AOL posts largest annual loss in US history ($100B), Ted Turner resigns

Asher · January 30, 2003, 05:10

http://www.msnbc.com/news/866084.asp?0cv=CB10

Quote:

Ted Turner says he’s resigning from AOL

Mercurial executive bowing out on day company announces massive losses

By Gary A. Seidman
MSNBC

Jan. 29 — Ted Turner, the brash entrepreneur who founded CNN more than 20 years ago and merged it into what is now the world’s biggest media company, is resigning from AOL Time Warner. “After much reflection, I have decided to resign from my executive duties as vice chairman of AOL Time Warner,” Turner said in a statement. “I have not come to this decision lightly.” The announcement came minutes after AOL said it will record a net loss of nearly $100 billion for all of 2002 — the largest loss in U.S. corporate history.

TURNER, who is AOL’s largest individual shareholder, has become an outspoken critic of the two-year old AOL-Time Warner merger, and was the most vocal board member calling for the ouster of chairman Steve Case. Two-and-a-half weeks ago, Case announced that he would be leaving.
AOL Chief Executive Richard Parsons, who was named to succeed Case as chairman, said he was informed of Turner’s decision to leave his post just last night. Turner will leave the company at this May’s annual shareholders meeting.
“It will allow him to devote more time to his philanthropic and other interests,” Parsons said.
“As you know,” Turner, 64, said in a statement, “this company has been a significant part of my life for over fifty years.”
Turner built his communications empire out of a billboard company owned by his father. By 1970, he had added a UHF television station, which became the launching pad a decade later for CNN.

Turner entered the Time Warner fold in 1996 when he sold his Turner Broadcasting companies — including CNN — to the media giant. At the time, he was named vice chairman of the corporation, retaining oversight for the Turner operations.
Turner became vice chairman of AOL Time Warner after the merger of those two companies in January 2001.
But Turner, who holds about 132 million AOL shares, quickly soured on the $124 billion merger, in part because of the perilous slide in the company’s stock price — the shares have fallen nearly 80 percent since the merger was announced.
But it was Turner’s slimmed down role in the company that seemed to irk him most. In November of 2001, Turner told cable television executives that he felt sidelined by AOL Time Warner when he was replaced earlier that year as head of Turner Broadcasting Systems.

The news of Turner’s resignation came on a difficult day for New York-based AOL Time Warner. Earlier on Wednesday the company posted a loss for all of 2002 of $98.7 billion. The results included a $45.5 billion fourth quarter charge related primarily to depreciation in the value of the America Online unit, as well as a charge of $54 billion earlier in the year in accordance with accounting rule changes.

Turner’s charitable endeavors include the Turner Foundation, founded in 1990, which focuses on environmental causes. He has also made huge donations to the United Nations and other causes.
“As you know, I have devoted much of my life to philanthropic interests and, more recently, to several socially responsible business efforts. Over the last five years, it has become even clearer to me how much personal satisfaction I derive from these activities. Therefore, I would like to now devote even more time, effort and resources to them.”

Sorry..but

Tolls · January 30, 2003, 05:12

Now, don't exaggerate...it was only $99 billion.

Sava · January 30, 2003, 08:42

I wonder if president Bush was giving them advice at balancing their bottom line

Harovan · January 30, 2003, 09:02

My condolences. I'm terribly sorry.

Alexander's Horse · January 30, 2003, 09:16

How do you lose 99 billion dollars???????????

OneFootInTheGrave · January 30, 2003, 09:20

Better point is how do you make them

Sava · January 30, 2003, 10:01

As with most corporate failures, I'm sure most of the money was from outside investors. The good news is, I'm sure the CEO and executives will get a nice multi-million dollar severance if they're dismissed (on top of the huge salaries and bonuses they've probably already received). It's nice to see the fair system of American capitalism working wonders.

Sarxis · January 30, 2003, 10:07

This might explain why I haven't gotten an AOL 'free hours' disc in a while.

AND THANK GOD FOR IT

Dis · January 31, 2003, 04:30

I have been getting AOL DVD's

They are even wasting more money than they were before.

Urban Ranger · January 31, 2003, 07:00

Too bad, Glonkie, the losses are write-offs, not operating losses. The former is just funny money game, the latter is the one that hurts.

AOL-TW is making $ operational wise.

dudemanjack · January 31, 2003, 08:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
As with most corporate failures, I'm sure most of the money was from outside investors. The good news is, I'm sure the CEO and executives will get a nice multi-million dollar severance if they're dismissed (on top of the huge salaries and bonuses they've probably already received). It's nice to see the fair system of American capitalism working wonders.

Well, if anyone was dumb enough to have all their money in one company, it's their own fault.

Tolls · January 31, 2003, 09:31

EBITDA for 2002 is $9.1 billion...apparently 5% higher than 2001.

JohnT · January 31, 2003, 10:55

You know, the combined financial wisdom in this thread, if contained and used as a force for good, would be able to toast bread... lightly. I mean, where do I start?

Sava: "As with most corporate failures, I'm sure most of the money was from outside investors. The good news is, I'm sure the CEO and executives will get a nice multi-million dollar severance if they're dismissed (on top of the huge salaries and bonuses they've probably already received). It's nice to see the fair system of American capitalism working wonders."

Did you not even read the pasted article? Did you not see where Ted Turner, owner of 132 million shares, has lost over 80% of his wealth since being taken over by AOL? Given a takeover price of $95 (I think that is close, if anybody actually knows, please tell me) and the current stock price of $12, looks like Ted was taken for as much as $11,484,000,000!!

You're right: only poor people lose money. Bad decisions don't cost those who make them. Never*.

I don't think he should get a severance package, but I'd much rather see Turner get one than that bastard Case. At least Ted Turner brought some actual assets to the table, Case brought nothing but a bunch of media-fed hype.

Dudemanjack: "Well, if anyone was dumb enough to have all their money in one company, it's their own fault."

For a small investor, yes, but a casual reading of any issue of the Forbes 400 printed since the inception of the list shows that single-source fortunes are the rule, not the exception. From Ford, to Du Pont, to Wal-Mart to Berkshire-Hathaway, most individual and family fortunes are built on the back of one company.

Diversification will prevent you from losing money, but it will not make you rich.

Tolls: "EBITDA for 2002 is $9.1 billion...apparently 5% higher than 2001."

Yes, EBITDA is up 5%, but reading the Q4 release, shows us that

Quote:

America Online's EBITDA declined 11% in the quarter on revenues that decreased 6%. For the year, EBITDA declined 22% on revenues that decreased 4%.
The full-year growth in America Online's Subscription revenues was more than offset by declines in Advertising and Commerce and in Content and Other revenues. Subscription revenues increased 16%, principally as a result of membership growth and price increases in the US and Europe. Advertising and Commerce revenues decreased by 39%,

reflecting a reduction in the benefits from prior-period advertising contracts and lower current-period sales.

(emphasis mine)

Urban: "Too bad, Glonkie, the losses are write-offs, not operating losses. The former is just funny money game, the latter is the one that hurts."

The point is, Urban, is that AOL's operating losses are huge, that their 2000 market valuation was WAY out of proportion to the real worth of the company then, and that Time Warner executives got whooshed when they agreed to let AOL buy them out - this quarter alone, to the tune of $10+ a share that they'll never get back, with more losses on the horizon and in the past (AOL-TW lost $8billion last year, if y'all recall). There are a lot of embarrassed, poorer TW executives who are now wondering how they ever allowed their once-great company be bought out by those over-valued, over-hyped hicks in Virginia**.

Write offs are real losses; they represent value that the stock will never get back. AOL-TW is telling analysts that their company is worth $100 billion less today than yesterday and to lop that money off the stock price. If that's not a loss in your book, then I am at a loss.

* And yes, I realize he has $1.3 billion(+-) in stock still remaining. The fact is, he had a far more comfy $6 billion before AOL came on the scene, and that stock was actually paying some dividends. No wonder he's pissed: I would be too, and so would you.

** I have no idea why I can't stand AOL, and why their continued destruction of a great company pisses me off, but it does. The sorry bastards.

Bosh · January 31, 2003, 11:00

Quote:

I have no idea why I can't stand AOL

????
You mean those annoying disks and horrible ads don't do it?

Tolls · January 31, 2003, 11:01

JohnT:
Don't get me wrong, AOL is most definitely a dead weight for us, but TW is (just about) strong enough to handle that. Hopefully the silly sods that thought merging was a good idea will finally find a way to ditch them...

I'm surprised Ted didn't leave sooner to be honest...he's not been doing a great deal since the merge.

Still...my share options are always good for a laugh if nothing else...

JohnT · January 31, 2003, 11:03

You work for TW? My empathies, man.

Tolls · January 31, 2003, 11:07

Look at my eamil...I work for Turner...

I've been bought out twice since being here (just).

Turner's good...TW's not so bad...and I'll keep quiet about that other lot.

Saras · January 31, 2003, 11:08

--Diversification will prevent you from losing money, but it will not make you rich."

Amen, Brother JohnT (btw, my avatar is way more cute than yours!

)!

And you are arguing about capital markets with Sava. Wait until that dude learns something.

Imran Siddiqui · January 31, 2003, 11:21

Quote:

You know, the combined financial wisdom in this thread, if contained and used as a force for good, would be able to toast bread... lightly.

Quote:

Time Warner executives got whooshed when they agreed to let AOL buy them out

I still can't believe that one. I know it has been a while, but God, what a dumb move! It's like when the Cubs traded Lou Brock for a couple of nobodies.

JohnT · January 31, 2003, 11:23

"And you are arguing about capital markets with Sava."

I know Saras, but I can't help myself for some reason.

You know, AOL-TW merged at the top of the market and here it is, 3 years later, and they are finally paying the price for that decision... given their sense of timing, could it be that the market has now bottomed-out, that all the hype money has finally been driven from the large majority of internet/media/telecom stocks? I'm thinking that this might be considered a bellweather event, the sort of story that, in time, might put closure on the negative spiral of the above industries. In short, I'm picturing hearing a future Imran state (in 2012, have you) that the tech turnaround started when the market bottomed out with the AOL-TW write-offs of 2003.

Tolls: What are the rumors around your place? Any thoughts/dreams as to getting rid of AOL somehow?

DanS · January 31, 2003, 11:29

AOL isn't a dead weight by a long shot. It's a good business.

However, it should never have been given 2/3rd of the merged pie. In this respect, TW has nobody to blame but themselves, and Case is a hero to AOL's old shareholders.

Tolls · January 31, 2003, 11:37

I wish I had some rumours, but we don't get diddly out here in the sticks (AKA London)...we didn't get Steve Case's resignation email until after we saw it on the Beeb.

My personal hope is they will find a way to cut them loose, but then I didn't like them to begin with and their internal shenanigans IT-wise (which have been reported elsewhere) have done little to endear them to me.

The TW merger was relatively smooth, with nary a procedural ripple...but then along comes this lot and all of a sudden we get a bunch of absolutely pointless corporate BS.

**cough** sorry...I just get a tad annoyed by it all.

JohnT · January 31, 2003, 11:46

"The TW merger was relatively smooth, with nary a procedural ripple..."

Well, that's because you had Michael Milken working it behind the scenes. Mike will take care of you: the man knows how to finance a takeover.

You didn't have him with the AOL thing and it showed. Too bad for y'all: the SEC discovered his role a few months later and fined Turner/TW (it's been a while and the details are a bit hazy) some crazy amount - like $50,000,000 or something. Mike would've never gone along with this deal.

Urban Ranger · January 31, 2003, 11:52

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnT
Urban: "Too bad, Glonkie, the losses are write-offs, not operating losses. The former is just funny money game, the latter is the one that hurts."

The point is, Urban, is that AOL's operating losses are huge, that their 2000 market valuation was WAY out of proportion to the real worth of the company then, and that Time Warner executives got whooshed when they agreed to let AOL buy them out - this quarter alone, to the tune of $10+ a share that they'll never get back, with more losses on the horizon and in the past (AOL-TW lost $8billion last year, if y'all recall). There are a lot of embarrassed, poorer TW executives who are now wondering how they ever allowed their once-great company be bought out by those over-valued, over-hyped hicks in Virginia**.

Hm, I am not aware that AOL-TW has/had operating losses. Most of the loss came from the stock coming down after the dotcom bust. With Steve Case gone, the senior management in AOL-TW is pretty much old TW people anyway.

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnT
Write offs are real losses; they represent value that the stock will never get back. AOL-TW is telling analysts that their company is worth $100 billion less today than yesterday and to lop that money off the stock price. If that's not a loss in your book, then I am at a loss.

Market cap is just funny money. It's not money that the company uses to run day to day business, it doesn't hurt the company even if they lose all of it. The company still operates and still makes money from New Line Studio and Warner Bros Studio, among other assets.

Stock value is potential money, sure, but only for investors. It only matters to the company if it wants to issue more stocks.

Urban Ranger · January 31, 2003, 11:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I still can't believe that one. I know it has been a while, but God, what a dumb move! It's like when the Cubs traded Lou Brock for a couple of nobodies.

Ask yourself, why on earth would Amazon.com's shares once were traded at $300+?

Saras · January 31, 2003, 18:52

because there were greater fools than the seller?

Provost Harrison · January 31, 2003, 18:57

Are AOL going to be flushed down the sh*tter of history? One can only hope

HazieDaVampire · January 31, 2003, 20:02

Ha, that'll teach'em for making software that takes a whole 5 mins to realise its lost connection!

I work out i've lost connection before it does, its infact faster for me to restart using ctrl alt del!

Caesar the Great · January 31, 2003, 21:47

aol is a pretty miserable company, i'm happy to see them fall