Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang To Step Down 199
JagsLive was one of several readers to point out Jerry Yang's departure as Yahoo CEO. He's not leaving the company; he will return to his former role as Chief Yahoo, whatever that entails. Yang has been under fire in recent months from investors for his handling of Microsoft's recent acquisition attempt."Yahoo, under fierce financial pressure, has begun a search to replace company co-founder Jerry Yang as chief executive, the company said Monday. 'Jerry and the board have had an ongoing dialogue about succession timing, and we all agree that now is the right time to make the transition to a new CEO who can take the company to the next level,' Chairman Roy Bostock said in a statement."
Isn't it kind of sad (Score:5, Insightful)
And here I thought (Score:3, Insightful)
Yahoo is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Dividends? (Score:5, Insightful)
No- because investors today think the stock price means everything. Played that way, the entire thing is a giant pyramid scheme waiting to collape... oh too late.
bye bye (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Isn't it kind of sad (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, in the case of Yahoo, sure, they've already gone public. But for startups? Getting acquired is the dream. You don't have to deal with those bastard accountants, and everyone gets a payout.
He's so screwed! (Score:4, Insightful)
Should have sold it back when M$ was offering $33 a share. It's kinda pathetic he had to beg M$ to buy now. I don't think he has done enough "plan B" for Yahoo as a company. It doesn't take a genius to predict that regulators in US won't be too happy with this kind of merger with Google.
Re:I've been cheering his rejection of Microsoft.. (Score:3, Insightful)
...and I hope I'm not the only one.
Considering the reaction of Microsoft stock during the acquisition period, you're joined by a lot of Microsoft shareholders.
I think trying to acquire Yahoo was more about Steve Ballmers ego needing some marketshare against Google, rather than any form of sane business for either company. I suspect Ballmer got told by the board to concentrate on core business instead of his ego, hence the abort of the takeover.
Apart from some speculators who've gotten what they deserve, it's hard to see why anyone would have any interest in the deal; like you say, yahoo would lose a lot of it's five customers, and Microsoft would get a company whose employees certainly wouldn't be thrilled to be working for them.
Re:Isn't it kind of sad (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft offered $33 per share - the yahoo share is now around $10.
If I was a shareholder I'd be pissed as well.
Why aren't shareholders suing? (Score:5, Insightful)
In hindsight shareholders have lost $20 billion. At the time of the offer the premium was around $10 billion. Astronomical numbers to waste just so a board of directors can maintain their personal wish to remain independent.
Its an indictment of the USA's corporate law that shareholders have not sued for breach of fiduciary duty. If they can, but haven't, well they deserve all they got.
Jerry Yang - good riddance. Just becasue you can create an online yellow pages in your garage, (and get very lucky), does not qualify you to run a billion dollar company.
Re:Dividends? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or basically dividends allow your investors the option to take part of your profits and either put them back into the stock or use them for income or other purposes.
One symptom the lack of dividends leads to is companies feeling compelled to branch out in order to make use of the money they have on hand; they usually aren't as good at their new tacked-on field, and the formerly well-focused company that the investors bought into no longer exists.
Re:Dividends? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the companies don't issue dividends, the only reason to buy its shares is to sell those later, at a profit. That is a Ponzy scheme, it works on times of inflation and that's all, without severe inflation, if fails. Now, when the companies issue dividends, they can be avaliated on a P/E basis, and bought because of those dividends. There is no need to resell the stocks in order to make profit. That is a stable market (that can become a ponzy sceme sometimes, but doesn't need to be one).
That the US government encorages the first, and not the latter, tells a lot.
Re:Isn't it kind of sad (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Isn't it kind of sad (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, it's a dream for the shareholders. Ya know, the people the company exists to serve?
Re:Dividends? (Score:3, Insightful)
But you are forgetting that they may not be paying dividends now, but they can always choose to do it later. And this choice is really made by the stockholders(Maybe indirectly by voting for the board).
If I own 10% of a company with 10 million in cash, then the value of my investment will be at least a million, even if the company is not currently paying any dividends.
So you may think of the value of a stock as the ability of the company to pay dividends. And if they choose not to do it now, it is in a way the same as you lending money to the company.
If the company is in a high growth marked, then investing all the money now might allow the company to pay much more dividends later, and thus be a good thing. The companies that pay dividends are normally companies that are in a stable marked where they don't need all invest all their profit.
Re:I've been cheering his rejection of Microsoft.. (Score:1, Insightful)
So I hate to be a wet blanket, but do you have any actual legitimate evidence that Apple would be as evil as Microsoft given the same position? Because while it's an awfully popular meme around here, I've yet to see a defense of it that doesn't boil down to a gut feeling.
Not quite bye-bye (Score:1, Insightful)
To blame mere arrogance is to simplify the situation to petty and infantile proportions.
Yang didn't want to sell out to Microsoft, effectively killing his baby. It's not arrogance that drives this reaction, it's concern motivated by fear. Anyone who's ever met the man will tell you this. I myself have been told this by Yahoo people that I trust. Shit, anyone who's ever cared about one's own creations will tell you this. You can't take any of his statements of undervaluement at more than face value. You certainly can't extrapolate arrogance from them. They were meant to assuage investors, rally the troops, and pacify the media circus. If he'd taken Ballmer's offer, he could have said whatever he wanted, since the investors would have already gotten what *they* wanted.
Jerry's strategy of sandbagging Ballmer preserved Yahoo at the shareholders' expense. He and his management team were NOT supposed to do that, and investors have a right to be angry. But damn it if I'm not grateful as a long-time daily Yahoo user and customer whose investments in the company are not in the form of stock.
In the end, do I think it was the right move? Well, like I said, I am not a shareholder, so yes, I do. I can play armchair pundit just as well as all the death-to-Yahoo commenters (who are likely either angry shareholders themselves or just idle bystanders), who are merely counting down the minutes to some spectacular corporate meltdown event that might provide some amusement and water-cooler talk for a few days. But to date, what has happened? Icahn has been checked. Ballmer's cooled off just long enough to pretend like he knows nothing about all that Vista Capable foolishness. Yang is resigning the post he was never supposed to hold or even wanted to hold, BUT is still retaining the spiritual leadership position within the company that he and Filo have always had as its co-founders. Zimbra, Flickr, Yahoo Search, Yahoo Mail, and Babelfish, not to mention a gigashit-ton of other projects and the FreeBSD and linux servers that they run on, etc. etc. etc. are not in Microsoft's hands, awaiting summary extinguishment. Google still has one more competitor pushing them forward. For that matter, so does Microsoft. On the downside, some good people have left the company and other good people have been left by the company. And an even greater number of shareholders are storming the gates with torches and pitchforks. Tough trade to make, but at least they're still standing.
Re:Isn't it kind of sad (Score:4, Insightful)
Jerry is too nice to be CEO (Score:5, Insightful)
I know Jerry and he is smart and insightful, but way too nice to be a CEO in an industry where he has to compete against SOBs like Ballmer and Schmidt. Jerry is polite and considerate. He is thoughtful and modest. The other guys are rude, arrogant, aggressive, nasty folk.
Jerry did a lot of useful changes, but what he didn't get that it is all about perception of being a leader and being on the path upward. A lot of the issue for the market is PR versus reality. And, let face it, search and search advertising are the things the market views as keys to future success and Yahoo has fallen further behind in this area. The decision to outsource search to Google by Yahoo may prove to be one of the top 5 greatest business mistakes of all time and Jerry has to share blame for that as well.
Jerry didn't move boldly enough, but his Board should have known that his base style wouldn't allow it. He should have reorg'ed immediately and publicly, giving folks ownership and accountability. You get the job but you get fired if you don't hit the goals. He let key services stagnate. Yahoo mail took too long to fix their UI to match Google and Yahoo still charges for POP access. Yahoo was the calendar leader, but Google launches a slightly better calendar and is viewed as the leader, even without a customer base. Yahoo Groups is a leader but is old and stale compared to something like Ning. There are lots of examples of how to upgrade their services out there for Yahoo and they seem to ignore them and let others steal mind share and leadership from them.
I fear that it is too late. Yahoo is the AOL of Web 2.0. It is only a matter of time.
Re:Isn't it kind of sad (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope, companies are there for offering goods and services, which means, they should concentrate on serving their customers, not their shareholders. If capitalist principles hold at all, a company that serves its customers well should of course make money, which, in turn, should result in higher returns for the shareholders.
Saying that companies are there only to serve their shareholders, that is, only to make profits, is just a justification for all sorts of dirty business practices. If all you have to do is increasing profits, it is then perfectly OK to release dangerous products, abuse your employees as much as possible under applicable legislation (and then maybe a bit more), harm the environment with your production methods, or risk people's life savings in absurd investment schemas, among many other horrors of modern life.
Re:bye bye (Score:3, Insightful)
Now all competitors know that Microsoft as a business is going to die. Because the main cash cows, Office and Windows are under fierce attack.
Your statement is correct insofar as all things happen if given an infinite time span. Excluding an infinite time span, your statement is really, really reaching.
Office and Windows are huge cash cows for Microsoft. Office alone commands more than 90% of all office productivity software in the world. If you think that's going to be replaced en masse by OpenOffice or Google apps anytime soon, you're delusional in the extreme. It may work fine for you, but the vast majority of the business world does not agree with you. You can argue the merits of OO vs. Office all day long, but in the end it comes down to where businesses place their faith. Despite the huge price, despite the bugs, despite the bloat...they choose Office. They do it not only because it's the devil they know but because it's the devil everybody else uses as well. Businesses do not operate in a vacuum, and they must be able to reliably and accurately exchange documents and data with other businesses. With Office they are assured of this. With anything else it's a crapshoot unless you're dealing with only the most basic types of documents, spreadsheets, or presentations.
As for cloud computing, the idea will gain traction over time, but Microsoft isn't sitting idle. Do you think Microsoft isn't investing in cloud computing? They are, and quite a bit at that. If and when cloud computing becomes a panacea, Microsoft will control a healthy chunk of it. Maybe more, maybe less, but there is no doubt they'll be a sizable player.
It seems rather obvious that you're letting your anti-MS stance interfere with objectively judging the situation. Microsoft just finished hugely profitable -- in some cases, record profits -- for the last couple of quarters. The company has cash reserves eclipsing pretty much every competitor on the planet. You obviously want Microsoft to fail, but that does not mean they're anywhere near failing. Quite the contrary, actually. You need to stop letting your bile skew your judgement.
Re:I've been cheering his rejection of Microsoft.. (Score:4, Insightful)
I look at it from the point of view of a Yahoo user (of various services) and I feel it was a great decision. Yahoo isn't going anywhere - they are a PROFITABLE company, even if they don't rake in billions per quarter. a few hundred million bucks is nothing to sneeze at.
Re:Isn't it kind of sad (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Isn't it kind of sad (Score:2, Insightful)
The open market price at that time was $30. Anybody who didn't take some off the table then gets no sympathy. If not they were taking a huge risk in order to squeeze out another $3. When the upside is effectively capped like that, then without specific knowledge is foolhardy to risk everything for that relatively small return.
Re:I've been cheering his rejection of Microsoft.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft would have destroyed Yahoo (Score:1, Insightful)
Not selling Yahoo to Microsoft might have not been the best thing for shareholders, but it was the best thing for Yahoo. Microsoft would have destroyed Yahoo. They've had all these years to come up with a viable competitor to Yahoo and have nothing comparable. That's because Microsoft just doesn't 'get it'.
I originally got my Yahoo email account years ago when Microsoft destroyed Hotmail. Thats all Yahoo mail needs, passport sign in and downtime. Bleh.
Finally, my stocks have crashed recently too, albeit not Yahoo, shall I blame Jerry Yang as well?
Re:Isn't it kind of sad (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm glad to see you got my point completely. Indeed, it is exactly this state of affairs you describe so well that worries me so deeply.
Anything that is not illegal is allowed and is expected to be done if it furthers the goal of making more money.
If I'm reading well, what you're implying here is that all ethical and moral concerns you may have about a particular action should be ignored as long as this action increases profits. This is, once again, the logic behind such tragedies as Union Carbide's disaster in Bhopal, India. [wikipedia.org] I'm pretty sure Union Carbide's behavior was not illegal according to Indian law, but I'm also pretty sure many people inside the company knew what was going on, but didn't act on ethical grounds becase it was legal and would increase profits.
So, this way of thinking can kill people and ruin lifes. It is actually doing it as we speak. I thought capitalism was supposed to make us all prosperous and happy by making resources available where they are needed for wealth creation, and rewarding people according to the value of their contributions. I doesn't seem to me, however, that our current form of capitalism is doing any of these.
Re:Jerry is too nice to be CEO (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Isn't it kind of sad (Score:2, Insightful)
Bitching and complaining about companies doing something that isn't nice is pointless. Its like tripping, breaking your ankle, and then complaining that gravity didn't shut of.
There's a big difference: gravity is ruled by the laws of nature, company behavior isn't. Actually, companies are nothing else than a bunch of people that have access to certain resources. If I deal with any of these people personally, I expect them to behave morally. Why should I accept that they behave otherwise when representing their company? Just because they have to serve some random stakeholders?
Many people seem to think that companies are autonomous beings, with a live and motivations of their own. They aren't. All actions of a company are, in reality, the actions of people working for the company. I'm sure that if those people were held accountable for what they do in the name of their companies as much as they are held accountable for their personal actions, this world would be much much better.
That is incorrect. (Score:3, Insightful)
Most companies' business plan involves serving their costumers.
If shareholders like the respective business plan then they invest in the company and share the rewards, but the focus of any company should be costumers: they are the people that make the company viable.
Re:Isn't it kind of sad (Score:3, Insightful)
That's why Ford and GM don't spend a lot of time building cars that tomorrows consumers might want. Their only focus is to build as many of whatever cars the consumer is buying today.
I'm sorry, but the logic doesn't follow. Ford and GM do exist to give a return on stockholder's investments, but going out of business is not in stockholder's interests. Therefore, they are short-sighted and struggling not because of their intention to be profitable now without regard for the future, but simply because they are slow and mismanaged. It's not any more complicated than that.
Normal rules of capitalism apply: generally, you will find that the interests of consumers and stockholders are actually the same. Companies create better products (consumers win) at a lower cost in order to increase revenue and income (stockholders win).
Re:Isn't it kind of sad (Score:3, Insightful)
Of those three, I'd say investors are the least necessary, since a company could grow (however slowly) without borrowing.
Is it possible to pack more fundamental misunderstanding into a single sentence? I will leave it to others to point out what needs pointing out.
Wow, just wow.
Re:Isn't it kind of sad (Score:3, Insightful)
Of those three, I'd say investors are the least necessary, since a company could grow (however slowly) without borrowing.
Do you count the founder as an investor? Somebody started the company, and if they did not borrow money, they invested their own. And because they were the only investor, they are the only shareholder (but a shareholder nonetheless).So even if the company does not borrow any money after the founding, they are still responsible for enriching the owner.
Things like serving your customers well and treating your employees good might not make much money in the short run (maybe even cost you), but they build goodwill and can be very lucrative later.