. The information contained herein does not necessarily reflect the independent views of the research department of Imperial Capital, LLC, or any research analyst, which may have contrary views or opinions. This is a collaborative product of Imperial Capital, LLC and may reflect contributions from all departments within the Firm, including the Firm’s corporate finance, institutional research and sales and trading departments. This is not solely a product of the Firm’s institutional research department.
This summary is for information purposes only. Under no circumstances is it to be used or considered as an offer to sell, or a solicitation of an offer to buy any security. While the information contained in this report has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, we do not represent or guarantee that the summary is accurate or complete, and it should not be relied upon as such. Any references or citations to, or excerpts from, third-party information or data sources (including, but not limited to, Bloomberg, Capital IQ and IBISWorld) do not and are not intended to provide financial or investment advice and are not to be relied upon by anyone as providing financial or investment advice. Based on information available to us, prices and opinions expressed in this report reflect judgments as of the date hereof and are subject to change without notice. The securities covered by or mentioned in this report involve substantial risk and should generally be purchased only by investors able to accept such risk. Any opinions expressed assume that this type of investment is suitable for the investor. While this is in circulation, Imperial Capital, LLC or its affiliates may, from time to time, make or quote a market in or make purchases or sales for their own accounts of securities of the issuers described herein. Imperial Capital, LLC or its affiliates may from time to time perform investment banking or other services for, or solicit investment banking or other business from, any company mentioned in this report, and therefore Imperial Capital, LLC may have a conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of this monitor report.
© 2014 Imperial Capital, LLC
Important Disclosures
Copyright © 2014 Imperial Capital, LLCMember SIPC | Member FINRA | Registrant of the MSRB w w w . i m p e r i a l c a p i t a l . c o m
Imperial Capital Locations
Los Angeles
2000 Avenue of the Stars Los Angeles, CA 90067
Office: (310) 246-3700
New York
277 Park Avenue New York, NY 10172
Office: (212) 351-9700
London
Imperial Capital (International) LLP 4th Floor, Princes House 38 Jermyn Street London SW1Y6DN
Office: +44 0 207 650 5400
Boston
101 Arch Street Boston, MA 02110
Office: (617) 478-7600
Chicago
200 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606
Office: (312) 674-4713
Houston
1200 Smith Street Houston, TX 77002
Office: (713) 353-3923
Minneapolis
60 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402
Office: (612) 692-6900
San Francisco
One California Street San Francisco, CA 94111
Office: (415) 615-4000
top related