aQuantive Inc. (AQNT)

All Comments on AQNT

  • commenter
    Daniel
    Jacome
    Jul 30 02:51 PM
    My Website
    Think Equity's Questionable Stock Picks For the Next 10 Years [view article]
    funny -- the article link doesn't even work anymore..........

    I loved his book -- but you bring up some excellent points I had not considered...     Reply
  • commenter
    SeekingAlpha
    Editors
    Apr 06 05:16 AM
    My Website
    General Discussion on AQNT
    Is this a buy or a sell? Reply
  • commenter
    Jeff
    Molander
    Jul 27 02:02 PM
    My Website
    Is Internet Advertising Really Worth Billions? [view article]
    What does this (dependence of brands on Atlas and DoubleClick) say about how consumers use the Web? It says they use search to navigate -- not necessarily to discover.

    Affiliate marketing, domaining -- search marketing agencies for that matter have all discovered and 'monetized' the fact. Where have marketers been? For how long will middle-men get to cash in on what amounts to navigational habit? As I see it, there's a sub-economy working behind the scenes: an 'ignorance economy' wherein what marketers' collectively haven't understood has been leveraged into cash.

    As well, continued dominance of these companies is threatened by Web 2.0 -- namely the death of the browser and adoption of RSS/XML technologies that allow users to view the Web sans browser! Adoption of RSS has been rapid among popular hang-outs (i.e. Yahoo, MSN -- virtually every major portal provides feed aggregators) and relative newcomers like Bloglines.

    With Nielsen et al setting up to focus less on pageviews and more on user "attention" (i.e. length of stay on publisher sites) we're forced to examine how today's major players will cope.

    How is Almighty Google coping? One word: Feedburner. One of their smaller yet most important acquisitions to date.     Reply
  • commenter
    ashkan
    karbasfroosh
    an
    Jul 09 05:28 PM
    My Website
    aQuantive/Microsoft Clears Anti-Trust Hurdle, AQNT Gains $1B [view article]
    Alan, Thanks for the clarification. Though technically, AQNT rose from $5.03B to $5.19B, the headline was an editorial addition (not mine). My post had little with the gain based on market cap, solely based on price change movement. Reply
  • commenter
    Alan
    Brochstein
    Jul 09 01:32 PM
    My Website
    aQuantive/Microsoft Clears Anti-Trust Hurdle, AQNT Gains $1B [view article]
    I think that you are correct that part of the shrinkage of the differential was due to the increased certainty of the deal, but your math is off. You talk about $1 billion differential, but that isn't the case. The bulk of the difference between $5 billion and $6 billion is based upon the share count. Your calculation assumes outstanding shares (78.14mm) instead of the fully-diluted share-count of 89.06mm(which incorporates options). Reply
  • commenter
    Everyday
    Finance
    May 30 08:46 AM
    My Website
    A Painful Lesson on Inaction: How Could I Let aQuantive Get Away? [view article]
    If interested in similar investment strategies and calls, feel free to visit my blog at:
    everydayfinance.blogsp....

    Dan     Reply
  • commenter
    Brian Croner
    May 25 04:05 AM
    My Website
    Why aQuantive Was Worth Twice As Much As DoubleClick [view article]
    My observation is that the primary means a large corporation has to compete with is capital force. I haven't seen Microsoft innovate much. XBox is just a competitor to Sony and Nintendo. Zune is just a competitor to IPod. I don't know what Live is, if it's not an over-hyped competitor for other large portals. They're simply competing to buy.

    I've seen them suffer against Linux. OpenOffice.org, FireFox, Evolution. This stuff just grinds them away and will not stop. I know their weakness. All the big guys have a similar weakness.     Reply
  • commenter
    cameronm
    May 24 04:10 PM
    Why aQuantive Was Worth Twice As Much As DoubleClick [view article]
    On the valuation the real question is not the multiple of AQNT revenue and earnings that they paid, but what is the impact on value and uplift of Microsoft's ad inventory that AQNT will give them. If AQNT can take $500M of Microsoft ad inventory and double it's value in the first year (and I have no idea if they can do this -- it is a what-if) that would represent tremedous value, and of course value that is not at all reflected in examining AQNT's P&L as an independent company.

    That said, of course it is an insanely expensive deal by normal metrics. Why? Two reasons, I bet Google was bidding if only to drive up Microsoft's cost and I bet there was seething anger and downright blood-lust over losing the Doubleclick deal.     Reply
  • commenter
    cameronm
    May 24 03:56 PM
    Why aQuantive Was Worth Twice As Much As DoubleClick [view article]
    Some of this is right and some is deeply flawed. Microsoft is a software company not a website consultancy. The Ex-razorfish business is low margin and not the kind of services business Microsoft will have any interest in. It was a bold move by aqnt (then Avenue A) to buy them and it worked out (though it depressed margins for a long time) because it gave aqnt needed scale to compete with Doubleclick.

    Likewise why in th hell does MSFT want to be in the agency business competing with other agencies around the world. Oh great a new piece of the value chain that will hate MSFT... Do you think the guys that work for Ballmer want to walk into his office explaining why they lost the XYZ account to wpp or whomever???? What the fuck do they care? I bet they sell this piece off and if they are smart they can forge a new alliance in doing this.

    So what's the jewel? What AQNT offers MS or Yahoo or anyone with loads of traffic is deep wizardry for slicing and dicing their ad inventory to package it up at much higher rates. Bulk undifferentiated ad inventory that might go fo $0.50 CPMs can now be repackaged with deeper insights about who visits those pages and resold for $5, 6, or even $10+ CPMs and that is just hugely valuable if you have lots of inventory like Microsoft or Yahoo. What MSFT offers aqnt beyond mega $ is a much better chance to get their widgetry distrbuted really widely so that they can continue to by the magicians at repackaging ad inventory for top dollar. AQNT alone would face a tougher and tougher job of doing that in the face of a world consolidating around the big guys. Microsoft bought unique valuable ad technology not a boatload of HTML programmers or agancy hacks.     Reply
  • commenter
    brianbaumgar
    t
    May 24 12:52 PM
    Why aQuantive Was Worth Twice As Much As DoubleClick [view article]
    this is most accurate analysis i've seen, since the news broke. i'm an industry veteran who has worked with and competed against these companies since 1999. most reviews have been way off, so nice job on hitting the nail on the head. Reply
  • commenter
    tchannon
    May 23 08:58 PM
    Microsoft's aQuantive Deal: An Act of Desperation [view article]
    Jordan - thank you for your comment. You are absolutely right - this really is more of a 1+1=3 acquisition than MSFT looking to incrementally add to the bottom line. Financially, MSFT can take it - even if AQNT goes to 0, the $6B is a small amt of MSFT's cash and they will make that up quickly via operations.

    And, yes, 100% agreed that I am not privvy to the exact discussions that took place between MSFT and AQNT and saying it is 'too expensive' the day after could certainly be premature.

    MSFT has yet to succeed they can compete with Google or Yahoo! on the Internet level and the world is certainly moving towards a more web-based rather than desktop-based environment. MSFT, I believe, acted more out of fear than definitive certainty that this deal will pan out. Only time will tell. I think financially the premium is way too high and will put pressure on MSFT's line items over the coming years, though not to the point of materially damaging their business - more like someone's spreadsheet will be hurting. In many ways, MSFT had no choice, it seems and the act was motivated out of a fear of missing out rather than a definitive business plan. I also believe VCLK would represent a better choice over AQNT due to my personal experience with working with both companies. I would imagine or surmise that MSFT and VCLK had discussions as well and in the end AQNT said what MSFT wanted/needed/was looking to hear and that is what closed the deal.

    In the end, these forums are just a place to express opinions and create dialogue and I appreciate your feedback and you do make valid points.     Reply
  • commenter
    bobbyjoe
    May 21 05:32 PM
    Microsoft's aQuantive Deal: An Act of Desperation [view article]
    Your 15-30 years estimate is based on AQNT's earnings as a standalone company. It is not going to be operated as a standalone company, so the 15-30 year estimate is entirely misleading.

    To an outsider it is hard to understand all of the benefits MSFT will gain from this acquisition. You'd have to know more about the various operating divisions at MSFT and their plans for integration.

    MSFT is betting that they can add value - that AQNT as part of MSFT will benefit both companies. You must also look at the opportunity cost. There is no doubt that MSFT paid some sort of a premium to prevent someone else from buying AQNT (and posing a threat to MSFT down the line). MSFT may have also determined that it would have cost them more than $6B to develop an in-house solution. Many factors are considered in the acquisition process.

    Just because MSFT values AQNT at an 80% premium to "the market" doesn't mean that they overpaid. AQNT may be worth $6B to Microsoft. If MSFT didn't acquire AQNT, they may have ended up foregoing $6B of income over the next 10 years (because without AQNT it could be argued that they would never effectively enter the market).

    Time will tell, of course, but to say MSFT "paid too much" only days after the acquisition and without complete understanding of MSFT's plans for AQNT is premature.     Reply
  • commenter
    Brian Croner
    May 21 04:40 AM
    My Website
    aQuantive Will Solve Some Of Microsoft's Web Woes [view article]
    Google shouldn't be all that hard to kick. It may be a challenge for Microsoft. Their problem is the inherent fraud with Adsense and Adwords. Advertisers want sales conversions to show their bosses. Bosses don't always want to hear how much more money was spent on advertising. They want to hear how much more of their own stuff they sold as a result. Reply
  • commenter
    Brian Croner
    May 21 04:37 AM
    My Website
    Online Ad Bubble: aQuantive Deal Makes No Financial Sense For Microsoft [view article]
    It disturbs me how the giants persist without actually developing anything. Who gives them the right to just come and trade a governed currency for some one else's hard work? Microsoft is not rightfully entitled to anything more than what they themselves can develop, just like anybody else. But still they depend on money solving their problems for them. Even an acquisition must be done right, as pointed out above.

    It's as if Microsoft isn't even a software company. They're just an illegal trust buying yet more things. Either inept or stupid, they can't connect that innovation drives the web market. They're competing with growing script kiddies who live, eat, and breathe code. Anything they buy, regardless of how many billions, can just be exceeded with a GNU GPL project. This $6 billion buy could go down the drain overnight.     Reply
  • commenter
    Tom B
    May 21 12:26 AM
    Online Ad Bubble: aQuantive Deal Makes No Financial Sense For Microsoft [view article]
    Web TV acquisition-- MSFT spent a half-billion (but dollars were worth more). result--no profit, no product.

    Spyglass acquisition-- lead to Internet Explorer. IE actually WAS a decent browser for about 2 years-- but it never made MSFT a dime.

    Bungie acquisition-- Halo is supposed to be a great game. The Xbox is supposed to be semi-ok-- but MSFT is bleeding money on the XBox platform; thus, again, their corporate stupidity shines through.

    Connectix acquisition-- gave then Virtual PC. A product now obsolete.

    Great Plains software acquisition-- gave them a relatively uninteresting accounting product.

    Yep, they have a pretty godawful record. Perhaps their worst acquistion was Steve Ballmer, and that occurred a long ways back.     Reply
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links: