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 (23621)	7/18/2000 7:23:12 PM
From: E. Davies	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29970

I would have thought you of all people would approve of buying interests in a substantial access business with mostly content assets I'm trying to clarify some things here- correct me if I'm off base. 1) @home's contribution is Excite international portals + 13.5 million homes passed. Chello is providing 20.8 million homes passed. The real question is in who has the better quality of homes passed. 2) Whatever "partial ownership interests" there were joint with the international MSO's I assume become the property of ExciteChello. 3) What happens to the value of ATHM depends on how the market will value the loss of international revenues/subscriber count/growth etc. vs. the potential paper value of ExciteChello. Given the horrible reputation of ATHM I suppose having $3 Billion in stock in another company might be something the street can grasp. Maybe someday Chello will buy ATHM. This might be the only way to squeeze value out of the stock. Kinda like the LCOS/TRRA scam. Eric

To: G_Barr who wrote (23621)	7/18/2000 10:27:42 PM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29970

It would seem to me that whether this deal has added value to ATHM is a distinct question from whether they have defined themselves. If ATHM had already defined themselves, they could have walked on this deal. Instead they assumed the weaker position. Who's on top? ATHM doesn't think they are. The reason is that the company isn't defined. It doesn't know where it's going. It's just going so it isn't sure about what steps to take. Bell needs a course in the art of deal making. 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. Bell or Att doesn't seem to agree, but I do. There's more here that we aren't being told. If not, ATHM has been had by a Trojan Horse. I would have thought you of all people would approve of buying interests in a substantial access business with mostly content assets. I don't agree with the implication here that the added value of ATHM is in its "content". The added value of the company is held in the goodwill of the expertise to create and maintain a BB network. Att bought ATHM primarily because of that and the attendant cable infrastructure that came with TCI. This brings out the problem again of lack of definition. Is the company distribution or other? I have the service. I believe with complete confidence that it's a distribution company. Due to failed guidance on Att's part Jermo who didn't define the company started the company down this disastrous path away from what I consider the company actually is, and now Bell builds on its shaky basis 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. What's the expected yield? Is that yield greater than the resources applied elsewhere in other strategic moves? Are other strategic moves needed at this time? Is the company under pressure to explore questionable deals? What degree of dilution is implied and how long is recapture? How long does this delay breakeven? Are there any synergies the company claims are released in scale? Unless these questions are answered no conclusion about "better" can be reached, however, even if they all are decided in the positive, what accrues to ATHM shareholders? Hell, the shorts didn't even bother to cover today. I believe 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. What isn't clear is that you aren't clear that you don't know that this deal is a positive. No, I said they are better off, I didn't say to what degree. That's why I said you can't argue a complement to a thesis. Thesis 1: the deal is positive. Thesis 2: the deal is negative. You can't argue that the deal isn't negative nor can you argue that the deal isn't positive. You have to argue one or the other theses and support the argument with evidence. You are now claiming thesis 1, but with possible zero positive, but then that isn't thesis 1. If your point is this will not have much overall affect, I don't disagree. You are being clever counselor and that's beneath a jurist. 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. If you had seen that wimp on CNBC this morning, you'd be sure. 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. Agreed. Have they approved? Apparently. 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 They'd sell that clause too. Obviously that's what a buyer would want although I am not sure why you think ATHM would sell its interests Things change and they could change in a way where ATHM would think it's in company interest to sell regardless of the rebound threat of external competition. I made the comment to Grace about Chello cutting a deal to do phone service over Baby Bells. Is that so "out there"?