To: gpowell who wrote (29391 ) 11/8/2001 5:48:30 PM From: KailuaBoy Read Replies (2) | Respond to None of the board members from cox, comcast, or AT&T voted on the amended exclusivity agreements. Why should a change of ownership include a benefit to shareholders? Any benefit comes from the actual or perceived increase in management effectiveness. As I recall, initially we all thought the ownership changes cleared the way to a more focused strategy. Additionally, the amended agreements seemed to indicate that the big 3 would continue to use ATHM as their preferred partner. As you obviously recall, TJ and Bell went on a spending spree afterwards, claiming that with the “security” of the new agreements, they could now secure their leadership position in broadband media. All this did was use up their cash and undermine their margins. That is the number one reason ATHM failed, and it is the direct result of ATHM’s management placing value on the exclusivity agreements and then acting foolishly. Did the ownership structure contribute to ATHM’s demise – certainly - but not because these owners colluded to harm ATHM. The structure simply allowed an experienced and poorly educated management team to make too many mistakes.
