Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : AUTOHOME, Inc -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jing Qian who wrote (13518)	8/4/1999 4:25:00 PM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29970

Walsh has Seymour's and Businessweek's problem. They promote ambiguity to gain weight. There is a profound difference between merger and takeover. The difference in Walsh's comments is obfuscated. Some of his claims are true or false depending upon which business action is taken. None of his claims are true under a certain form of merger. A merger which has been discussed and is still likely to occur is one where no cash is exchanged and Att's ownership or control is reduced. This is in every party's interest involved and so it is likely to occur. What has hung it up is Excite? and how to get rid of that mistake. I admit that Jermo felt he had to grab it to take it away from competitors, but that is why he isn't much of a CEO yet. You can't react in fear. Right attitude for him is to know that you're more important than Att and exhibit that when in the presence of Armstrong rather than acting like a boot licking lackey. If he doesn't think ATHM isn't more important, they need another CEO. Bell can't do it, but that guy at YHOO can and would push Armstrong around. YHOO management has what is necessary to focus ATHM into a hot property.