Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo To Reject Microsoft Bid
Many outlets are echoing a subscribers-only report in the Wall Street Journal that Yahoo's board has decided to reject Microsoft's takeover offer. The NYTimes offers the only other independent reporting so far confirming this claim. The report says that Yahoo will formally reject the offer in a letter on Monday, since they believe it "massively undervalues" the company. Microsoft offered $31 per share, a 62% premium on the stock price at the time, for Yahoo; but the latter believes that no offer below $40 per share is tenable. The AP has some background on Yahoo's options in responding to the bid.
Redmond weather reports are predicting thunderstorms, with a 90% chance of scattered chair showers.
Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
As much as we all love Google, I think there needs to be a variety of search engines. Microsoft-Yahoo might have been a bigger player, but we'd lose the variety. Ask.com almost doesn't count.
Either:
1. Microsoft ups their offer. Yahoo board indicated they wouldn't consider anything under $40.
2. Microsoft walks away. Shareholders revolt after stock drops big time.
3. Microsoft wages a proxy fight and tries to win over shareholders over the board's head.
(3) is the most likely outcome. Microsoft already said something like "we won't take no for an answer".
Their P/E is 62. *SIXTY-TWO*
That means they don't make money. At least not compared to the already-inflated value of their stock. The value of their shares should be down in the single digits right now based on their income -- a P/E from 15-20 would be much more reasonable. Microsoft comes along and offers to buy them out for an amazing amount of money, and they turn it down?
Refusing this deal borders on illegal, assuming their job is to act in the interests of their shareholders.
That's simply wrong. The offer was $31 in cash OR 0.9509 of a share of Microsoft common stock.
It's possible to learn a lot by examining the world around you. For example, what am I bid for this half-eaten, moldy burrito? I am accepting no offers below $40.
Microsoft has proven, over many years, that it does not know how to run a search engine. Buying Yahoo will not magically make Microsoft smarter, especially since Yahoo has proven, over many years, that...
YHOO board comes out against, MSFT will rail that YHOO isn't worth that much, a month from now MSFT will offer a sweetened offer - call it $34 and propose its own slate of directors for the annual meeting. YHOO board will accept because they don't have a choice. MSFT will complete the purchase Jerry Yang and his cronies will go back to the bars in the Valley start their own venture capital firms or become part of one of the VCs like Kleiner-Perkins. Deal closes in the 4th quarter.
There may be some Slashdot readers who don't know the story about the chair: Ballmer Throws A Chair At "F*ing Google".
....
Quotes:
At that point, Mr. Ballmer picked up a chair and threw it across the room hitting a table in his office. Mr. Ballmer then said: "Fucking Eric Schmidt is a fucking pussy. I'm going to fucking bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to fucking kill Google."
Thereafter, Mr. Ballmer resumed trying to persuade me to stay... Among other things, Mr. Ballmer told me that "Google's not a real company. It's a house of cards."
Quoted from legal papers in a court case brought by Microsoft.
As a share holder in Microsoft I think that Microsoft has way better things to do with my retained earnings than pay too much for nothing right before the whole economy tanks.
He's an idea. Sell you stupid DRM pipe dreams down the river of wasted time and turn into what you should be, a DIVIDEND paying LOW GROWTH utility company. Make a good operating system with no bells or whistles that will pass any anti-trust case, sell it for a low enough price that the trouble of downloading a bit torrent crack isn't worth it. Make it so I can add/remove modules over the Internet at will for low low prices. Then make a a version that looks fucking fantastic and sell it like a Mac for a premium to fanboys and people who think translucent colored baubles are the shit.
Someone over there has finally woken up. I have been teaching Office 2007 and for god's sake it's a great product. 90% of the things that have made want to skull fuck the assholes in the Office department to death are gone. The menu system is great. The Page layout break controls are great. The automatic formating is now controllable. Best of fucking all you can now set the default action for paste to be text only.
I want Microsoft to stop being a bitch like Sony. (Don't FUCKING sue yourself.) Don't get delusions of being a media company or and Internet company you twits. Give me my fucking retained earnings as a dividend, make Office for a profit, make Server for a large profit, and make Windows so it works underwater in space, in the future, across standards, platforms, without a hoot because it is a god damn utility that doesn't give a fuck because everyone has to use it and doesn't hate it because it just fucking does its job come hell or high water.
I don't get why people are bitching at Yahoo! over this. Do you WANT Microsoft to own them? I don't care WHY they turned it down, I'm just glad they did, I personally don't want to see it happen at all! I'm not even sure if the FTC would like it much.
Pancakes. Oh I blew it.
There's an equilibrium, though. When a large block of stock is sold, the price of the stock may drop momentarily, but then it is undervalued and hedge funds and mutual funds snap it up until it is back to where it was. This effect is born out empirically. The demand curve for a stock is extremely steep: if it drops even a dollar, everyone and his mother wants to buy, which pushes it back up to its equilibrium price.
The one exception is when insiders sell large blocks of stock -- then the market assumes there must be bad news coming, and the price does drop and remain low. But this effect is informational, and the magnitude of the drop has much less to do with how many shares are dumped onto the market than it does with what the dump says about the insider's opinions (e.g. what proportion of his stock he dumps, and how many other insiders do the same simultaneously).
In any case, the fact that there are "loose shares" dumped onto the market does not by itself affect the price.
FreeBSD doesn't work well with Windows. It is not a joke. If it worked (or works) it could be a huge disaster for both companies. Yahoo buyout is not some "dotcom startup invented something, lets buy it" thing, 46 billion is a huge money even for Microsoft. They can't say "Oh it didn't work" and turn their backs.
Companies are not compatible with each other. Yahoo is a open source powered services giant. MS is Windows maker who struggles to make Windows more credible in large installations. Would MS pay $46 billion to further advertise open source technologies and operating systems like FreeBSD?
I suggest Slashdot people who thinks Yahoo is lame because of their homepage check http://developer.yahoo.com/ to see what Yahoo actually is.
If it were a "real" company, like, say, Netscape (was), the Empire could cut off its air supply. Same with "Linux" (_not_ a "real company", doesn't need to make money or stay "in business" in order to survive and continue to challenge The Monopoly). "Real Companies"(tm)(r)(c) can be eliminated using "real" monopoly business abuse. This is what _really_ has SteveB pissed off and frustrated to the point where he's reduced to swearing and throwing things.
He has viable competitors out here, about which he can't do a fsckin' thing.
Oh, and _zero_ market loyalty, after ten years of abuse. Make that negative numbers...
Exceeding the recommended torque is not recommended.
I challenge you to show how Yahoo is a sustainable business. Before the MS offer, they just announced that they would have to fire 1000 employees. The company's revenues year over year are shrinking because their management cannot find a way to translate all of their site traffic into money. They have a history of failing to meet their own projections. At the very least this a poorly run company, and with the coming recession, I do not think its sustainability is out of the question.
Second as an individual that owns stock, and thus is one of these "money vultures," why should I or any investor want to own Yahoo's stock, outside of takeover speculation. The company offers no dividend, which means the only return on investment I will see in it is from the company's growth, something it has clearly failed to predict, manage, or deliver on.
You claim that the entire financial industry is built on "exponential growth" but you fail to ignore the fact that Yahoo abd most tech stocks choose to hold their stock out as a growth stock, meaning they can only justify their stock price by *gasp* growing. If Yahoo were too come out tomorrow, declare a dividend (like say Altria), and pay some of the $1.5 billion dollars in cash they have to their shareholders, than their stock would finally have some intrinsic worth NOT tied to their rate of growth. (Note: For an explaination of growth stocks vs. value stocks, check this link out.)
The sun beams down on a brand new day, No more welfare tax to pay, Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light...
--- and a good many more who wish the joke could be retired along with the other long-since-gone-stale running gags that pass for humor on Slashdot.
Somebody can't count.
MS was a customer hostile enterprise (eventually proved criminal, time and time again) from the day Gates crawled out of bed and set it up in 1975, with mission: Enrich ME, fuck everyone else. (Remember the anti-hobbyist memo (first of many famous incriminating memos)? The leopard doesn't change its spots.)
I make that 32 years. The cost to civilisation is incalculable, and we'll be paying for decades to come. Millions of lives are made worse by Windows and every other worthless MS product, every day.
Ballmer was hired and retained to continue the disgusting legacy.
you had me at #!