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: Jim McMannis who wrote (77464)	2/4/2000 3:59:00 AM
From: rupert1	Respond to of 97611

Jim: The answer most frequently given to your question on this Board is that Rosen decided that COMPAQ was not executing on its core competencies let alone on such an innovative enterprise as AV, therefore AV had to go. Another reply given is that it was a drain on COMPAQ's cash. A third is that it is better to own CMGI shares which "pay" for the balance of the DEC acquisition than to have developed and floated off AV. Finally the answer most often given is why even question the decision now that it has been made. I think all of these answers are bunkum. COMPAQ had its chance to break out through AV but it blew it. The responsibility lies not with EP, who wanted to continue with the AV plan, but with Rosen. Rosen set himself up as CEO for six months and then instituted plans which Capellas was hired to implement. Whatever merits those plans have the company and its shareholders are all the poorer as a result of selling AV. If selling AV was a good idea for the reasons given by defenders of the decision/Rosen, those same reasons would have justified Rosen going the whole hog and selling all of COMPAQ to CMGI - and I now think that would be best for shareholders.

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (77464)	2/4/2000 9:18:00 AM
From: James Calladine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 97611

ALTA VISTA: Personal opinion: Alta Vista was a great asset, which, however was languishing relative to its portal competition. CMGI has a much better idea of how to maximize Internet assets than any of the people at Alta Vista, DEC or CPQ had. To me it makes a great deal of sense to let somebody capable realize the value in an asset and make you rich IF you don't have the capability yourself and don't have the management time to build that capability. You should not be so quick to judge CPQ stupid on this item. It will ultimately pay off HUGELY. Best wishes, Jim

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (77464)	2/4/2000 11:03:00 AM
From: QuentR	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 97611

Simple, that is the business of CMGI, not Compaq. Smartly Compaq has decided to reap the benefits of the expertise of CMGI. CMGI is good at what they are doing.

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (77464)	2/4/2000 1:16:00 PM
From: Andreas	Respond to of 97611

To Jim McMannis; I guess it depends on the definition of a "spin off". And let me also state the caveat that I am not familiar with the intricacies of the cmgi "spin-off" (how it is to be structured and who will get the cash). If you are I would be very interested in knowing the details. In any event, as you know, cpq sold 87% of AV to cmgi. The benefit of that transaction on the cpq side went directly to cpq in the form of cpq getting 17% of total cmgi stock. There was no immediate benefit to cpq shareholders and that of course is your complaint (a reasonable one I might add). Now CMGI is "spinning off" av by selling (er - giving away) av to newco which will then do an ipo. Are the proceeds from the cmgi ipo going to cmgi shareholders or to cmgi? If the ipo cash ends up on the balance of cmgi then the so-called cmgi "spinb-off" is no different than the cpq "spin-off.

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (77464)	2/4/2000 6:19:00 PM
From: MeDroogies	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 97611

Jim, it isn't really a question of whether they could figure it out or not...it's a question of was it a good time to do it or could they get more at that point using it as leverage for other things. The reality is that spinning it off would have gotten them little at the time. Spinning it off now will get CMGI little (in a business sense) because AV isn't a premiere portal. It is, at best, 4th behind AOL/MSN/Yahoo...probably 5th or 6th behind @home and About. Also, portals haven't been faring all that well lately (see ASKJ). That said, the timing WAS better when CPQ owned AV. However, I think they got ALOT more by selling it to CMGI. Would you rather that CPQ owned 100% AV shares or CMGI AND AV shares? Obviously, the rear view window will make the latter look much more lucrative.