| thranx said: did you read it? I dont think you did. it specificaly says why. they are refocusing on telcoms as that is their main business and their compitor has a big bank roll (the french telcom company) so they are selling off all of the entertainment divisions to raise capitol and to refocus on telcom, their main business. It also says they may split in two companies a media company and a telcom company. You asked for why, we gave you an article explaining it in detail and you still refuse to aacept the facts. No point in discussing this if you will be blind to things around you. "Video game maker Activision Blizzard and Maroc Telecom head up the list of candidates for sale, analysts and bankers said, but his successors could now also mull a Murdoch-style split of the business into a telecom and media arm. "Look at what Murdoch announced, look at all the precedents of a well executed split, and it always releases the conglomerate discount and it creates a lot of value for the shareholders," said one source close to the matter adding while Levy had been opposed to such a move, Chairman Jean-Rene Fourtou was "much more pragmatic." Vivendi, whose debt burden soared by roughly a third last year to 12 billion euros ($15 billion), has seen its stock price slump 13 percent this year on growing concern about competition faced by its long-time cash cow, French telecoms operator SFR."
That is the reason, its clearly stated right there. they need money to compete with the other telcom (wich is their main business, not a company they own 60% in. |
I think you're reading a whole lot more into it than is actually there. It doesn't say that Vivendi are getting rid of non-telecom subsidiaries. It says that the main reason for their lowering stock price is the competition against one of its main telecom subsidiaries. And what it actually says is that their biggest problem is debt.
And I'm not sure you noticed, but the section right before that speaks of the possibility of simply splitting the company in two - this would do nothing to help them get money to compete with other telecoms. It's far more likely that they are choosing to get rid of subsidiaries that they feel will be a liability going forwards.
So no, it doesn't address the "why", it only addresses the circumstances surrounding it. You are the one hypothesising based on what was said.
