backtop


Print 57 comment(s) - last by fummiddler.. on May 20 at 2:41 PM


  (Source: Reuters)
Yahoo and Microsoft continue in their Hills-esque drama

Yahoo seemingly made its position absolutely clear -- it felt Microsoft's offer of $31 a share, a 62 percent premium on current prices at the time of the offer, was unfair and undervalued the company.  It argued that anything less than $37 a share, or roughly a 91 percent premium on the price at the time, would be unsatisfactory. 

In the end Microsoft dropped its offer, citing that Yahoo's expectations were unrealistic, while Yahoo tried desperately to reassure employees and shareholders that it had a plan to weather the tough times ahead.

However, it didn't take long for Yahoo to apparently start hoping that Microsoft would consider pursuing it again.  In a move like something out of a television drama, the company announced only 48 hours after Microsoft dropped its bid that it would be willing to negotiate for a sub $37 price and that it would be happy to reopen talks with Microsoft.

Chairman Roy Bostock indicated that Yahoo's stubbornness on the $37 dollar price was basically an effort to get a bit more money out of Microsoft and it really didn't hope to get that much.  He told the Wall Street Journal, "Listening to shareholders is very important but you'll get lots of points of view...we think a fair value for the company is $37. It was not a take-it-or-leave it statement."

Yahoo is getting blasted by its largest shareholder, Capital Research Global Investors, one of the most respected investment institutions on Wall Street.  Gordon Crawford, a portfolio manager with the firm remarked in the WSJ article, "I'm extremely disappointed in Jerry Yang, I think he overplayed a weak hand. And I'm even more disappointed in the independent directors who were not responsive to the needs of independent shareholders."

In a separate New York Times article, Crawford continues to voice his disapproval stating, "I am extremely angry at Jerry Yang and at the so-called independent board."

In regards to Bostock's claims of shareholder support he challenges, "I would love to know who these shareholders are. It’s none of the ones that I talked to today. Everybody I talked to would have sold their stock at $34."

He continues, "I’m hoping that there is such an outpouring of outrage that the board is embarrassed into revisiting this thing, but I’m not optimistic about that."

Henry Blodget with the Silicon Valley Insider writes on the Yahoo's hardball stance and its recent reversal, "In other words, it was just a gambit--which Roy, Jerry et al, expected Steve would quickly counter with a bid of, say, $34-$35 because he was so desperate to buy Yahoo. Oops."

Now it appears that the price has dropped to $34, but it remains to be seen if Microsoft shows any interest in the company after it made up its mind to reject it.  Microsoft has said it will remain open to offers, but at this point it has to wonder -- if Yahoo only took this long to drop the asking price $3, how much longer will it really take for Yahoo to drop $3 more to the original asking price?  The only thing that seems sure at this point is that there's sure to be more drama between the pair.



Comments     Threshold


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

Please please Microsoft...
By Marlin1975 on 5/6/2008 4:20:45 PM , Rating: 5
Don't buy yahoo. You offered to much to start with and what they want now, not only in terms of money, would be dumb to follow through.

Maybe gates will come back and kick ballmer in the balls for even thinking of offering 40+ Billion for yahoo.




RE: Please please Microsoft...
By Fusible on 5/6/2008 4:28:39 PM , Rating: 5
LOL!!! I really thought this would be over for awhile but 48 hours. Sounds like a wife who is all of sudden worried that her husband is leaving her with nothing, and now wants to compromise. How classic is that.


RE: Please please Microsoft...
By Hiawa23 on 5/6/2008 5:20:51 PM , Rating: 2
I agree 100%. Looks like they tried to play hardball to drive up the price, when MS said F YOU, things have changed, LOL....


RE: Please please Microsoft...
By jlips6 on 5/6/2008 5:45:56 PM , Rating: 1
Will you buy us now?
No.
What will you do!?
We can give you this coupon.
http://img429.imageshack.us/img429/7761/slap6jq.gi...


RE: Please please Microsoft...
By jlips6 on 5/6/2008 5:49:03 PM , Rating: 1
there was another word on this originally (before slap) but I can't find a link to the one with it.


RE: Please please Microsoft...
By inperfectdarkness on 5/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Please please Microsoft...
By jlips6 on 5/6/2008 7:12:53 PM , Rating: 5
i would have thought so too until I actually played it.


RE: Please please Microsoft...
By lexluthermiester on 5/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Please please Microsoft...
By Adonlude on 5/7/2008 2:25:30 PM , Rating: 5
Are we playing a game of lets see how controversial/off topic we can get?


By lexluthermiester on 5/8/2008 1:28:48 AM , Rating: 1
I didn't start this topic, but I "dissed" a Microsoft product, so I was expecting the down-rating... Of course none of this discussion changes the fact that the Xbox360 is STILL suffering a horrendous defective rate AND is still losing the division money... Not to mention losing ground to both Nintendo AND Sony. There are now more Wii's out than 360's. And PS3 isn't far behind. The NDS even has more systems sold than 360's. So you all can whine about how bad I'm "dissing" the 360 but it doesn't change the fact that the system is a mistake for Microsoft. They need to get out of gaming hardware and stick to what they do better, software.


RE: Please please Microsoft...
By Samus on 5/7/2008 6:52:57 AM , Rating: 2
Arguing the XBOX was a bad idea is simply a stupid arguement from an individual perspective...unless you own MSFT stock. Although Microsoft has lost a ton of money on the XBOX division, I don't really give a rats ass because I haven't lost shit. So there is absolutely no basis for arguement inperfectdarkness.


By lexluthermiester on 5/6/2008 11:21:02 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Don't buy yahoo. You offered to much to start with and what they want now, not only in terms of money, would be dumb to follow through.


I couldn't agree more, but for differing reasons...

quote:
Maybe gates will come back and kick ballmer in the balls for even thinking of offering 40+ Billion for yahoo.


Once again, couldn't agree more. Ballmer needs a good swift kick in the jimmies, but for mucking about in things he needed to stay away from... I personally believe that Ballmer may soon be replaced/removed from his post. His mouth is writing checks his rear-end can't cash, that is of course assuming he stops talking long enough for people to get through his gale force wind...


RE: Please please Microsoft...
By Omega215D on 5/7/2008 12:41:21 AM , Rating: 2
sounds like an ex trying to get back with their SO...


Does anyone else smell some kind of a setup???
By RogueLegend on 5/6/2008 6:12:36 PM , Rating: 5
Ok- I'm not some yahoo loyalist, nor am I an MS loyalist- but ever since the beginning of this whole thing, I've gotten the feeling that something is going on behind the scenes that either MS or Yahoo didn't want to share with us. While the rest of you are just sitting there hoping Yahoo does or doesn't get bought, no one seems to be analyzing the sequence of events.

The key fact in this whole thing is Microsoft's bid- they offered way more than Yahoo was worth. On top of that, certain analysis I've seen suggests that Microsoft would have had to borrow to complete the purchase. Yahoo is/was rejecting money that is more than what they're worth.

This leads me to one of three conclusions (in order of likelihood).

A) Yahoo is developing some amazing service/application/product behind the scenes that Microsoft wants and Yahoo just doesn't have the resources to finish it in a short amount of time.

B) Microsoft is experiencing some kind of internal crisis (lost ad revenue due to competition from Google, outpouring of clients, etc) or is simply trying to prevent Yahoo from teaming with Google. Either way, they disparately need/want Yahoo's customer contracts to remain competitive and stop their own stock price from diving.

C) MS offered more than what Yahoo was worth with the expectation of a rejection. At some level Microsoft must have known that the likelihood of this deal going through was extremely small, whether it came in the form of a rejection from Yahoo or regulators. So they offer it to discredit Yahoo's business sense and/or to kill Yahoo's stock price as we are seeing now. Either effect would assist in killing a competitor, and making them easier to swallow later from a regulatory standpoint and from a monetary standpoint.

There is a bit of logic here that I think people are avoiding: if Yahoo is truly already dying in MS's view, then why offer such an obscene amount of money to begin with? Why not wait until the price has bottomed out? If Yahoo is a dying brand, none of what Microsoft is doing really makes much sense unless there's an ulterior motive.

Again, I'm not some anti-Microsoft freak, nor am I an anti-Yahoo freak. Feel free to disagree with my theories, and please, present alternate ideas; but I think you must admit this move by MS doesn't really make much sense on several levels.




By See Spot Run on 5/6/2008 8:02:08 PM , Rating: 1
Actually, this move makes quite a bit of sense and is quite frequent in the business world. Nothing new here.

In the normal process of things, when a company (such as Microsoft) announces its plans to buy a company, it can't do so immediately. There is a period of time (a month or two or something like that) that they must wait to allow any other potentially interested parties the opportunity to place a bid. What many companies do, and Microsoft is no exception, is offer such a high bid that it discourages any other companies from placing a bid and thus create time delays and competition. Quite normal. Have you ever wanted a rare item really bad and are willing to pay more for it? Same thing here.

Also, Microsoft has to make the shareholders want to sell. If they offer a couple of dollars above what the shares are trading at, shareholders will laugh them out of the stock exchange. They need to make an offer lucrative enough that shareholders will want to sell. For example, let's say a companies stock is trading at $10, and the share holders are holding the company for the long run, expecting the companies stock to go up 10% each year. So next year it'll be $11, the next year $12.1, the year after $13.31 and in the 4th year it'll be $14.64. So in 4 years time investors are expecting this $10 stock to be $14.64.
Now bring it back to the present. Another company (lets say company B) wants to buy this company, and offers the shareholders $15. They are gonna get rejected, because big shareholders (not individuals) are in it for the long run. So this offer is essentially market price, and share holders are not gonna sell at $15. So company A must entice the shareholders to sell, so they'll offer $20. At this price share holders will sell.

So you can put away the tinfoil hat. This is perfectly normal, and happens all the time.


By RogueLegend on 5/7/2008 12:06:12 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
So company A must entice the shareholders to sell, so they'll offer $20. At this price share holders will sell.


First off, I'll ignore the tinfoil hat comment, as well as what I interpret to be your condescending tone (which was punctuated by your hat comment) and actually treat you with the consideration you failed to give me.

I don't disagree with the idea of enticing shareholders to sell. Believe it or not, this idea is fairly obvious. I'm trying to think beyond the obvious.

Considering Yahoo ended up rejecting what is considered to be a really good offer, your obvious explanation seems to be wrong, or in the very least is failing to take some factor into account. This also fails to take into account the strong chance of regulatory issues preventing the purchase.

Again, the problem is, throughout the bidding process, Balmer is acting like Yahoo has little to no value as a future brand- an opinion which seems to be mirrored by a few editorial groups as well as steadily declining stock prices since 2006 (something else your explanation is failing to take into account).

So, unless you have something else to contribute other than a condescending tone and an overly simplistic explanation of how buyers entice sellers to sell, you needn't bother responding.


RE: Does anyone else smell some kind of a setup???
By JustTom on 5/6/2008 9:29:46 PM , Rating: 2
You missed a 4th possibility: that Yahoo is worth more to Microsoft than its stock price would suggest. Most mergers are done significantly above whatever the current stock price may be, the hope is that the synergy of the merged company will increase its value. This very often does not work, see Time Warner/AOL for a great example.


By Regs on 5/7/2008 7:11:48 AM , Rating: 2
In accounting, we call this an offer of "good will".


By teflon billy on 5/7/2008 7:06:03 AM , Rating: 2
What about value in name? Yahoo is so well known online and has become a home page for a huge user group. Remember, if you're reading this you are way too in the know to be a regular internet user. Most people are your basic user, who doesn't have a clue about whats good or bad, they just surf. Like buying an Ipod. Its not the best but you know the name. For many thats what Yahoo is. So if MS can get that name and use it for their own products they suddenly link to a huge user base that would not normally think to change. Its done for them. Pretty simple in my eyes. And with all the regular news media covering this it puts the name even more in the minds of people.
I could see that alone being worth a lot of money, instant access to a set user-base.


By RogueLegend on 5/7/2008 12:17:23 PM , Rating: 2
I considered this idea myself, but I'm not yet convinced how valuable the Yahoo brand name would be to MS. Whenever MS eats a company up, it tends to eliminate the brand name and keep the products/accounts. Yahoo does have a huge mindshare- but it's not in MS's character to keep a brand name around especially if it competes with theirs on some level.


By Elementalism on 5/7/2008 8:08:56 AM , Rating: 2
My conspriracy was MS was trying to bait Google into taking out Yahoo and saddling them with debt and a failing business.


By stryfe on 5/7/2008 4:27:19 PM , Rating: 2
With Google's dominant position in the market it's highly unlikely a merger with Yahoo would ever be approved.


By DrAbnerMality on 5/9/2008 3:56:19 PM , Rating: 2
I remain amazed that the most of the so-called analysis of this deal has focused strictly on the associated deal-making and breaking. I've yet to read anything that looks at what Yahoo can contribute to the MS catalogue. The press and analysts are getting distracted by the acquisition process. The fireworks are spectacular, but like those on the Fourth of July, it's too easy to forget they neither reveal nor represent the motives behind the actual events.

Want to know what an established technology company is really up to in a highly competitive marketplace? Look where the market is growing fastest, then look at the company's posted job vacancies.

I'd say a radical shift is underway in Redmond and in Fargo. That's right, Fargo, North Dakota, Coen Brothers movie namesake and home of the second largest -- in both size and number of employees -- MS campus outside of Redmond. It's the birthplace of MS acquisition Great Plains Software and where MS business applications and B2B sales originate.

In February and March, Fargo began aggressively recruiting experienced (mid- to senior-level) B2B marketing types. In a conversation I had with a senior product manager there, he openly agreed that there are any number of equally good choices for business applications from a variety of vendors, all of them with more or less the same capabilities and all in the same general price range. What was lacking was a compelling reason to choose MS products.

Search the MS site and you'll see an initiative underway for reaching small-to-medium size businesses (under $1 billion in annual sales) through VARs, integrators and other MS partner-resellers. The propaganda there hints at a kind of integration not yet generally present or easily available for small and medium businesses. (Don't forget, they represent ninety percent of the U.S. economy.) The hitch is that as far as actual technology innovation goes, there's nothing there -- in Fargo, Redmond or the MS website.

The big news in (established, cost-effective, proven) emerging technology utilization remains social networking, so-called Web 2.0 implementations. In a reversal of historical patterns, business adoption of Internet technologies follows popular (consumer) adoption. It's only a matter of time until Widget Industries wakes up.

The integration of company websites with online communities and real-time transactions could provide the kind of scale and leverage until recently available only to big companies with deep pockets. And guess what? Microsoft currently lacks suitable platforms for either social networking or (easily integrated, user managed) online commercial transactions.

Yahoo does.

Add market scale (presence combined with activity), platform scalability (a function of technology and system architecture), and a few other considerations, and the buy-vs.-build argument concludes quickly.

What makes this a radical shift for MS has nothing to do with engulf-and-devour tactics. As the MS product manager told me, the new strategy is about when, where and how vendors and technologies can create recurring value, hence an income stream, in the B2B space beyond product sales. What he described was a software-as-service landscape.

The product guy's statements were a radical shift for MS for a variety of reasons. First, posturing and claims of product superiority were totally absent. Second, while software application products would still be sold, the emphasis would move from sales based on a product catalogue to revenues built into platform virtualization. Through analytics and process optimization -- apparently provided by resellers and other third parties -- entire business ecosystems would benefit from improved efficiencies in workflow, ad hoc vertical integration and real-time market and customer response... if they can actually get it all to work.

Lest you think I'm actually a bot served from the inner sactum in Redmond, I will state unequivocally that I'm not a fan of Bill, Steve, Larry or any other tech vendor whose product catalog comes with an offer of free Kool-Aid. In fact, I hold Bill Gates personally responsible for one of the greatest scams since organized religion: convincing people they should have to pay for an operating system just to get their computers to run commodity software.

A final note: why, you may ask, hasn't either Yahoo or Microsoft brought up these arguments? Simple. Neither will risk an SEC and investor confidence crisis by discussing matters that could materially affect their businesses.


Final Table? I think not.
By Mitch101 on 5/6/2008 4:27:07 PM , Rating: 5
My guess is we wont ever see Jerry Yang at the final table in a World Series of Poker event. Ballmer maybe.




RE: Final Table? I think not.
By Lonyo on 5/6/2008 4:46:24 PM , Rating: 3
Yup. Looks like Mr. Yang never learnt how to play with the big boys.
Really Ballmer played this exactly right. He didn't get what he wanted, he didn't like what he was offered, and Mr Yang tried to bluff, and lost.
Ballmer can now either go back to Yahoo with a price closer to what he originally intended anyway, or walk away fairly smugly with Yahoo giving him puppy dog eyes.


RE: Final Table? I think not.
By 16nm on 5/6/2008 6:51:38 PM , Rating: 2
I see Yang out of chips w/a pair and convinced he's exactly where he wants to be, and Ballmer holding a full house jumping up and down barking like a dog.


The Current Offer...
By SRoode on 5/6/2008 9:14:11 PM , Rating: 3
Yahoo: "What's Microsoft's current offer?"

Microsoft: "IT'S OVER 9,000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Yahoo: "9,000!?!?!?!?!?"




RE: The Current Offer...
By jlips6 on 5/6/2008 9:30:33 PM , Rating: 3
What does the stock ticker say about his power level?!

+1 SRoode. +1


Remember Hotmail
By jeromekwok on 5/6/2008 10:00:28 PM , Rating: 3
I don't know what Microsoft is going to do with Yahoo if the merger goes on. Remember what Microsoft did to Hotmail, is to rebuild all webs with IIS and Microsoft products. Lost all talents who tend to open source products. Too much distraction there.

If Microsoft is not going to repeat this mistake, it could really raise the bid to more than $37 per share. Focus on competing Google, not to break arms and legs.




RE: Remember Hotmail
By halcyon on 5/7/2008 6:24:09 AM , Rating: 2
It's going to flush it down the toilet and then piss on it, just like the previous acquisitions.

As such, I really hope they buy Yahoo.

Google all the way!


Misleading Title...
By bearxor on 5/6/2008 4:39:32 PM , Rating: 1
The title makes you think Yahoo management is coming back to the table trying to get a deal. The article, in fact, is about a portfolio manager and a blogger crying because Yahoo turned down Microsoft.

Maybe you could re-title it 'Yahoo stockholders disappointed in lack of Microsoft deal'




RE: Misleading Title...
By slashbinslashbash on 5/6/2008 5:14:25 PM , Rating: 3
Clearly you didn't read the linked Wall Street Journal article which quoted both Jerry Yang and Roy Bostock, Chairman of Yahoo Board of Directors.

Yang quote: "We as a company and I personally have always been open to a deal with Microsoft and I hope that the last few days it was clear that we have shown we're willing to do a deal with Microsoft but that we couldn't get to an agreement on price."

Yeah right Jerry! You just keep repeating that and see if it protects you and the board in shareholder lawsuits. It was clear in every word that you said and every action that you took that you would do anything possible to avoid being bought by MS.


Ok let me get this right....
By CyborgTMT on 5/7/2008 3:48:25 AM , Rating: 2
The chairman of the largest shareholder say they (and others) would sell at $34 a share....
MS never offered $34 a share - at most in a last day effort offered $33 a share...
Jerry Yang and the board reject MS's offer because it doesn't meet shareholders selling threshold...
Shareholders are still pissed.....

Am I missing something here????




By CyborgTMT on 5/7/2008 5:31:43 AM , Rating: 2
need edit button... chairman = portfolio manager


Ooops
By Oakley516 on 5/6/2008 4:28:15 PM , Rating: 2
The management and board of Yahoo are just realizing what a mistake they made in turning down Microsoft, and are trying to help themselves. But they may be too late.




Playing Hardball
By m0mentary on 5/6/2008 4:29:26 PM , Rating: 2
Don't play unless you're going to stick to your guns!

Talk about irresponsible. Yang trying to renegotiate so quickly definitely places Yahoo in a much worse bargaining position than last week. Poor Shareholders, now it looks like Yahoo's previous actions and "plans" to increase its value through small company acquisitions was never really a long term goal.




By Obsoleet on 5/6/2008 7:57:29 PM , Rating: 2
40 billion, which is a significant financial burden for what?
Anything Yahoo offers, MS can reinvent cheaper than it can purchase at massively inflated prices.

Yahoo was lucky Microsoft was even acknowledging Yahoo was worth purchasing at all. Beyond the name, I see little value.

MS would be best off simply creating a new or better search algorithm, promoting their product and out-doing google. I know this means works vs. hitting the Win Button (which is typically not MS's style) but if you don't want to crush yourself with unnecessary and expensive baggage it's the way to go.
Even if you buy Yahoo, the work has to be done to beat Google, there is no longterm Win Button other than Beat Google.

When I first heard MS purchasing Yahoo I thought, great, Ford's buying Land Rover and Jag all over again!




MS + Yahoo = crap
By Spivonious on 5/6/2008 8:57:37 PM , Rating: 2
I applaud Microsoft for trying to get some prime web real estate, but it's too late, and Microsoft is already too big for its own good.

MS should start some spin-off companies to handle Xbox/Zune/consumer electronics, Internet Explorer/Windows Live/Mesh, Vista/Windows Server, Office, and Visual Studio. They're already disconnected - might as well make them separate companies. One example, the Office ribbon control. It's neat. Can I use it Visual Studio? Nope, my only option is to buy a third-party copy of it. Does any other application navigate like IE7? Kind of, but not exactly like it. They either need to make a real effort to rein in all of the various teams and get a common design in place, or jettison the teams into new companies.




Yahoo is a waste of money.
By unbaisedgamer on 5/7/2008 8:23:42 AM , Rating: 2
If Microsoft invested 40 billion into its own project it could go a long way to competing with google.

Especially if they make the Microsoft Office suite available via a web browser in their e-mail service. At least word and excel.

There's a lot they could do, I don't see why they haven't done it yet.

I suppose the only reason Yahoo is worth anything is simply for the advertising contracts. Businesses don't want to have to pay Google, Yahoo, AND Microsoft for advertising.

Microsoft just needs to crush Yahoo with a snazzy e-mail campaign and then draw the deals away from yahoo after their user base takes off.




Yahoo is..
By 3dWings on 5/7/2008 9:46:10 AM , Rating: 2
Still a major player in the web advertising world. There are uses like me, who have had Yahoo as their home page since 486 and Netscape 1. (my first penium was in 1996, a p120.. it was soo fast with win 3.1, soon upgraded(?) to win 95)

Their (yahoo branded) interactive functions are now variable, the games are still good, their chat is good, their chat rooms are abysmal, mainly down to bots.

@ the comment about cluttered home page
The presentation of their home page I find to be logical, I want search, it is at the top. Their links are all available, one click, no scrolling and the news and markets are straight forward. It is a good piece of design.

Microsoft buying them, I feel it was a bluff, but if genuine the motive has got to be the loyal or lazy (like me)userbase. Boast bigger numbers, get more advertising.
I know less than a handful of people with MSN (or whatever) as their home page. Google 20 or so and Yahoo roughly the same.

The offer for Yahoo I think was devilry, an act to destabilise Yahoo as a business. The Markets tend to polarise towards 2 competitors, be it web search, politics or whatever with relatively minor companies on the periphery. MS is on the periphery of Yahoogle and would like to displace the perceptively weaker Yahoo. It cannot touch Google, Google is seen as too strong.

I hope that Yahoo weathers the storm and maintains its position. Since March 1995, Yahoo has been a useful directory and then search engine. It is still the number 2 player at worst. MSN and the minor competitors are small fry in comparison.

In my opinion, Microsoft should make OPERATING systems only, the application divisions should be spun off and be financially divorced from MS OS. The spin off in order for the competing developers to compete on a level playing field with equal documentation.
MS should be Blocked for any purchase of Yahoo on Antitrust grounds, Yahoo has strong ties to the Open Source movement, this resource would undoubtedly closed in the event of a successful MS bid.

That is my 2 pennies worth...




By vincentyu2008 on 5/8/2008 9:15:24 AM , Rating: 2
This whole scenario just shows that the board have absolutely no idea how much their business is WORTH. I'm sure if MSFT's offer is $35 they'll ask for $41. MSFT's behavior is rational, to say the least, reflecting influence of Warren Buffett.




Fools
By wordsworm on 5/10/2008 12:42:05 PM , Rating: 2
You guys who constantly put down the validity of Yahoo online and as a company, not to mention referring to Jerry Yang as an idiot for passing up the offer made by Ballmer.

First off, Yahoo is #1 in terms of popularity. I've reiterated this point so many times I ought to make a macro for it. Google is #1 in profit and it dominates as the American search engine of choice. Yahoo is #2, and MS #3.

As to Jerry Yang, that guy is a genius. In his stint at college, he created a multibillion dollar company that went on to become the most popular web site on the Internet and make him a billionaire. I have hopes that one day my dreams will come true, but it didn't happen during my stint at university. I'm just your better than average English teacher. What strikes me as brilliant is the way he played his hand, even if all the websites online have missed his sleight of hand. Most of you folks aren't that great at reading in between the lines, so let me help you folks out. Jerry Yang didn't want to give up his company. He made it as difficult as possible for MS to acquire the company. This gambit came with the risk that stock holders would sue him. However, he coolly covered this by simply asking for more money than Ballmer, or MS, was willing to pay. What can stock holders say about that, especially since Yahoo lowered their asking price somewhat giving the appearance that it was simply trying to negotiate a larger profit for their shareholders. Whether or not this will pan out in the long term is hard to say. In any case, it's a brilliant move to keep the company while having set up a smart defense should any shareholders choose to pursue litigation.

Despite MS having walked away from negotiations, the price of Yahoo shares remain above $25 despite many stock firms selling their stocks while the price is in that range. There is excitement around the company now, and the whole fight has drawn a lot of attention to Yahoo, not to mention it's given MS some bad publicity. Did anyone notice it was Gates and not Ballmer who had stated that MS was no longer interested in Yahoo? Could it be that this failed acquisition will be 'the last straw' that sees MS searching for a new CEO? Considering that Yang's company is worth 40 billion at best while MS is worth, correct me if I'm way off, around 240 billion, it is astonishing that Yang has managed to save his company.

I like Yahoo. I like Google Earth and have been playing with Sketchup for awhile. I also use it several times every day as my search engine and I also have a gmail account. I use Yahoo for current events and I think they have the best 'my page' setup for news on the Internet. MS taking over would have been the case of a lesser company taking over a better company only to destroy it. Bravo to Yang. Who knows, maybe 10 years from now, when everybody's using a Mac clone on Cougar (or whatever OS Macs are on in 10 years) and Linux, Yang will offer to buy out a floundering MS. What can I say, I love irony, even if I 'know' it will never happen.




Yahoo is a has-been
By mikefarinha on 5/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Yahoo is a has-been
By mindless1 on 5/6/2008 5:08:01 PM , Rating: 5
A change in market capture doesn't necessarily mean anything. In the future there will be more and more web services opening up new opportunities.

Look at it like any other business, just because your competition gains or even surpasses you, it doesn't mean you can't continue to operate, make a profit.

To say they're dying a slow death is just foolish. There are lots of companies out there thriving with far less going for them than Yahoo, remember they are still #2 against Google which is no small feat.

In short, if they were really dying they would not be of interest to MS, it'd be like throwing money away.


RE: Yahoo is a has-been
By mikefarinha on 5/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: Yahoo is a has-been
By MonkeyPaw on 5/6/2008 8:01:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What does Yahoo have going for them? Honestly.


I enjoy their no-nonsense sports section (even if I think Jeff Passan is a bit of a tool). I'm also always in some kind of Yahoo fantasy sports league. ESPN just has way too much crap going on on their website. Probably not going to save the whole company, but I'm just answering your question. ;)


RE: Yahoo is a has-been
By lexluthermiester on 5/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: Yahoo is a has-been
By mikefarinha on 5/7/2008 10:10:37 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yahoo has more going for them than you do!


Wow, I guess I struck a nerve with some people!

Yahoo has fanboy's... Who knew!?!?!???


RE: Yahoo is a has-been
By mindless1 on 5/7/2008 12:19:33 PM , Rating: 2
Actually I find it annoying when someone has their browser homepage set to Yahoo instead of Google, requiring me to click or type a bit to get where I want to be to search.

I can prefer Google and still recognize Yahoo is a giant in the business, one that is desirable enough that MS, no small fish, is pursuing them.


RE: Yahoo is a has-been
By lexluthermiester on 5/8/2008 1:40:58 AM , Rating: 1
A simple fact that you lack is that I have money invested in Yahoo. That would make me an investor, not a fanboy. But whatever. I don't want Microsoft molesting a company I have a vested interest in. It's that simple. I am most pleased that the deal didn't go through, even if I am in the minority. Yahoo is better off. And Yahoo shares haven't taken the nose dive everyone predicted. Shares still have a higher value now by at least $5 per share than at the end of January this year.

If you all can read between the lines, you'll understand that Yahoo is in a favorable position. If you can't see that, oh well, your loss...


RE: Yahoo is a has-been
By Ringold on 5/8/2008 3:46:01 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I don't want Microsoft molesting a company I have a vested interest in.


Microsoft offered you more money than the stock market has deemed Yahoo is worth as an independent entity, and you call it molestation?

If you won the lottery, would you consider that akin to homicide? :P

quote:
Shares still have a higher value now by at least $5 per share than at the end of January this year.


Do you have any idea why? It's because people still hold out hope of Microsoft buying them out. Yahoo was trading at what the market deems it is really worth the day before Microsoft made the offer; $19.18 on Jan 31. Everything since that day has been not what YHOO is really worth, but an arbitrage gamble. That $19.18 was just a new low of a series of lower lows that started back in late 2005. In other words, you've been wrong for working on 3 years. Be my guest, look a chart, facts are staring at you plainly.

If you can't figure out that a MSFT buyout was in the best interest of YHOO stock holders, I must recommend broad-market ETFs or mutual funds to you. I mean, I can understand certainly having YHOO on the hope of a buyout and rapid profit, but holding YHOO on the hope that it fails?!

quote:
That would make me an investor, not a fanboy.


I would also be semi-careful, I don't know what the laws state exactly but I know various forms of pumping a stock one holds is illegal.


RE: Yahoo is a has-been
By lexluthermiester on 5/11/2008 10:36:48 PM , Rating: 2
I can pull apart your response in so many ways, but I'll instead be brief.

quote:
Microsoft offered you more money than the stock market has deemed Yahoo is worth as an independent entity, and you call it molestation?


If you do not understand what I meant by that comment I made, no amount of my trying to explaining it to you will ever help, so I will not try.

quote:
I would also be semi-careful, I don't know what the laws state exactly but I know various forms of pumping a stock one holds is illegal.


Are you silly? Do you have any idea how insider trading laws work? I'm in no violation... And if I wish to promote a company I am an investor of, I am not limited in how I do so. I am only limited by the information I choose to share, and I have shared nothing of any vital importance, let alone anything not already public knowledge.

I personally understand why Mr. Yang did what he did. He put on a public face because he was required to. His real intent was to stave off the beast and he has my support. And it seems the public agrees with me because well, Yahoo shares have regained most of there value since the Microsoft broke off the deal. Gee wiz, imagine that... Not only did the price not plummet like everyone said it would but has in fact seems to be gaining value on a steady basis... Hmmm...


RE: Yahoo is a has-been
By mikefarinha on 5/6/2008 6:14:34 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
remember they are still #2 against Google which is no small feat.


What a silly quote.

Yahoo didn't come from behind to capture #2, rather the #1 spot was taken from them by Google. I don't think going from #1 to #2 could be considered a great feat.

quote:

As of 4/24/02:

Search Engine Global Usage Share
Yahoo 36.35%
Google 31.87%
MSN 12.73%

http://www.freeforums.com/showthread.php?t=9071
(I don't think the original article is still available)


RE: Yahoo is a has-been
By mindless1 on 5/7/2008 12:16:42 PM , Rating: 2
Note that I wrote "still", and it is still an accomplishment to hold ground, to be the 2nd biggest on the internet. What are you 2nd best at anyway? Most would like to place or show if not win.


RE: Yahoo is a has-been
By fummiddler on 5/11/2008 2:37:43 PM , Rating: 2
your mum wasn't saying i was second biggest


RE: Yahoo is a has-been
By mindless1 on 5/14/2008 5:26:32 AM , Rating: 2
I take it you are 10 years old.


RE: Yahoo is a has-been
By fummiddler on 5/20/2008 2:41:53 PM , Rating: 2
That didn't seem to worry your Mum last night


"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation

Related Articles
Microsoft Withdraws Bid For Yahoo
May 4, 2008, 2:26 PM
Yahoo Wants More Money -- Again
April 7, 2008, 11:13 AM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki