Why Yahoo Turned Microsoft Down 161
quarterbuck writes "The NYTimes has up a great blog post that explains a bit of the backstory behind the Yahoo-Microsoft No-deal. While Jerry Yang did not want to sell the company, it is not likely that he could have said No to Microsoft, and explained it to shareholders, without the help of Google. The article gives reasons behind Google's tossing a lifeline to its biggest competitor, and the 'coop-etition' that has been going on between the two companies, which both emerged out of Stanford University."
Jerry has an irrational fear (Score:5, Funny)
Jerry's statement (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Time will tell... (Score:5, Interesting)
If stockholders come to MS for a bailout of their capital, they don't even need a hostile takeover -- it will be a willing one. And the profits Yahoo posts from Google won't reflect in their stock price for a while.
We'll see how long it takes Yahoo investors to either let the company rebound, or to bail themselves out. Yang is in an interesting position, that's all I can say.
Re:Time will tell... (Score:5, Insightful)
What about the MS Shareholders?
Buying a house that is a money hole at half off is still buying a money hole.
Strategically, MS buying Yahoo makes no sense at this point because they already have MSN and if they simply axed yahoo it will benefit Google more than MSN. If I owned MSFT at this point, I'd be breathing a sigh of relief.
Re:Time will tell... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Time will tell... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The Wii's big - but stingy - audience (Score:5, Interesting)
It hasn't been all peaches and cream for the Wii.
Wii, though less technologically advanced than Microsoft's Xbox 360 or Sony's PlayStation 3, continues to outsell those machines and is now in more than 20 million homes.
So why are retailers having so much trouble selling Wii games?
Take Super Smash Bros. Brawl. It was one the most hotly anticipated video games of the year; it sold more than 1.4 million copies during the first week of its release.
But sales dropped more than 90 percent over the first four weeks.
A number of games that garnered critical acclaim in recent months, notably the cartoonish action-adventure game Zack & Wiki and the off-kilter action-adventure No More Heroes, have yielded disappointing sales.
Over the first three months of the year, only three other Wii titles broke the list of top 10 best-selling games.
Younger children, women and older consumers, who historically have not been sought by the video-game industry, have discovered video games through the Wii -- just not that many of them.
These new gamers are content with the games they have, often going no further than the Wii Sports game that comes with the machine. They don't buy new games with the fervor of a traditional gamer who is constantly seeking new stimulation.
The average Wii owner buys only 3.7 games a year, compared with 4.7 for Xbox 360 owners and 4.6 for PlayStation 3 owners.
"When you make a game like Zack & Wiki or Boogie, which turns the hard core off and doesn't reach the masses, then you're in trouble."
Wii Fit, an exercise game due next month, is expected to receive more marketing dollars than any game in Nintendo's history -- and the money will not be spent wooing young men. "Wii Fit is just not aimed at hard-core gamers. It's definitely aimed at the Oprah crowd. I bet they sell a million units a week for every pound that Oprah says she lost on it."
New Wii Games Find a Big (but Stingy) Audience [nytimes.com] [April 21, 2008]
Re:The Wii's big - but stingy - audience (Score:5, Interesting)
My point is that the Xbox360 had 1 year head start yet the Wii has overtaken them in sheer numbers. And Nintendo makes money on every Wii. MS is only now starting to make money on the Xbox 360 and has to recover several billion dollars.
Your article also only discusses why Wii games aren't selling well. There is no real doubt that the console is selling well. Is this a serious problem for the Wii? For the Xbox and the Playstation, they targeted hardcore gamers. This player wants a wide selection and will buy more titles a year. Well, the average Wii owner is not a hardcore gamer and not as likely to buy multiple games a year. They will buy a few titles that they enjoy playing over and over. Will fewer titles keep a hardcore gamer from buying a console? Yes, considering the higher price of the Xbox 360 and PS3. Will fewer titles keep a casual gamer from buying a Wii? Not if the Wii already has the few titles that they wanted especially since it is cheaper.
Re: (Score:2)
It can become a problem for Nintendo.
The XBox and PS3 have larger ambitions than console gaming.
That is why the PS3 has the integrated Blu Ray drive and the XBox a mature online component.
Why the Windows PC, the XBox 360 and products like Windows Home Server are being intimately woven together.
SONY and Microsoft expect to be there when the home
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's quite frequent for games companies to target a specific region or country with certain titles that end up being extremely profitable despite not being designed to appeal to people in other regions. There are for example many
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Time will tell... (Score:5, Insightful)
A) Your a troll (probably true)
B) You still can't find a Wii (perhaps)
C) Your suffering from cognative dissonance for buying an over priced console, and this need to justify why it is uber1337(!!!one1!1eleven!) compared to the popular one (from your tone, I'd guess this is true, along with option A)
There is no 7th generation technology, all of the various consoles are different, but all of them are in the 7th round of the console wars, therefore ALL of them are 7th generation. The Wii bag of tricks, though, just happens not to be playing the same horsepower game that has been the rule since SNES and Genesis. So graphically it IS a glorified Gamecube, but lucky for them, that isn't the point.
I didn't know there was a correlation between what console's you buy, and what your IQ is, btw. Do you have a study to cite on that? I would argue that the people who bought PS3s would be the ones with a lower trend, since it costs more than the alternatives, but does the same things. Oddly, I bought a Wii because I'm an adult, I don't have the time to play 4000000 hour graphical frag fests anymore, and am too old to actually equate graphics with good games. Its part of the equation, but not the equation itself.
The Wii is about fun. I respect that, even if I have to check my 1337 haxx0r badge off at the door.
Back to playing Mario Kart now. Troll away.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The 360 is fun, as is the PS3 (as is the SNES, PS1/2, Atari 2600, etc...), no debating that. The 360 and PS3's 60 bajillion horsepower, though, don't make them any more fun, or less fun, than the Wii. I just get annoyed with peopl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft wants to push their proprietary Silverlight "web" to retake the glorious control they had pre-internet vs. today's picture with some degree of cross platform support and EEK competition!
Flash has quite a lead, but Mic
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Time will tell... (Score:5, Interesting)
They aren't buying Yahoo to take them out of the picture. They're buying Yahoo to combine market share, technology, and resources so that they can compete with Google as one team. Right now Google is eating up market share from everyone else and both Microsoft and Yahoo are losing market share. It helps neither of them to compete with each other when the big kid in the room (Google) is causing all of the problems.
This is why Yahoo share prices are declining: the market expects that the trend will continue (Yahoo losing market share to Google) therefore profitability will decrease.
Now the actions through which Microsoft utilized (buying Yahoo) may have not been the right way to go about things. It may have been a better idea for Microsoft and Yahoo to enter a strategic alliance in the short term and assess the success or lack of it later.
In the mean time, Google is perfectly happy with throwing a bone to Yahoo to keep the merger from going through. This makes their lives easier because it prevents the two from sharing technology and helps to maintain Google's lead in market share and tech.
And if I was Microsoft and the merger went through, I would axe MSN, not Yahoo. Yahoo has too much branding behind it (especially internationally) that it would be a good facade to maintain.
Now the funny thing is that I own a share of Google, so the news of the Yahoo-MS merger not going through actually helps me :).
Re:Time will tell... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yahoo: Established and large customer base.
MSN: nth incarnation and still nobody gives a shit.
It's pretty clear here. Microsoft needs a web portal presence that someone is actually going to lose. MSN has been around since what, 1995, and has never really gained any traction. Yahoo was the early king, and Google became Supreme Search Overlord a little later in the game, but the key point here is that at no point in Microsoft's history on the Internet has it ever been in any meaningful way associated with web searching and web portals. It's pretty obvious to anyone (and that includes Ballmer) that no matter how hard Microsoft tries it will never achieve any kind of meaningful market share, meaning there's at least one major (and arguably becoming THE major) platform on which Microsoft has been utterly scooped and apparently cut out of.
Microsoft would very likely dump MSN if it could get its hands on Yahoo (not the other away around). MSN has little brand power, whereas Yahoo, while hardly the big guy, is at least a distant second, and thus still has something left to its name.
Of course Google is going to keep Yahoo alive, for the same reason that Microsoft through a lifeline to Apple in the 1990s. Sure they're competitors, but if you keep them alive, to some extent you can control them. Google sees little threat from Yahoo. It's likely to stay at its market share for the forseeable future. Yahoo backed by Microsoft $$$ is more of a threat (though not nearly the one that Microsoft envisions). Keep the company going, and at least you're dealing with the devil you know.
Of course, if the stock keeps heading south, at some point Yahoo's shareholders will probably give a hearty "fuck you" to Yang and deliver Yahoo into Microsoft's hands. But if they don't, I'd say the most obvious casualty isn't going to be Yang, but Ballmer. He's damned close to having a Eisner moment here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're wrong, because MSN is an absolute pile of leprotic poo.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, just ask Bank of America, who recently bought Countrywide.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally MSFT would have been hard pressed to do anything with yahoo. they couldn't improve it with ruining what's left of yahoo, and yahoo had no real alue for MSFT except customers.
Then again MSFT isn't above buying customers instead of developing compelling products.
Re:Time will tell... (Score:4, Insightful)
http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/c/6m/y/yhoo
http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/c/my/y/yhoo
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Look at the 1y or 2y graphs and let me know that isn't a "decline".
Google [google.com] shows Yahoo!'s lowest price in 2007 was $22.73 and in 2006 was $23.21. That's a $1.48 decline, which isn't much of a decline especially when you look economic cycles. Unless you look at Google's rise.
I say "continue to decline" because they are almost $10 off their share price from only a year ago. That's a decline, last I checked.
On 4 May 2007 Yahoo closed at $30.98, Yahoo!'s 4th highest close in 2007. Today it cl
Possibly you should check prices before you post (Score:2)
When you posted, and currently, YHOO is up $1.35 for the day to $25.70 or so.
As another poster noted, that is well above the $18 or so YHOO started at before the Microsoft offer.
YHOO is doing just fine...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think that's true. Stock prices usually respond in anticipation of an event. Investors know that this is going to happen so they have already factored it into their willingness to buy or sell. Later, when the event actually happens, the response in share price will be a correction to
Re: (Score:2)
A hostile takeover always implies someone willingly sells their stock to someone else. If the hostile takeover is obtained at gunpoint, it's not called a hostile takeover.
Google and Yahoo should team up (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Google and Yahoo should team up (Score:5, Insightful)
The merger of the company with the vast majority of web searches with its next-closest rival would never win the approval of the Federal Trade Commission.
Google needs Yahoo! to stick around just like Microsoft needs Apple. Each company would have an effective monopoly of their respective markets if it weren't for their smaller rival, and would risk being broken up by the FTC.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Google and Yahoo should team up (Score:5, Insightful)
With the current administration, they might not bat an eyelash at a Google-Yahoo merger, but the FTC doesn't break up monopolies just because they're monopolies. That's perfectly legal--the rules are in place to prevent companies from "cheating" to maintain their monopoly or leverage a monopoly to create new ones . . . like using an OS monopoly to establish an office suite monopoly, corporate e-mail monopoly, web browser monopoly and/or media player monopoly.
(as you can see, these rules have been working quite well in recent years. *rolls eyes*)
Re:Google and Yahoo should team up (Score:4, Informative)
That's an interesting conclusion there. Nowhere in the GP's post does he define "monopoly", nowhere does the GP mention "evil", and nowhere did the GP suggest that companies other than Microsoft are immune from being evil.
He was explaining merely *having* a monopoly is legal, the illegality comes from utilizing your monopoly power anti-competitively, for which Microsoft, being the most prominent modern example of a convicted anti-competitive monopolist, is a rich mine of examples.
Re:Google and Yahoo should team up (Score:4, Informative)
It was when they leveraged their OS monopoly to push Netscape out of the browser market that they got themselves into a legal bind. They used their market dominating power in the field of desktop operating systems to crush competition in the burgeoning market for web browsers. They didn't have a product that held a candle to a much smaller and less cash flush competitor, so rather than create a competitive product, they bolted IE into the operating system and gave it away for free thus hamstringing Netscape's ability to compete and essentially cut off any revenue stream they had to keep them afloat.
This was a flagrant violation of antitrust law. They used the power of their legal monopoly in one market to very aggressively crush competition in a market in which they were unable to compete fairly.
There is nothing finely honed about this definition of a monopoly. Microsoft was accused, tried and convicted of antitrust violations and were basically let off the hook by the Bush Administration's DoJ.
If Google tried to acquire Yahoo! or Apple tried to acquire Adobe, trust me, you'd see Microsoft screaming ANTITRUST VIOLATION so loud, we'd all go deaf. And they'd probably be justified in those claims as either of those acquisitions would really radically change the face of the software world.
There are very few companies in the world that wield a level of monopoly power even close to what Microsoft has. I can't think of a single software company that even comes close.
For all intents and purposes, Windows runs the world's computers. Like it or not. Entire industries... not just individual companies... but entire industries are tied into MS wholesale and if MS wants to change the game on these people, they either have to take it, or suffer some very serious growing pains switching to OSS alternatives or Apple alternatives. Transitions which can devastate a company. The companies that are voluntarily doing this... bravo. Smart bunch!
That is A LOT of power and the potential for abuse is huge and MS has proven they are not above abusing that power. They have been tried and convicted for it already. There is precedent, but a lack of enforcement.
Re:Google and Yahoo should team up (Score:5, Informative)
Well, actually, they first got into trouble when the DoJ began investigating their OEM agreements in the early 1990s, and it was discovered that Microsoft was in fact penalizing, or at least threatening to penalize PC manufacturers who wanted to ship alternative operating systems by charging them much more for DOS and Windows licenses than those manufacturers who basically guaranteed the only operating system that would be shipped out on their PCs would be from Microsoft. That's the origin of the Microsoft "tax", which so far as I can tell, the DoJ never managed to get rid of.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The question remains, what alternative operating system?
CP/M 86 was the high priced spread.
The competitively priced DR-DOS doesn't ship until 1988.
In 1991 DR-DOS and WordPerfect
Re: (Score:2)
Even if an OEM sold 1000:1 Windows preinstalls to Linux preinstalls, they would hold the OEM license hostage in an eff
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's remember here that a number of manufacturers, particularly some of the smaller ones, would have loved to have
Re: (Score:2)
Im not really sure that I see Google-yahoo as being a major monopoly issue. Nothing about that merger puts a barrier to entry on the search engine market. If you want to develop a better search method and put it on line you can do that without any problem. If its way better you might even unseat google for search.
It would require google cutting deals with browser makers and PC manufactures to be the one and only search engine for that browser/PC that you would start having trouble. Or if they set up dea
Re: (Score:2)
True, being the biggest doesn't mean you're a monopoly until you've gathered the lion's share of your particular market. A 51% market share in a given market could be considered a monopoly, though not a particularly powerful one if there is only one other competitor at 49%.
A company can maintain a monopo
Re: (Score:2)
This is why I'm not sure it matters if google and yahoo merge unless they tell advertisers "you can only use our service if you use it exclusively." Anyone else could come along and build an advertising network fairly easily. Its still hard to get a bunch of advertisers and web sites to advertise on, but its hard to do that now (classic chicken/egg problem).
Re: (Score:2)
The simple fact is that the nature of software makes it more practical to effect than, say, a car company using its large market share to stifle competition in fuels or a bread manufacturer trying to lock out alternative toasters.
MS bashers (Score:2)
It's funny how MS-bashers have created such a finely-honed and specific definition of "monopoly" that it only applies to Microsoft, as if no other company can be evil but them.
Speaking of MS bashers, I think it's funny the first post ranting about Microsoft and monopolies is yours.
FalconRe: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
iTunes is not the only source for music online. If you want MP3s of just about anything on iTunes you can go get it someplace else. That MP3 will play on any MP3 player.
Apple does not have a monopoly on MP3 sales or on MP3 player sales, so yes, it is okay.
Re:Google and Yahoo should team up (Score:5, Funny)
You can destroy the Emperor. He has foreseen this. It is your destiny. Join me, and together we can rule the galaxy as father and son. Come with me. It is the only way.
-l
Re: (Score:2)
altruism or (Score:2)
Wow, I don't think I'd want to be in THAT risk assessment meeting. Then again, they did it for ASK.com and apparently it's working there too.
Competition leads to innovation
Re: (Score:2)
Well, no. Basically everyone big in the industry, including both Google and Yahoo!, also buys successful companies to replace their homegrown failing offerings in the same space. Without even leaving the fairly narrow field of online video offerings, I give you Exhibit A: YouTube. Exhibit B: JumpCut.
Google == White Knight (Score:5, Interesting)
2. Google is keeping their enemies closer at this point. This is basically a white-knight move on Google's part to keep Microsoft out of their space at all costs. The question to Google is how long will it be until this kind of action starts affecting their bottom line numbers.
In a very heartless way, I'm all for the Microsoft->Yahoo acquisition. Most acquisitions fail to generate anything near the claims management makes. Microsoft would simply leave the door open for ex-Yahoo employees to startup things that would be a bigger thorn in Microsoft's side.
Death by thousands of thorns if you will pardon the pun.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a Stanford conspiracy! (Score:3, Funny)
That's why he orchestrated the Hoover presidency and built the linear accelerator facility, which looks like the all-seeing eye when seen from the air. Google is really just a corporate front for the Stanford band, whose shadowy aim is to take over the world from their trailer, where Leland Stanford is kept cryogenically frozen!
The world, I say!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
* for those who didn't get the joke, sun microsystems took it's name from the acronym Stanford University Network.
Stock Market says no, (Score:4, Informative)
IMHO, The interesting thing is that this was such a dumb idea that even greedy investors did not seem to want it. As soon as the buyout was proposed, MSFT stock tanked well over 10%. It regained some in the weeks after, but the biggest gain occurred when it looked like the deal would go bad, and when it became clear that Balmer was going to do the damn fool thing, the stock tanked again. Not a rousing endorsement that this deal would do anything positive. On the Yahoo side, the stock briefly spiked as some investors were looking for a quick payday, and others were looking to get rid of an investment they perhaps paid too much for, but no on really seemed to think it was a good deal as even when it seemed like MSFT might raise the bid to $37, the stock never went above $29, which seemed to indicate that investors seemed to think of this as a windfall and not a long term thing. Of course, the most interesting thing, is that while MSFT stock has not recovered, yahoo has not fallen back anywhere near the january lows.
As I see it, Microsoft was simply willing to burn some money to get some experience in a field that they are flailing in, and to knock out the competition. It was not a growth strategy, simply a way to tread water. Given that MSFT is still perhpas 20% down on the year, while yahoo is somewhat in positive territory, i imagine that this act of desperation has done more harm than good.
Re: (Score:2)
I would have given anything... (Score:3, Insightful)
Parent needs and insightful mod, (Score:2)
. in the land of slashdot i didn't expect to see an apt and fitting analogy. Google is capable of developing new new and (sometimes) original products by a variety of means (in house development, OSS community development, buy out). Microsoft seems to have just one move, purchase a company and assimilate their product. Microsoft and Google are both monopolies, the key difference being is that Google became a monopoly by offering a superior
Google Competition != Destruction (Score:3, Interesting)
A thriving market place makes a lot of money for everyone, yourself included. You have a vested interest in maintaining the market place.
The loss of a major fair playing competitor and the introduction of a stronger destruction driven monopolist makes it harder for everyone, including Google, to make money.
Google wants yahoo in place. They make money from Yahoo. Yahoo wants google in place, they make money with google. Where their businesses do not conflict, they work together. Both Yahoo and Google aren't fighting to destroy one another, they are in business to make money. It is friendly and profitable competition. They way it should be. The that capitalism works best.
Microsoft on the other hand can not compete on a fair market. They never have and never will be able. They must capitalize on their illegally maintained windows and office monopoly to destroy competition and destroy the marketplace leaving only enough business for themselves.
Google is a strong competitor, I don't "trust" them per se'. for The time being, however, they've shown that they understand ethics and the phrase "a rising tide lifts all boats."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Gates can go on until the end of time on how Microsoft is going to go its own way, how it's got a strategy blah blah blah, but it's all just soothing words for the shareholders, who within
Re: (Score:2)
"Believe" is a strong word, but it is an observation that fits the facts available. Yes, Google is in business to make money, and they do compete very well, but there is no evidence that they use illegal and unethical means to compete as Microsoft have been proven to do.
Stanford 2, Harvard 0. (Score:2)
How I lost $10 Billion Overnight (Score:2)
Eric Jackson, president of Ironfire Capital, is trying to recruit an alternate slate of directors to present at Yahoo's annual meeting on July 3."We are hoping to turn that (meeting) into 'Independence Day' for Yahoo's shareholders."
Yahoo's board wanted $37 per share -- a price that the company's stock hasn't reached in more than two y
new CEOs for Yahoo and MicroSoft? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No matter how you slice it, that's good.
The trick is consistently finding the dead cat bounces instead of grabbing something just part way into its slide to oblivion. It's my understanding that the vast majority of day-traders who try to time the market in things like this end up losing money. I wish the author of the parent post good luck, it's not a game I want to
Re:good luck yang (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
See the HP Compaq merger for a prime example, or AOL Time Warner, or
Re:good luck yang (Score:4, Insightful)
When companies merge (or are acquired) their stock prices tend to go up in the short term. So it makes a lot of sense for buyers to buy Yahoo stock right before the merger (and sell shortly after) and for the current shareholders to sell.
In other words, with Yahoo refusing to sell, the shareholders can not cash in and make a shit load of money.
Yes the stock is down right now, but by "loose money" I interpret that as "now you can't sell when the stock price immediately jumps up due to the acquisition and get filthy stinkin' richer than you already are".
The only people who would care in the slightest what happens to MS or Yahoo in the long term are people looking at long term investments. I think the only people in that camp are the top Microsoft shareholders (obviously or they wouldn't be looking to acquire them). The rest of the Yahoo shareholders just wanted to cash in and go retire on their yachts.
Re: (Score:2)
Well I care a bit. I get a lot less spam on yahoo mail than on my hotmail account (which I don't bother checking regularly anymore).
And while MS instant messaging thing has more features than Yahoo's, it fails a lot more often. Skype might be a bit more secure but it's pretty flaky too and a bigger resource hog.
The Yahoo finance stuff isn't that bad too.
That said, yes the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
GOOG @77% > (YHOO @ 12% + MSFT @ 5%)
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=4 [hitslink.com]
Google - Global 77.23%
Yahoo - Global 12.21%
MSN - Global 3.27%
Microsoft Live Search 2.50%
AOL - Global 2.41%
Ask - Global 1.37%
AltaVista - Global 0.11%
Excite - Global 0.07%
Lycos - Global 0.01%
All the Web - Global 0.01%
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. There are several reasons...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Its also not sure a Microsoft would be allowed to use its monopoly money from the Windows division to create another monopoly in search further on. Google buyi
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that is true, but as a public company the company's board of directors also has an obligation to maximize shareholder value and look out for their bests interest. To justify a $37 share price (102% higher than the 18.50 it was trading at before the offer), Yahoo would basically have had to double its net income (i.e., profits).
The company's management has a good case for turning down the offer if they can give a plan on how to do t
If you are a Yahoo investor.... (Score:2)
If you do care so much about the share price, you are an speculator.
Re: (Score:2)
NO! Who the hell invests their money for anything other than a nice stock price and/or dividend?
Warren Buffet [investopedia.com] "chooses stocks solely on the basis of their overall potential as a company - he looks at each as a whole."
Do you honestly expect Yahoo stock to hit the price MS was offering in a reasonable amount of time?
Not many will have the same opinion on this, what a reasonable tyme period for one person is too short for someone else and too long for a third person. Even traders are like this, besid
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Shareholder value is not equal to stock value, its about what the company does in the longer run.
NO! Who the hell invests their money for anything other than a nice stock price and/or dividend? If I am a Yahoo investor, and Microsoft offers to buy my shares at a nice premium over the market price, then yes I would like to sell them the shares.
This strongly suggests that what you're looking for is a stock that will rise enough that you can sell it short-term -- stock-flipping, essentially. If you're a Yahoo investor (and not a securities speculator) then your real question is whether Microsoft is offering to buy these shares for more than your real valuation of the company. If you don't do your own research, sure, you could trust the share price for your valuation, but that's likely to be incorrec
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't do your own research, sure, you could trust the share price for your valuation, but that's likely to be incorrect in any timeframe longer than a couple weeks. That's the thinking of a speculator, not an investor.
That's so wrong its scary. Find me a person that is willing to buy or sell a stock (or anything) at a price different than the market price and you have created a money pump.
His name is Steve Ballmer, and he's looking to pay a premium on some Yahoo shares.
I'm saying that the market price may not actually reflect something's real worth. Things can be over- or under-valued, yes? And we wouldn't want to sell them if we think they're undervalued, yes? Not even for a higher-but-still-undervalued price?
How about you give the full quote, where the guy said that the value of a company to an investor isn't the value of the share but what a company does in the long run. As an investor I could care less if the company invests in solar energy or decides to go into the edible underwear business. The return on my investment (dividend + stock price) is ALL I CARE ABOUT. You apparently measure return on investment in another way.
Umm... I didn't repeat the full quote, because I'd given it earlier.
Anyway, the problem here is that you're a speculator who thinks he's an investor, so you don't get the distinct
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, Ill make one last attempt at you, but I doubt it will work.
Make as many attempts as you like. Your original statements will remain wrong, and your subsequent ones will converge on mine. (And you'll probably continue the ad hominem, while I've at worst been supercilious with you without being directly insulting; whatev').
By undervalued or overvalued you are talking about what you think the price will be in the future relative to the price today.
Absolutely. Finally we're getting somewhere. Everybody is making economic decisions based on what they think the future value of a particular holding will be. Buffett does it based on fundamentals of the underlying investment; others do it ba
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What obligation is that? Is the board obligated to make a deal with Microsoft? Are they obligated to engage in a good faith negotiation with them?
You'd have to show that rejecting Microsoft's unsolicited bid was not in the best interests of Yahoo's shareholders. That may seem obvious to you now, but only time will tell. If they did negotiate in bad-faith, th
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, actually they are obligated to do so under Delaware law, the state in which Yahoo is incorporated. Here's a post I did earlier explaining a board's duty to shareholders during takeovers. Link. [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, I never felt that Microsoft was acting in good faith in making the offer.
The FUD and distraction that this offer has caused Yahoo has been all to Microsoft's benefit, but completing a deal with Yahoo would mean merging two very different corporate cultures at a time when neither company is robust. Not good. A sure recipe for loss of market cap, and usually results in ousting the CEO. Ballmer isn't that stupid.
If Yahoo who had said yes to the deal, Microsoft would have found some reason for withdra
Re: (Score:2)
I do not (and never have believed) that Jerry Yang and the rest of the Yahoo board was ever were serious about selling the company.
First there were no negotiations, Microsoft simply extended an offer which the Yahoo! board turned down.
For example, look at the actions the board and management took right after the offer was announced.
The board didn't want to be eaten so they took steps they thought would slow down an acquirer.
They enacted huge employee termination compensation plans, including golde
Re: (Score:2)
I do not (and never have believed) that Jerry Yang and the rest of the Yahoo board was ever were serious about selling the company.
First there were no negotiations, Microsoft simply extended an offer which the Yahoo! board turned down.
Lol, you. I'm not getting into this again. Microsoft offered $31, Yahoo wanted at least $37. see article [yahoo.com] ("The collapse of talks between Microsoft Chief Executive Steve Ballmer and Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang prompted Wall Street brokerages to cut their ratings and price targets on Yahoo, which held out for a $37 per share value despite a sweetened off from Microsoft for $33 per share."). Microsoft raise its offer to $33, Yahoo said no. Offer; counter offer; counter-counter offer. A reasonable person would
Re: (Score:2)
Lol, you. I'm not getting into this again. Microsoft offered $31, Yahoo wanted at least $37. see article [yahoo.com]
TFA does not say when any negotiations happened. And though TFA is on Yahoo!'s website it's a news article from Reuters. And no, I don't consider a single counter offer as negotiations just as I wouldn't if someone offered me $50 and I impulsively said $100.
They didn't do just that, they took actions that potentially could destroy the company's value, breaching their duty to the shareholders.
As
Re: (Score:2)