Print 98 comment(s) - last by Iridium130m.. on Jun 17 at 5:38 PM

Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang
Yahoo searches for answers as it runs out of options, makes deal with Google

Yahoo announced grimly on Friday that talks with Microsoft were over.  According to Yahoo at a secret Sunday meeting Microsoft "unequivocally" rejected the idea of buying the whole company and tried instead to push for Yahoo to sell it just its search portal.  Interestingly, Microsoft appears to believe the search portal is worth more than the company as a whole, at least to its interests.  Yahoo, however, clung to the belief that its search portal, second on the internet to rival Google, was too valuable to sell piecemeal. 

The news of talks ending sent shares sinking like a stone in the sea, down over two and a half dollars to finish at $23.52.  To put this in context, Microsoft publicly offered Yahoo $33 a share.  Yahoo demanded $37 a share, saying Microsoft proposal "significantly undervalued" it. 

It has since come out that the faceoff occurred at a Seattle airport on May 3, between Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang and Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer.  Yang allegedly demanded more money and Ballmer balked at the demand.  This exchange reiterated Yahoo's penchant for a rather vainglorious vision of self-worth, which it has held throughout much of the talks while showing little ability to justify it.

Standard and Poor's equity analyst Scott Kessler puts it aptly, saying, "If you are a Yahoo! shareholder, you just have to be scratching your head right now."

Perhaps more shocking, according to a recent lawsuit filed by shareholders Ballmer later would go on to make an offer of $40 a share -- nearly a hundred percent premium at the current share price.  According to the lawsuit, Yang and Yahoo Board Chairman Roy Bostock intentionally sabotaged the deal, and were not interested in selling the company at any price.  These claims have yet to be proved or disproved in a court of law.

The end of talks and Yahoo's failing stock is especially bad news for Yang and Bostock, as it puts investor Carl Icahn in prime position to sway already malcontent shareholders to his side when he attempts a takeover in the company's annual shareholder meeting, which Yahoo's management has pushed back to August.  If successful, Icahn is going to do a little late summer cleaning, ousting not only all the board, but also Yang, who he feels has been especially damaging to the company and its ability to deal.

A small hope still lies for Yahoo's top leadership in that Microsoft's complete rejection may bring into question whether Icahn's attempt to sell would have any more success.  Many analysts think that a great deal of whether the takeover bid succeeds depends on what kind of plan Icahn can bring to the table.  An optimal scenario for him would be if he came having already advanced in preliminary informal negotiations with Microsoft, while a not as promising scenario would be if he merely said talks would commence after the switch.

Icahn remained silent on the latest developments for the time being.

In yet another sign of slippage, Yahoo is trying to regain composure after the failure by announcing a deal with Google.  After a test run with Google showed that using Google advertising next to Yahoo search results would significantly up revenue, Yahoo is eager to make a deal with Google.  The deal, if it passes antitrust scrutiny is estimated to bring in about $800M USD extra revenue for Yahoo in the next 12 months.

Google's top executives were quick to praise the deal.  Cofounder Sergey Brin said, "I am happy to be helping them to stay independent."

And his fellow cofounder Larry Page added, "Having more money is a good thing."

However, beneath the rhetoric, the fact remains that coming to Google is a major concession, and will likely forever put Yahoo at second place, at best, in a critical element of the search engine business -- advertising.  While a Microsoft-Yahoo conglomeration, might have dreamed of taking on Google, the Yahoo of today, selling parts of its business to Google, has little chance of holding such hopes.  The latest developments only bring more uncertainty and drama to the unfolding story of the struggling company that was once the internet's top search engine.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Love it.
By 67STANG on 6/13/2008 11:12:09 AM , Rating: 5
That picture at the top is great. Seriously though, does anyone not think Yang is a douche? This guy has made one of the biggest business blunders of the modern age.

Something tells me he wouldn't make it through the first round of the World Series of Poker...

RE: Love it.
By JasonMick on 6/13/2008 11:20:50 AM , Rating: 5
Well it depends on what Yang you're talking about...

I agree with you on the blunder part, honestly, though I can see where he's coming from, likely, though. It's not a good place but its very human. I mean you've built up this billion dollar company, its hard not to develop a case of pridefulness and egotism. Unfortunately, even if he's ousted he won't really suffer too much, he'll still have vast assets. Who will suffer most are shareholders and most importantly hard working employees.

I think the biggest blame goes to board, who are supposed to be representing shareholders interests. They're supposed to be keeping the hot-headed CEOs in check, not aid and abetting them.

RE: Love it.
By Nik00117 on 6/13/2008 11:53:33 AM , Rating: 4
Business is business, you do not put personal matters and pride ahead of it. Its something which has been the downfall of many.

He fucked up, he knows it, hes still fucked

RE: Love it.
By paydirt on 6/13/2008 12:23:23 PM , Rating: 4
The big winners are both Google & MSFT since this whole takeover attempt undermines Jerry Yang's authority. An undermining of authority weakens YHOO and strengthens GOOG.

RE: Love it.
By gyranthir on 6/13/08, Rating: -1
RE: Love it.
By DanoruX on 6/13/2008 1:06:20 PM , Rating: 5
In terms of business, I'd sell to the highest bidder.

RE: Love it.
By masher2 on 6/13/2008 1:29:29 PM , Rating: 5
They'd never get antitrust approval to sell to Google; the market share of the combined company would dominate the entire industry.

RE: Love it.
By BruceLeet on 6/14/2008 7:32:59 PM , Rating: 4
GOOG market share already dominates the entire industry.

RE: Love it.
By killerroach on 6/16/2008 9:37:02 AM , Rating: 2
GOOG market share already dominates the entire industry.

Yes, but increasing market share through acquisitions is extremely difficult for a dominant player in a field, especially when it's one of your main competitors. In certain areas of the Internet search and advertising space, a Google/Yahoo chimera would make up a 90+% market share with an HHI (measure of market concentration) of around 9,100 (usually regulators get squeamish about any merger that raises this number if it's above 1,800 to start).

Regulators won't necessarily step in if you build a dominant market position (so long as you aren't doing anything to deliberately disadvantage competition with your power), but they don't much care for buying a dominant position.

RE: Love it.
By Locutus465 on 6/13/2008 1:52:12 PM , Rating: 1
Why would you care? What does google have to offer you that microsoft doesn't?

RE: Love it.
By Oobu on 6/14/2008 1:40:24 AM , Rating: 5
A decent search engine.

RE: Love it.
By seamonkey79 on 6/13/08, Rating: -1
RE: Love it.
By RealFiend on 6/15/08, Rating: -1
RE: Love it.
By callmeroy on 6/13/2008 1:18:48 PM , Rating: 5
Business is business, you do not put personal matters and pride ahead of it. Its something which has been the downfall of many.

As true as that may be in theory and on paper I think what the pervious posting was stating is the fact that regardless we are still human.

You can say war is war, or love is love doesn't mean how you aren't going to react a certain way even if you know the possible circumstances -- in other words nothing over powers the human factor.

In short easier said than done.

All we can do is be the best we can be based on how we were brought up, experience, education, etc. has taught us.

But there is still no guarantee human feelings or emotions won't get the best of us regardless from time to time.

RE: Love it.
By The0ne on 6/13/2008 2:09:49 PM , Rating: 2
I think he desperately wants to be a robot that only follows. He doesn't care if he likes his job or anyone, he doesn't care for anything or anyone. Why should he when it's business. Well, most of us will come to realize this is just pure BS.

If you don't have any emotions tied to your work what are you doing working in the first place? For your personal gain and happiness? Wait, happiness? Isn't that a human emotion. You're working to provide for your family? Hmm...You're working to be able to help others? Hmm...No matter what he may be thinking "business is business" apparently he hasn't considered what it actually means.

Maybe shoot him a copy of Pretty Woman :)

RE: Love it.
By IMADingBat on 6/13/08, Rating: -1
RE: Love it.
By TheDoc9 on 6/13/2008 12:00:14 PM , Rating: 4
It's not a good place but its very human. I mean you've built up this billion dollar company, its hard not to develop a case of pridefulness and egotism.

This is it.

Having some pride and giving a damn about what you've built is a good thing. Modern business schools of course teach that money is the king of all and that share holders interest (in money) should come first Always, no matter whats at stake.

I think originally investing had two purposes, to make money and place your trust in a business of your choosing. Today the definition has been revised to include only the first part, which for better or worse has completely changed how the business world works.

RE: Love it.
By Cobra Commander on 6/13/2008 12:08:27 PM , Rating: 2
You can't give a damn when you sell your soul to the stock market. That's having your cake and eating it too.

RE: Love it.
By Ringold on 6/13/2008 4:31:03 PM , Rating: 1
I don't see how it's selling your soul; it is, though, selling your business. When one goes public, it's no longer all theirs; one becomes an employee. An extremely wealthy employee.

The vast majority of Americans are employees, not sole proprietors. If the only people with souls are small business people, there are a lot of people wasting their time going to church.

RE: Love it.
By TETRONG on 6/13/2008 6:02:24 PM , Rating: 2
I voted you up because you've stated something that the people here should re-read.

Fuck the bottom line-have some pride in your life's work.

RE: Love it.
By masher2 on 6/13/2008 11:23:43 AM , Rating: 4
> "This guy has made one of the biggest business blunders of the modern age."

Not from his perspective. Yang was simply looking out for his own personal interests, rather than the best interests of Yahoo shareholders. His position, perks, and salary as CEO are now safe, regardless of the share price.

RE: Love it.
By TomZ on 6/13/2008 11:31:43 AM , Rating: 2 until August that is...

In the long term, I think Yang has adequately demonstrated his capabilities (or lack thereof), and I think that Yahoo shareholders will replace him at the next opportunity.

RE: Love it.
By MrBlastman on 6/13/2008 11:40:54 AM , Rating: 5
He has obviously demonstrated his abilities to create a billion-dollar a year company out of nothing.

Be fair.

The man did something many of us could never dream of achieving in life. If you think otherwise, go ahead and start a billion-dollar plus company yourself.

It is harder than you think.

While shareholders are upset (and they should be), he is human and is simply trying to fight the fight a little longer. The shareholders did make him very wealthy through the company going public, but deep down inside all of us I would hope have that inner fire, that sense of self-consciousness about something we have all worked so hard to create - and fear that all of this that we have made could be wiped out, abused, or butchered in a minute.

It is called pride. The man is human and we're seeing his desire to keep his baby from being thrown to the wolves. I don't blame him at all for this.

Paycheck? come on, do you really think he cares about his day-to-day paycheck? The man is worth billions. He could care less. This is a personal matter for him.

Does it make it right in a business perspective? No. But, you can't be so quick to call the guy a schmuck, a waste of air, a reject, nor a failure. He's anything but that.

RE: Love it.
By masher2 on 6/13/2008 12:15:43 PM , Rating: 3
> "do you really think he cares about his day-to-day paycheck? The man is worth billions."

Yang isn't worth "billions". At current share prices, he's worth about $1.3B. I don't know his salary at present, but they were paying the past CEO something like $75M/year, plus a benefits package that brings the total close to $100M. That's a billion dollars a decade, by the way...not exactly chicken feed.

In any case, you're saying essentially the same thing I am. It's not just the salary that Yang covets, its the position itself, with the perks, prestige, and status that goes along with it.

RE: Love it.
By tmouse on 6/13/2008 12:33:11 PM , Rating: 2
He may not be worth that if they lose the shareholder lawsuit.

RE: Love it.
By MrBlastman on 6/13/08, Rating: 0
RE: Love it.
By TomZ on 6/13/2008 1:00:48 PM , Rating: 2
You talk a lot about human psyche and pride, but part of being a "management professional" is doing what is right, despite your personal feelings/whim/etc. Nobody wants someone with the maturity of a child running a billion-dollar company.

RE: Love it.
By MrBlastman on 6/13/2008 1:34:01 PM , Rating: 2
What he is doing is definately without any doubt not in the best interests of shareholders.

That doesn't make him a child though.

Why does it bother you so much, do you have stock in Yahoo _or_ Microsoft? I'm sitting back enjoying the soap opera.

RE: Love it.
By TomZ on 6/13/2008 1:44:03 PM , Rating: 2
I don't have a stake in either company. I am a fan of personal responsibility, and I can't understand why you are willing to give Yang a pass because of his ego problems. He's there to do a job, that's all. If he does it, great; if not, he needs to be shown the door.

RE: Love it.
By MrBlastman on 6/13/2008 1:53:13 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not giving him a pass. If I were a Yahoo shareholder I'd be upset.

He will get the door soon enough, or be granted his coffin to rot in. I am just trying to shed more light into the inner workings of his mind and why he is acting how he is.

The human angle, rather than the hard business facts.

Perhaps it is time for another chapter Days of our .COM's. :) (I'm eagerly waiting to see what will happen with Mr. Kahn, Yahoo and Yang. It is beginning to get quite juicy).

So until then, I'm watching all of this news like the soap opera that it really is.

RE: Love it.
By masher2 on 6/13/2008 1:47:54 PM , Rating: 2
We all have a stake in America. When CEO's abuse the system and destroy shareholder value, it ultimately hurts us all, whether or not we own shares in that particular company.

RE: Love it.
By Parhel on 6/13/2008 3:30:13 PM , Rating: 1
When CEO's abuse the system and destroy shareholder value, it ultimately hurts us all

That's true, but not relevant. He did nothing unethical. All this psychoanalyzing of Yang is hurting my head. We don't know that he made his decisions based on pride or emotion or foolhardiness. We just know that he's just made some really poor decisions. Not unethical, just shortsighted.

RE: Love it.
By Ringold on 6/13/2008 4:41:30 PM , Rating: 2
He did nothing unethical

Not honoring his fiduciary responsibility was unethical. If more people acted the way he does it would reduce confidence in the American equity markets.

A fiduciary is someone who has undertaken to act for and on behalf of another in a particular matter in circumstances which give rise to a relationship of trust and confidence.

He was too busy looking at his own interests.

I'll concede to Blastman above that he did show the ability to build a billion-dollar company, but he has just as clearly shown his inability to responsibly manage it now that it's public and the size that it is. If he didn't want to not be the uncontested owner, he shouldn't of taken peoples money in an IPO.

RE: Love it.
By TETRONG on 6/13/2008 6:04:56 PM , Rating: 2
The shareholders should have left the company if they don't like it's strategy.

RE: Love it.
By maverick85wd on 6/13/2008 12:20:16 PM , Rating: 2
It is called pride. The man is human and we're seeing his desire to keep his baby from being thrown to the wolves. I don't blame him at all for this.

Paycheck? come on, do you really think he cares about his day-to-day paycheck? The man is worth billions. He could care less. This is a personal matter for him.

Well said. I would like to see how many of the people that are blasting him right now would have done exactly the same thing in his shoes. I was a bit apprehensive to see Yahoo go to Microsoft, anyways. Not that Microsoft is as totally evil as everyone claims, they do and have done a lot for the tech community... but they have proven they are relentless in their search for a profit. I understand that is how a company operates, but sometimes I think they push it a bit far. Either way, good post!

RE: Love it.
By TomZ on 6/13/2008 12:39:29 PM , Rating: 2
Does it make it right in a business perspective? No. But, you can't be so quick to call the guy a schmuck, a waste of air, a reject, nor a failure. He's anything but that.

I disagree - he is a failure. He took his company public and became accountable to his shareholders, and now he is failing in that responsibility. He is doing what is best for his own self-interest, but he doensn't own the company - his shareholders do. And what his shareholders need, and what he is failing to deliver, is management in a way that maximizes shareholder value. Selling the company is one good way to deliver that value.

If he wants to be proud of something, maybe he should take up a hobby like playing guitar or drawing. He doesn't own Yahoo, and it is irresponsible of him to completely ignore the needs of those that do. Hence why I predict he will be relieved of his duties.

RE: Love it.
By ksuWildcat on 6/13/2008 1:02:00 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't say that Yang is a failure, although I would agree that he did not act in the shareholders' best interest. I'm sure that part of the problem stems from relinquishing control of his "baby", his ego, and on some level a desire to protect his employees. He should have at least pursued a strategic partnership with Microsoft, even if they had no intentions of selling the entire company. Yang and the board definitely could have handled the situation much better.

That being said, the problem with so many publicly traded companies is that executives are so focused on immediate results for the next fiscal quarter, they are willing to sacrifice a company's long-term health for quick gains. I'm glad that Yahoo didn't capitulate to the initial offer, but they could have handled entire fiasco in a way that would have made some arrangement with Microsoft possible.

It is often very difficult to balance shareholders' demands for return on investment with long-term goals for a company.

RE: Love it.
By MrBlastman on 6/13/2008 1:20:16 PM , Rating: 3
Keep living in the clouds man. Not all of the world revolves around the $green$ utopia you envision.

How do you measure a man's impact and worth in life? By his money? By his accomplishments? Or by his principles?

Think hard before you answer.

... and get to work on starting that billion dollar company you think is so easy to create. ;)

RE: Love it.
By masher2 on 6/13/08, Rating: 0
RE: Love it.
By MrBlastman on 6/13/2008 1:36:50 PM , Rating: 1
You're darned right. I'm a capitalist and work 100% commission, earning my keep every single day.

I only get paid for whatever sweat I create. If I do nothing I get nothing. I love every minute of it and wouldn't trade it in at all.

I'm just trying to get the point across to Tom that money is not the end-all for everyone. Some could care less. It doesn't make it right what they are doing, but it is certainly worth elaboration to expain to those who don't see it.

RE: Love it.
By TomZ on 6/13/2008 1:41:11 PM , Rating: 2
You're making this into some kind of social/political argument. I'm just saying that Yang is not doing his job and should be removed. Whether he needs/wants/worships/hates money is irrelevant, as are his ego problems. He's supposed to do a job and he isn't, that's all.

RE: Love it.
By ksuWildcat on 6/13/2008 1:43:00 PM , Rating: 3
In a capitalist society, people get rich not by confiscating wealth from others, but by creating it.

Well, ideally anyway. But then there are people like Kenneth Lay from Enron whom did "confiscate" their wealth from others. It's a shame that he didn't live long enough to serve his prison sentence.

Capitalism works pretty well under many conditions, but like all other systems, it is relatively easy to manipulate, lie, cheat, and steal your way through, regardless of what part of the income scale one is on.

I still hope that someday we'll have a utopia where we work for the betterment of all.

"Don't tell me you don't use money in the 23rd century."

RE: Love it.
By ksuWildcat on 6/13/2008 1:44:26 PM , Rating: 2
I should have read what I typed more carefully, as I meant to say:

"Don't tell me that you don't use money in the 23rd century."

RE: Love it.
By masher2 on 6/13/2008 1:49:46 PM , Rating: 3
Err, Ken Lay is a testament to the stupidity of socialistic government structures, not capitalism. Had the California legislature not created such an artificial, arbitrary system of price controls and structures, no one could have abused the system to profit from it.

RE: Love it.
By ksuWildcat on 6/13/2008 2:01:57 PM , Rating: 2
Backdating stock options and directing subordinates to use shady accounting practices is the fault of the government? He knew perfectly well that what he was doing was wrong, both from a legal and moral point of view.

RE: Love it.
By masher2 on 6/13/2008 2:15:09 PM , Rating: 2
Come on, Enron isn't famous for backdating stock options, a practice thousands of companies have engaged in. Enron existed for one reason only -- changes in government regulations that created a market for wholesale trading (and manipulation) of electricty and natural gas markets.

RE: Love it.
By ksuWildcat on 6/13/2008 2:29:13 PM , Rating: 2
Nevertheless, government policies did not drive Ken Lay to lie and steal as his company tanked and ruined many peoples' lives. There would be no need for government regulation if people like him didn't exist. You cannot fault the government for his (or other executives') behaviors.

RE: Love it.
By masher2 on 6/13/2008 2:45:58 PM , Rating: 2
> "government policies did not drive Ken Lay to lie and steal "

No, but they enabled him to do so. Without the artificial energy markets created by government fiat, Enron would have never existed.

RE: Love it.
By rsmech on 6/13/2008 2:06:07 PM , Rating: 2
There will always be abusers to any system. Someone like Kenneth Lay would also abuse your utopia. So to give an example of a crook doesn't invalidate the entire system.

It's the flaws in people that find was to abuse any system.

RE: Love it.
By ksuWildcat on 6/13/2008 2:25:06 PM , Rating: 1
Indeed, which is why it would take a radical cultural shift to even begin thinking about such an idea, but I can still hope that someday, money will not be the driving force behind our advancement.

RE: Love it.
By TomZ on 6/13/2008 2:48:32 PM , Rating: 2
I suggest you move to a country and live under a communist or socialist regime, if you want a "radical cultural shift" and to live a life where money is not the "driving force behind our advancement."

RE: Love it.
By ksuWildcat on 6/13/2008 3:19:22 PM , Rating: 2
I'm picturing a world where there are no countries, religions, or other social controls invented by man, where our leaders are not self-serving bureaucrats, and where people act in the interest of helping all. Unfortunately, such a notion may never exist, but you can call me an optimist.

RE: Love it.
By MrBlastman on 6/13/2008 3:34:16 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds pretty bleak to me. A very :-| utopia.

At least we have diversity in the world we are in right now.

Like it or not, good and evil create color in an otherwise stark world. It'd be a boring movie if everyone was smiling all the time totally clueless as to their inner existence.

That or a good zombie flick.

... "Look at all the smiling people."

"HOLY CROW BARNS! DID YOU SEE THAT ZOMBIE BITE HIS HEAD OF?!" a fan proclaims, turning to his neighbor and notices a blank, white look on his face with soul-less eyes. "Uh oh"

A munching noise is heard.

Nope, come to think of it, it wouldn't be so bad. :)

RE: Love it.
By TETRONG on 6/13/2008 6:22:00 PM , Rating: 2
That's precisely why you're so dangerous-because you live in movies.

Go pop some pills and erect your shrine to trump and hilton.

RE: Love it.
By masher2 on 6/13/2008 12:44:38 PM , Rating: 4
> "He has obviously demonstrated his abilities to create a billion-dollar a year company out of nothing."

I'd also like to point out that Yang wasn't CEO of Yahoo during most of the company's existence. Furthermore, Yahoo has made some of the most collossal blunders of all corporate history, such as their refusal to buy Google when they had the chance (for $3B in stock -- Google is now worth about 60 times that), their dropping the ball on what made the company strong in the first place -- searching and navigation, and many, many other crucial missteps.

Yahoo was certainly in the right place at the right time. But more so than almost any other tech company in recent memory, it has failed to capitalize on its positions and advantages, and is now being threatened with being overwhelmed entirely.

RE: Love it.
By MrBlastman on 6/13/2008 1:40:50 PM , Rating: 2
I think this success and lack of full realization of potential will prove to be a great case study in B-School for years to come.

They are the Microsoft that could have been of the .com era. You could put them side by side and simply teach the lesson of:

Those who saw opportunity and acted versus those who saw it and didn't really "see" it.

In the end it pains me to see the company blunder away into oblivion but so is it headed towards thus far.

RE: Love it.
By StupidMonkey on 6/13/2008 3:03:03 PM , Rating: 2
+1. Exactly.

RE: Love it.
By theapparition on 6/16/2008 10:02:01 AM , Rating: 2
The man did something many of us could never dream of achieving in life. If you think otherwise, go ahead and start a billion-dollar plus company yourself.

Yes he did create a billion dollar company, but so did other millionaires and billionaires. Some got there through hard work and dedication. Others, were just in the right place at the right time. Don't know which catagory he falls into, but clearly he made a bad move here.

RE: Love it.
By FITCamaro on 6/13/2008 11:28:08 AM , Rating: 2
I'd love to know where that sign is. Probably somewhere in California.

RE: Love it.
By Cobra Commander on 6/13/2008 12:09:43 PM , Rating: 2
Berkeley campus.

RE: Love it.
By TomZ on 6/13/2008 12:41:19 PM , Rating: 2
Nothing quite like encouraging panhandling...

RE: Love it.
By jskirwin on 6/13/2008 12:51:58 PM , Rating: 2
Think we could hit them up for some spare change to fund veterans benefits or survivor benefits for soldier KIA? Or do they only give money to drunks and crack heads?

RE: Love it.
By TomZ on 6/13/2008 12:57:52 PM , Rating: 2
Probably so, "to each according to his need," right?

RE: Love it.
By ChristopherO on 6/14/2008 1:11:11 AM , Rating: 2
Who is John Galt?

RE: Love it.
By 67STANG on 6/13/2008 1:33:39 PM , Rating: 2
Not surprising... My favorite sight-seeing adventures in SF are of course "Tree Man" who jumps from behind a bush and scares the crap out of tourists and then asks for money... and who can forget, some of the most creative homeless signs in the nation... "alcohol research", "why lie? it's for beer" etc.

RE: Love it.
By gss4w on 6/13/2008 2:23:04 PM , Rating: 2
Actually its from Toronto, Canada, not Berkley as the post below erroneously claims.

Also, it is not an official sign, it was created as part of a research project by a student. See:

RE: Love it.
By TimberJon on 6/13/2008 3:06:34 PM , Rating: 2
Yang couldn't hit a level 1 wolf in WoW with his shoe. He would stand in front of a NPC vender trying to bargain all day.

No Mistake
By barjebus on 6/13/2008 12:03:55 PM , Rating: 4
First of all, Yahoo's share price is still above what it was when the offer was tendered. Yahoo was at 18$ when the offer was made, and it's still 4$ above that mark. I do believe it will settle down back to 18$ eventually in the coming weeks, but for now, Yahoo shareholders have come out better than they started.

As to selling the search engine piecemeal, how can anyone say it's a mistake to sell the core aspect of your business?? That's like Microsoft selling off it's Windows product line, and keeping Microsoft Office, or Honda selling off it's car manufacturing and focusing on building trucks.

It just doesn't make sense to split up the company in that manner.

RE: No Mistake
By tmouse on 6/13/2008 12:31:16 PM , Rating: 2
I think the elevator ride has just begun

RE: No Mistake
By Ringold on 6/13/2008 5:08:36 PM , Rating: 3
Back in 05, it was over $43.

Now, you admit it'll settle down to less than half that.

No mistake at all? This is people like Icahn's point; Microsoft was saving Yahoo from itself.

To read the verdict of the market with less noise, look at MSFT. Yahoo haggling starts, stock tanks.

Now Microsoft said the discussions are dead, and the stock spiked from $27 to $29. Even Microsoft shareholders think Yahoo is ... of questionable value.

RE: No Mistake
By teckytech9 on 6/13/2008 6:47:36 PM , Rating: 2
This charade by Microsoft to pursue a merger/takeover bid for Yahoo! has occurred unsuccessfully before (2005, 2006, and 2007). Each time the discussions occurred, the stock prices of both companies were directly impacted.

These discussions are mostly a speculative attempt to shore up the stock prices of one company and dilute the other. Since Microsoft won't be spending any of their cash on Yahoo! this time around, they won't have to go into debt either. These soap operas are masterminded by analysts in Wall Street who create illusions of grandeur on speculative mergers and acquisitions. What synergies really existed in the first place?

Another AOL/Time Warner flop was probably diverted this time. A synergy between Google and Yahoo! seems like a win/win.

Pride and Seinfeld
By samuraiBX on 6/13/2008 1:29:52 PM , Rating: 2
If you're a stockholder, you want your CEO to be like Seinfeld.

First off, I'm not saying I could replicate Yang's meteoric rise. But pride in your abilities seems to be the best means of getting on the quick trip on the rise and fall track. I'm naming some of my personal favorite athletes because I respect their careers but we can agree they stayed in too long and let pride rule them; Muhammad Ali, Michael Jordan and Dan Marino come to mind. Think about how great they were at the absolute top of their games; each let pride lure them into further attempts to go that one extra time to the well and bring out another moment of greatness.

Seinfeld called it quits when he was at his high point with his show; he left us hanging and wanting more, but kept his record by ending at the top. Stockholders purchase stock with the belief and right that the upper management will pursue the best interests of the stockholders and leave their personal issues off the table and leave when they don't add anything to the organization.

I'm not saying I think Yang meant to do it, but the shareholders have very compelling evidence that they were second place to upper managements' pride. I'm willing to vote against Yang, though I respect his prior successes. But, putting it the best way I know how; I'd rather watch MJ's top ten dunks and old games on ESPN Classic any day then watch his games with the Wizards any day. Yang needs to hang up the spurs.

RE: Pride and Seinfeld
By TETRONG on 6/13/2008 6:26:10 PM , Rating: 2
Again, if you don't like the companies strategies don't invest.

RE: Pride and Seinfeld
By TomZ on 6/13/2008 7:25:34 PM , Rating: 2
I guess you're right, and it's also why you see so many shares of Yahoo dumped into the market the past couple of days.

RE: Pride and Seinfeld
By namechamps on 6/16/2008 9:48:05 PM , Rating: 2
How should a shareholder know their CEO is going to make likely the worst business move of the decade and shed $26 billion (that's with a B not million) of shareholder equity.

They won't but not that they have seen it they will use their votes to kick him to the curb to ensure he doesn't do it again.

Yahoo isn't Yang's company. Yang and his buddies made a personal decision to go PUBLIC to raise hundreds of millions of dollars (and personally turn themselves into billionaires overnight). In return shareholders expect officers and the board to make decision based on ONE PRINCIPLE ABOVE ALL ELSE.

DO WHAT IS BEST FOR SHAREHOLDERS. On this important axiom Yang and the board failed. They let pride (pride plus $5 will get you a coffee at starbucks) lead them to the wrong decision.

Look at it another way. Yang's estimated compensation for 2008 is $100 million. He will get paid $100 million to LOSE $26 billion worth of shareholder wealth. At best it likely will take the company 3-4 years to get back to where they could have been before they dropped the deal.

Even worse you have to look long term can YAHOO grow faster than MSFT and overcome the $26 billion whole Yang dug. Simple answer is No. Yahoo is no longer growing that fast. Shareholder's will never see that wealth returned. Their value may go up but it will always be less than what it "could have been" had Yang made right decision.

BTW: I made money shorting YHOO durring this fiasco so it helped me. The point still remains Yang & company put their personal feeling & pride ahead of their shareholders.

On the plus side
By mcnabney on 6/13/2008 12:00:07 PM , Rating: 1
I hope Mr Icahn lost a ton of money.

RE: On the plus side
By TETRONG on 6/13/2008 6:41:10 PM , Rating: 2
Stocks go up-stocks go down.

They are just digits in a mainframe.

Nobody has lost anything that was earned.

RE: On the plus side
By FITCamaro on 6/14/2008 11:01:40 AM , Rating: 2
You don't lose anything until you sell. If you buy at $5 and it goes down to $1, you've lost nothing unless you sell. If you wait it out and wait for it to go back to $5 or higher, you break even or make money. The risk is "will it go back to $5 or higher".

Shares hit rock bottom??
By ksherman on 6/13/2008 1:00:56 PM , Rating: 3
That is a very over stated headline. A trip over to check their stocks reveals that yes, they stock has fallen, but they have certainly not hit rock bottom. On their way? Maybe. All this negative press sure doesn't help keep people from jumping ship.

Their stock today is still higher than it was in 2003...

RE: Shares hit rock bottom??
By Ringold on 6/13/2008 5:09:55 PM , Rating: 1
Their stock today is still higher than it was in 2003...

Lol, way to cherry pick your data points!

Why not compare it to 2005?

By elgueroloco on 6/13/2008 1:16:02 PM , Rating: 2
The news of talks ending sent shares sinking like a stone in the sea, down over two and a half dollars to finish at $23.52.

A stone in the sea? Looks like it dropped about 10%. I'd hardly call that a stone in the sea. Is this just blatant sensationalism, or does his "context" line afterward justify this one?

RE: Sensationalism?
By namechamps on 6/16/2008 10:24:54 PM , Rating: 2
The 10% drop is just the last.

Stock traded at about $19/sh prior to the buyout announcement.
This is after the company shed about 30% of it's value after a lackluster Q4 while both MSFT and GOOG both grew.

On news of the announcement stock jumped from $19 to $29 and peaked at about $30 a week later. The stock shed that growth as it became clear that Yang was a moron. The stock has fallen 34% from it's high. The stock is now trading at $4 over it's 4 year low.

Sad thing it that likely we will see a new board of director's further erosion of YHOO stock (likely down to $16-$18 range since it is no longer worth the PE it currently carries). In 2 years MSFT will buy it for half as much.

Support Independent Companies
By bongsi21 on 6/14/2008 2:33:41 PM , Rating: 2
We must support independent companies. It is not a matter of profit nor business ideals. I do believe when an independent company which caters innovative technology and advancement is greatly dependent on its organizational culture, destroy it's culture and you loose everything.

Companies such as Google, Yahoo!, Youtube etc. have contributed in the 21st century and pioneered the information technology and somehow affected our lifestyle. These companies reached their stature becaues of their independent ideals and culture.

Let us not have another Apple mistake like in the past where in its whole organizational structure and people crumbled due to internal affairs (competition over the other Apple teams) too much profit and business minded resulted to the oughst of its founder and CEO Steve Jobs.

RE: Support Independent Companies
By mikeblas on 6/15/2008 10:49:01 AM , Rating: 2
YouTube has contributed nothing more than a fountain of copyvio.

$40 a share is hard to believe!
By 13Gigatons on 6/14/2008 6:11:16 PM , Rating: 2
The question isn't what is good for Google, Yahoo or Microsoft but what is good for consumers. I think having a independent Yahoo is better for all of us. There are still three top search engines instead of only two.

To bad for the investors but not every decision should be based on GREED.

By namechamps on 6/16/2008 9:40:09 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong again. Officers of Corporation are suppose to do what is BEST for SHAREHOLDERS not even what is best for employees and certainly not what is best for consumers.

The whole job an Officer or board of directors is to MAXIMIZE SHAREHOLDER WEALTH. PERIOD. They do this by making the company more profitable, stronger, better run, and when the option comes along to DOUBLE every shareholder's wealth they take it.

Yang got paid $100 million (of shareholder money) to lose them $26 billion worth of wealth.

That is like paying the thief who robs you a bonus because he did such a great job reducing your net worth.

Note to self
By amanojaku on 6/13/2008 11:30:37 AM , Rating: 1
The next time someone offers to buy my garbage for several times it's worth, sell.

Google's top executives were quick to praise the deal. Cofounder Sergey Brin said, "I am happy to be helping them to stay independent."

Why wouldn't Google be happy about helping Yahoo! remain independent? Neither Microsoft nor Yahoo! pose enough of a threat to topple Google at the moment. A Microsoft/Yahoo! merger would mean stiff competition, however.

RE: Note to self
By Ringold on 6/13/2008 5:12:48 PM , Rating: 2
A Microsoft/Yahoo! merger would mean stiff competition, however.

Exactly. Stopping a MSFT/YHOO merger is the internet equivalent of divide and conquer.

Google - Do no evil, unless it involves market share.

We're watching....
By Locutus465 on 6/13/2008 1:50:51 PM , Rating: 3
The death of a stupid stupid company... Yahoo might have had a decent thing going tech wise, but pretending like they were in a position of power when dealing with MS was stupid.

By DeepBlue1975 on 6/13/2008 2:21:02 PM , Rating: 3
Only one word to describe Yahoo's behavioral pattern typification:


Go now and ask Microsoft to put some millions more on your company!
Even most forum users predicted this would happen, and they sitting atop de company and knowing every little detail there is to be known about their situation couldn't see this coming after refusing Microsoft's offer.

I dislike many things about MS, but one thing about them is for sure: they're brilliant, if not the most in the corporate world, businessmen.

Buy shares
By BruceLeet on 6/14/2008 7:42:34 PM , Rating: 3
1. Sell all other shares
2. Buy GOOG shares before the release of Android
3. ????
4. Profit!

Rock Bottom?
By mikeblas on 6/15/2008 10:41:16 AM , Rating: 3
"Shares hit Rock Bottom"? Who writes this tripe? The shares are down, sure--but that's not rock bottom. The trade price is lower than the spike caused by Microsoft's offer, but anybody with experience in the markets knows that price wasn't sustainable when Yahoo! rejected the offer. All that tells us is that Microsoft's offer was very generous compared to the market value of the company.

To put it in correct context, the current price of 23.50 (or so) is significantly higher than the 52-week low of 18.50, and still leaves Yahoo! with a market cap in excess of 32 billion dollars.

By therealnickdanger on 6/13/2008 11:10:51 AM , Rating: 2
Obviously there's too much pride for one room. Hopefully heads roll at the upper levels of Yahoo before they have to start axing staff... I would be outraged if I was a stockholder.

Now I understand!
By timbevil on 6/13/2008 9:03:38 PM , Rating: 2
This was a great article. I'm not even a business person nor do I own any stocks, but I could follow this story. With no financial experience and based on what I just read, yep, Yahoo definitely screwed up.

Another Thought
By FredEx on 6/14/2008 3:50:49 AM , Rating: 2
I'm thinking about how this effects some funds holding Yahoo stock. Maybe some retirement funds of people who see nothing wrong done by Yang. It is more far reaching than just Yang and a few individuals that are share holders. There are a lot of businesses hanging off of Yahoo that may be hurt also.

Yahoo! must PEVAIL
By bongsi21 on 6/14/2008 2:17:31 PM , Rating: 2
I hope and pray that Yahoo! overcomes this ordeal. Why? In my point of view if either Microsoft and Icahnn buys Yahoo! it will be the lost of us internet users.
If not prevented, Freedom of the internet will soon crumble and be controlled by the addiction of power hungry profitiers.

By namechamps on 6/16/2008 9:37:03 PM , Rating: 2
Yahoo isn't Yang's company. Once he went public it became the SHAREHOLDER'S company. The board and officers are obligated to do what is in the best interest of the SHAREHOLDERS at all times. Microsoft offered up to $40/sh. Yahoo is circling the drain at close to $20/sh (it will drop even more it was $19/sh and heading in long term downward trend until MSFT announced buyout).
$40-$20 = $20 loss per share * 1.3 BILLION shares.

Yang acting like a spoiled child COST shareholders $26,000,000,000 worth of wealth. No need to beat around the Bush. IF share holders are lucky the company might be worth $40/sh in 3-4 YEARS. Imagine getting told that you won't get your paycheck this year you might get it back in 3-4 years. Then you find out it is because you boss acted like a spoiled child.

Yang and the board will get dropped no doubt about it. They should be they broke the golden rule. DO WHAT IS BEST FOR YOUR SHAREHOLDERS (the true "owners" of the company). Yang got paid $100 million to LOSE $26 billion in shareholder wealth.

Personally the news helped me. I shorted after Yahoo started making talk about deal being undervalued. Yahoo hasn't done anything but be a follower for 3 years. MSFT was best option left to them. I shorted it because I have never trusted Yang to do the right thing for Shareholders. Made a nice profit as it dropped from $29 to $23 due to stupidity. Likely the stock will be <$20 before years end.

By Iridium130m on 6/17/2008 5:38:21 PM , Rating: 2
and BeOS wanted much more than what Apple wanted to pay...

"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki