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: G_Barr who wrote (23614)	7/18/2000 4:04:39 PM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 29970

Please don't misquote me. I said: The question isn't so much of one of who owns what and whether some paper shuffle is fair. The question is how does the good idea get hatched. Good idea get hatched is equivalent to added value. Do you not contradict yourself? Before the deal ATHM had very limited ownership interest in access businesses outside the US and after the deal will have a greater ownership interest in a much larger access business purchased primarily with content assets. So what?They don't make much now at a smaller scale and contrary to their air head claims about synergies, a wider scale won't help. You have to add value at any scale and ATHM has failed to do this. They can't begin to address it until the company is defined. Why is this so impossible for all you presumably knowledgeable people to see? The most important criterion for a corporation is proper definition of mission and purpose. How else can you figure out what you're trying to do? Otherwise, you're a solution chasing a problem that might pay off. This would not have been my preferred means of foreign expansion however I can't see how ATHM isn't in a better psoition after the deal than before. You're just not clear where you stand. In court you can't argue from that basis. You can't argue from a position that is the complement to a thesis. Effectively you're saying also that you can't see where they are any better off either, but there is the potential of all this hanky-panky I mentioned which anyone will assure you won't happen. That doesn't happen in our sophisticated advanced modern societies, they will explain. So an effective CEO doesn't engage in a major strategic acquisition. A smart CEO operates on the edge of command review. That's another plus for the incremental acquisition strategy. No, you can't even say that Att must approve a major decision. Have you not heard of petition? Get the people on your side, get Att shareholders on your side, and Att management will be singing a different tune. Too bad they didn't make me CEO. I'd have this all in place just like I laid out long ago on this thread. I would have had Armstrong and his clown town legal department wrapped in so many complications they wouldn't know what I was up to. They ended up doing what I predicted with Portland anyway. They didn't need all those damnable lawyers who accomplished nothing yet didn't even get it as right as I did. Franz argued vehemently against my claims that Att should embrace OA. It was, "How could I say this heresy"? Att needed someone who wasn't compromised in clarity and had a rational view of the company and its mission. That's so simple as long as you're not eating Silicon Quiche.