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 : America On-Line (AOL) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: country bob who wrote (37382)	1/12/2000 7:42:00 AM
From: Magic212	Respond to of 41369

Morning cb, an interesting read on AOL/TWX from Steve Harmon: NetStock! By Steve Harmon chairman & CEO e-harmon.com, Inc. Internet Investment Provider ______________________ 2000.01.12: Will AOL Get Real? ______________________ The haircut AOL has taken in its stock reflects the proposed percentage ownership of the combined company. But don't let haircuts fool, a hippie of a media, commerce and communications giant is there amid that buzz. As we said in our report Monday morning, before the merger AOL traded at double Time Warner. The deal calls for just about a even split. Result: Time Warner shares (TWX) are up dramatically while AOL (AOL) down slightly. The question centers on "fair" valuation for both companies. And different valuation models. History: media companies traditionally trade at a discount to their "private market value" (PMV). Time Warner, Disney (DIS), News Corp (NWS), CBS (CBS), and many more typically trade at 60% to 75% of the PMV of the assets. It always takes a 'catalyst' such as a merger or acquisition to draw out mature media value. It's no accident that TWX closed the gap between trading value and PMV once AOL modemed the deal over. Mature media trades at a multiple of cash flow (EBITDA). Time Warner, for example, traded at 11x cash flow before the merger was announced. January 11 TWX traded at 14x cash flow. Internet companies, meanwhile, are valued on revenue multiples and value per user due to their explosive growth. AOL's latest results showed revenue growth of 47% for its latest quarter. Time Warner would be extremely lucky to ever see that kind of growth, on its own. The key now is will the combined AOL-Time Warner maintain an Internet-growth curve and not be dragged down by the slower growing print and broadcast assets. If you consider the emerging broadband world then AOL-Time Warner may experience a rapid ramp in broadband Internet via cable (which TWX owns), vi satellite (which TWX owns), with print and broadcast assets (which TWX owns) pointing to AOL. Ironically if you look at the balance sheet of consumer-centric Internet startups and all Internet media companies then you'll see that a large piece of their budget annually goes for sales and marketing. Branding basically. Internet firms are spending heavily for offline media exposure on TV, cable, broadcast, print. Beneficiaries of this trend at least short term are the old-line media companies of which Time Warner is the largest media company on the planet. So an immediate plus of the merger is the instant marketing built into the deal. It's probably worth $30 billion in hard dollars over 10 years to AOL to be integrated into Time Warner's marketing machine and media venues. If not more. The new combinations of content, commerce, communications that a hybrid media company can do I believe are more than accretive. Sort of like when you combine chocolate and peanut butter you have a much better snack than either alone. So despite AOL's stock softening I think a combined company operates under the math, 1 + 1 = 3. That means AOL-Time Warner together I see as much more valuable than apart. In fact, AOL-TWX ought to command a valuation in line with GE or Microsoft. The future of commerce is at stake. Service-based platforms -- of which media/communications are primo -- scale well. Even though they are software-based they are not software apparent. Truly great commerce happens as a result of invisible market mechanisms (Adam Smith reduced). When radio required crystal sets few people tuned in and fewer produced content or commerce for the platform. Printing presses made newspapers affordable and global. Scribes did not. While Microsoft especially owns the software platforms (or many of them), an AOL-TWX owns the service platform. Some 50 years after CBS began TV broadcasts it still broadcasts. Most technology companies suffer a shorter life cycle. The companies making TV tubes for the old TV sets (circa 1960-1970s) are long gone. NBC, ABC and CBS still have 99% of all TV households covered daily. Service has a shelf life that technology does not. Similarly, Yahoo's valuation relies in this premise. It bolts on technology to enable the service. Outsource or acquisition. While a large double-digit percentage of Yahoo's employees are software programmers it's invisible. Service matters. Software enables service only. Getting back to AOL-TWX I put a "fair" value on the combined company at north of $350 billion within 48 months as this notion of service scaling becomes more apparent. AOL-TWX can do new commerce, new communication, new community, new content across TV, Web, print, cable, telephony, data, commerce. AOL-TWX can rely on Microsoft for its software ad infinatum. They may. But if Microsoft ever wants to own the consumer media space -- which it will because I believe all commerce will swirl around this media base -- then AOL-TWX could be in trouble relying on Microsoft solutions solely. So what could AOL-TWX possible use? I think RealNetworks (RNWK) may be a good fit. 50-million users of its RealPlayer and a network that ties in nicely with AOL-TWX. AOL-TWX needs a multimedia portal/network and only RealNetworks has this I believe. It's a counter to any future leverage Microsoft may hold out over AOL-TWX. At $9 billion market cap it also seems cheap compared to its potential future value, basically a multimedia media network. Time to look at the next move AOL should make. You've Got Real?