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 (23638)	7/19/2000 12:38:34 AM
From: G_Barr	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 29970

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. What I said was, Thesis 1: the deal is better than what they had before, Thesis 2: this is not the best course they could have taken. Nothing inconsistent with this. One can criticize a bunt single for not being a home run while acknowledging a bunt single is better than an out. You have not made any case that their foreign operations were in better shape before this deal than after but rather seem to be agreeing that a completely different course would have been wiser. Personally, I would have liked to see them buy Chello outright for if they defined themselves as a company with "expertise is to create and maintain a BB network" they should be acquiring properties around the world to do so and the fledgling Chello network (which I've read has plenty of service problems) would be an ideal target. Instead, they continue their foreign expansion by partnership building which they have been doing for years. While building partnership may be an inexpensive way of expansion, it creates limited value both with respect to sharing revenue and limited control. In addition, in doing so you are right that they are giving Chello their "expertise is to create and maintain a BB network" as part of the price of entering the partnership. That is the only way the deal makes sense from Chello's point of view for it seems the value ATHM's assigned interests in the JVs pales in comparaison to chello's assets. I don't agree with the implication here that the added value of ATHM is in its "content". I don't agree with this either. I said that ATHM was using mostly content assets to buy an interest in a broadband network. But I guess, as you said, a big part of what they are bringing to the table is their BB network expertise. 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. Can't argue with you here. For months I had thought the tea leaves pointed to a marginalization and perhaps a spin-off of excite as most of the news and press seemed to focus on the network and the distribution part of the business such as focusing primarily on subscriber growth, abandoning broadband portal, admitting they couldn't compete with the Yahoos of the world, and the AKAM-type deals. I took this as a good sign. But today I heard Bell talking about content being king and the distribution business being a means to build a content business. At this point I'm really not sure what the long term business plan of this company is. 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"? Of course anything is possible. The important point is they have control over this and I presume that they would not, unless they are idiots, voluntarily release the noncompetes unless they get greater benefits elsewhere. I'm not sure this concerns me as every tech stock I own has IPR they could voluntarily waive as part of a deal but I presume they would only do so for adequate consideration. Maybe where we differ is you're presuming that the management are idiots.