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: ahhaha who wrote (23617)	7/18/2000 5:08:21 PM
From: G_Barr	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 29970

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. It would seem to me that whether this deal has added value to ATHM is a distinct question from whether they have defined themselves. I have not attempted to address the latter point. On the former point, I think it would be difficult to make a case that trading partial ownership interests in a bunch of mostly content, small JVs for a near half interest in what appears to be an access company that will have a substantial market cap is not an positive step. I would have thought you of all people would approve of buying interests in a substantial access business with mostly content assets. Again, I have made no claim that this was the best course of action for ATHM, only that it put the company in a better position than it was in before. Please explain why this is not so. 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. I belive my statements were to the effect that the deal was a positive improvement but was not the course of action I would have recommended. Not sure why that isn't clear. 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. No, I said they are better off, I didn't say to what degree. If your point is this will not have much overall affect, I don't disagree. With respsect to the CEO, you make interesting points about what an "effective" CEO could do. I'm not sure Bell is such a CEO. Nevertheless, my point was that Chello could not be acquired without ATT approval and I doubt that they would approve because of the substantial dilution that it would bring. With respect you "hanky-panky" reference, I'm still not sure what you are talking about. If you are worried about competition, a noncompetition agreement signed in this agreement would undoubtably be written to remain in place even if ATHM sold its interests, although I am not sure why you think ATHM would sell its interests or who could force it to sell its insterests. Please explain.

To: ahhaha who wrote (23617)	7/18/2000 6:29:59 PM
From: FR1	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 29970

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"? I think if you review our argument, I thought Portland was wrong and would be overturned. You strongly argued that the decision would stick. You were wrong. You felt strongly that OA should be ATT's direction. I felt it would be good if it could be done but, at that time, nobody could prove it could be done. I felt ATT should be allowed to experiment and deploy OA on their own timetable and not on Portland or AOL's time table. ********** Regarding Chello, the only thing I can see that would be negative on this deal is the idea that it is run by a committee. The more I think about it, the more I think even this is not what it appears. There are only two players in this game: Armstrong and Malone. Everybody does what they tell them to do. 1) Liberty, LMGa run by Malone, is a tracking stock of ATT 2) Liberty has at least 45% of UCOMA 3) UCOMA owns 61% of UPCOY 4) UPCOY owns all of Chello. 5) ATT will soon have 74% of the voting rights for ATHM. I get the feeling that a lot of people feel that Chello and ATHM are two businesses that will be at each other's throat causing no end of confusion. It looks more like a big smokescreen for a marrage in the family. If you are ATT you have assets in Chello and you have assets in ATHM. You want to figure out how you can marry the two without making the EU go crazy. That's what is going on. Bell and the guys at Chello take their marching orders from ATT and Malone. The only way to chaos is if Armstrong and Malone can't agree about things.