Well, as an investor-type, I can tell you that the reason these things are postponed is so that, when Newco is public, they can make this really positive-sounding announcement that there will be cost cuts (downsizing), and all the sell-side analysts will run to their models and raise their earnings targets because hey! a one-time charge for layoffs doesn't flow through your "normalized" earnings-per-share, but the benefits over time do.
So I'd say it's a bit of window-dressing and smoke and mirrors, as these spinoffs usually are.
@FormerEnglishMajor: and their year over year comparisons next year will be great because the first year will be burdened by the charge, right? so they'll make it look like, unburdened of Time Warner, they were finally able to unlock value.
@daveyjonesisdead: Yes. Not making the announcement isn't to prevent anything on Time Warner's part, but to put the finger on the scale on AOL's behalf. AOL doesn't have subscriber growth (quite the opposite), so the only way they can show earnings growth is by cutting costs, hard. Companies like Time Warner are "on the hook" for a bit after the spinoff (you don't want people suing you for fraudulent conveyance), so they try to save all the good news for the spinoff until after the company is on its own.
Time Warner doesn't want to compensate exiting employees. AOL can't afford a "deep restructuring" to be taking place during the sales process for the IPO to investors. Most importantly, I'd cynically state that the turd in the hand is worth way less than the birds in the bush here and that the sales process isn't exactly employing a frank appraisal of the company's future prospects.
kind of like looking at mcdonald's from the livestock's point of view ... they're pretty much just there to be processed, and while we should treat them kindly, they don't really have much to say
I'm confused as both Courage Under Fire and Vantage Point were extremely awful movies. It didn't hurt Denzel much, but Meg Ryan ended up living as a reclusive sea monster until her face could be sufficiently turned to stone, which has happened, and showcased in some recent movie about menopause and manless dowagers in Connecticut, which also must have been the reason for her putting crazy-town earwigs in Dennis Quaid, since they were once married and both made bad movies about time-tracking. That's probably mostly not a coincidence.
Anyhoo, was Lifetime the only choice for Project Runway? What, was AMC too busy with their 60's show to put in a decent bid for fashion fabulousness?
While I've been much maligned in the past for stating that I enjoyed the "watching the models" part of project runway more than the "watching the bitchy gay people make clothes" part, I'm sensing total flop.
10/05/09
10/05/09
So I'd say it's a bit of window-dressing and smoke and mirrors, as these spinoffs usually are.
10/05/09
10/05/09
10/05/09
10/05/09
07/17/09
I knew Lifetime hated the gays!
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/17/09
(Or maybe we can all persuade Gawker to bring back the "oldest first" viewing option by then.)
07/16/09
Did she mean to say 'ass' instead of 'designer'. I often confuse those two things as well.
07/16/09
New season starts August 20 - just five short weeks away. Mark your calendars!
07/16/09
You know that part on PR when they "eliminate" one of the models, and everyone acts sad about it? They are pretending. Nobody cares.
07/16/09
07/16/09
Anyhoo, was Lifetime the only choice for Project Runway? What, was AMC too busy with their 60's show to put in a decent bid for fashion fabulousness?
07/16/09
07/16/09
Yeah, those were the days in PR history...
06/19/09
1. Vaseline
2. Wesson
3. Johnson's Baby Oil
4. Jergens