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 : Compaq -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rudedog who wrote (75276)	1/6/2000 11:37:00 AM
From: rupert1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 97611

rudedog: my post concentrated on (a) the underlying ownership of Alta Vista as a private company (b) the fact that the target of $300 million is not to be distributed to shareholders in the private company which goes public but is to be used by the public company for its development purposes (c) the fact that the the lock-up period on Alta Vista shares which arise from agreement between COMPAQ and CMGI as part of the overall CMGI-COMPAQ deal, together with any new lock-up restrictions required for the purposes of the partial float, renders the value of the Alta Vista shares moot for COMPAQ shareholders. Captain made an astute osbervation when he wrote that COMPAQ has done better with its investments than with its operations over the last few years. This may be because its true leader - Rosen - is not an industrialist but an investor whose constituency is institutional investors on Wall Street. While I think he harmed COMPAQ's operating prospects badly and caused unecessary losses for shareholders by his selling of Alta Vista (except for those who were able to buy CPQ on the cheap at $18-$20 as a result of Rosen's actions - and I count myself in that number) I would also argue that once CMGI interest became known and given the urgency of its need to acquire a significant operating company to satisfy SEC regulations governing the balance between holdings and operations, then he could have leveraged the deal to include the sale of the whole of COMPAQ. This would have compensated those shareholders who had bought into COMPAQ on the assurances the company gave the market that Alta Vista would be an integral part of its operating future. CMGI could have afforded a good price for COMPAQ in CMGI shares, at least. Those that like CMGI could have retained the shares and I am sure that CMGI would have revamped the COMPAQ board, brought in top management and aligned COMPAQ to the internet quickly and effectively and with conviction. This is not to rehash what-may-have-beens. This is to give some substance to the argument that COMPAQ continues to owe shareholders of record before the CMGI deal some compensation for the volte face in its Alta Vista policy. Rosen has tried to deflect responsibility from himself by effectively labelling that policy as a Pfeiffer policy and scapegoating him by sacking him. But it was a BOD policy. If Pfeiffer was wrong so was Rosen and the Board. I think the best way now to retroactively compensate investors is to give COMPAQ shareholders the benefit of the holdings in CMGI and Alta Vista. I am here to make money not to honour Brutus.