Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Offered $40 a Share For Yahoo
fistfullast33l writes "Bloomberg is reporting that a recently unsealed court case by shareholders against Yahoo reveals that Microsoft offered $40 a share for the Internet search company in January 2007 and Yahoo turned it down. We've extensively discussed Microsoft's bid for Yahoo earlier this year for $33 a share, which was rebuffed. Investor Carl Icahn has launched a proxy fight against Yahoo over the spurning of the Microsoft deal." CWmike notes Computerworld's coverage of the revelations: "The complaint places much of the blame on [Yahoo CEO Jerry] Yang, describing him as someone with a 'well-known' antipathy toward Microsoft who acted out of a personal interest to keep Yahoo independent. Something wrong with that? Oh, yeah... public company."
It's about taking your January share price of $19 and doubling it into $40 over the course of a few short months, not to mention your shareholders, and perhaps most importantly vested employees. Sure, Jerry has a lot of cash with or without Microsoft but employees with shares could literally double their investments overnight with this deal. I'm sure theres a good bit of internal angst.
People used to speak of Microsoft Millionaires, this could have made a few Yahoo Millionaires. Chances are Ichann will get a shot to do what Jerry should have done.
.... He made a long-term decision instead of thinking about short-term profits. He's being sued for looking beyond the next few quarters.
If you think Yahoo can't turn it around, then yeah. He fucked up big-time. But if you think (as I'm sure he does) that Yahoo can be an innovative company that can step in to fill the gap as Microsoft declines, then he did the right thing. Hardly matters either way though. (Some profit now > Lots of profit over time) in the eyes of wall street.
Microsoft who acted out of a personal interest to keep Yahoo independent. Something wrong with that? Oh, yeah... public company.
There's nothing wrong with acting in personal interests if there's a reasonable argument that it coincides with shareholder interests. And in this case, there certainly is.
Look at Google's value. Which companies are in any position at all to grab any significant share of what they're doing in the market? It's a short list. Yahoo's on it.
If you were holding onto a significant chunk of one of those companies, would you want to (a) sell it now for a quick but small profit or (b) figure out what changes you need to make in the company to have it better compete with Google and acquire value on that level?
Some shareholders might choose a. But b is certainly reasonable.
Frankly, so is the Microsoft antipathy. People like to talk as if the haters are just irrational folks who got up on the anti-MS side of the bed. Nevermind that there's a significant real technical and business history that would make any sane and competent person wary of them.
The web as a platform is open and expanding. Windows as a platform is stagnating and closed. Which do you want to be invested in for the next 10 years?
Tweet, tweet.
The small shareholders, sure. But not the big ones, which comprise the majority of the people who are going to screw over Yang. You think Ichann, or any of the bank managers, mutual fund managers, hedge fund managers, etc. that have holdings in Yahoo are being run by people running to take out payday loans? Doubtful.
Why on earth would you hold out for $31?
Well, as but one example, Carl Ichan is reported to own about 50 million shares in Yahoo ( http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080513/yahoo_icahn.html ) so a stock increase from $30 to $31 represents a profit of about $50 million. Now, call me wacky, but that sounds like a good reason to me...
Yahoo would not have survived to 2009 if all it's employees quit. That's why Yang made sure $2 billion of the purchase price would go to employee severance plans. There's probably been some disruption anyway. Wouldn't you have a resume on the street with all of the FUD and BS being flung? The severance plans gave employees a reason to stick around and be fired by M$, or just keep on working if the deal fell through.
Painting this to be a personal thing by Yang is nuts. Yahoo and M$ were getting along famously until M$ decided to launch a hostile takeover.
/sigh I have no problem with your mention of Google, but Apple... Really? Like for realsies? Sorry bro, I'm into computers... Not toys.
On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
Apple is innovating?
They take technology that exists in lots of other places, and put it in a prettier package. OSX is nice, but it's BSD with pretty graphics.
The iPhone is nice, but it's a cleaned up version of the Nokia E70 (see: http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=iphone)
Apple is known NOT to listen to their customers. They listen to Steve Jobs (and for their benefit, I might add).
Honestly, Microsoft has been around the block on these types of things before, and while Google and Apple are big threats, I don't consider Microsoft a 'stupid' company by any means -- I feel they will have a period of crap (oh wait, Vista...), reorganize and come back stronger.
And in the end it's better for us all if they do. Although if MS ever put out an OS that is better than Linux on security, and better than OSX on ease of use and prettiness -- Slashdotters would still decry it. So I guess on this site, it's lose lose for them. But their bank accounts are still rather full.
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
Welcome to Slashdot to see people who do not have a basic grasp of finance or business to rant about it.
For one, the majority of shares in most public companies today are held by institutional investors. The next big share holders tend to be PE folks (like Icahn, KKR etc), followed by insurance companies, hedge funds etc.
Secondly, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. If you went public, you did it for the money - and you can't cry foul when you do something stupid and when people hold you accountable. If you wanted your freedom, you should have stayed private. Sad, but true.
Now, one of the biggest advantages of going public is that you raise capital - and when investors put in their money, they expect returns. Now, some people like Icahn are just vultures who are looking for an excuse to make a quick buck, but most other investors are not happy, either, with the way Yahoo handled the situation.
Like or dislike does not enter business. If it makes business and strategic sense, you do it. If it does not, you don't. If you are interested in discussing morals, ethics and "feelings", you should have kept the company private and done whatever the hell you wanted. I haven't seen anything that indicates that a merger between Yahoo and Microsoft will be a bad thing. It may throw in a little more competition; however I can see why Google is worried - they run the risk of being called a monopoly if Yahoo gets bought out. At the end of the day, once you have shareholders, you have a responsibility to them. You may not like it, but you should have thought of it before you went after the greenbacks.
Oh yeah I feel real sorry for the guy who didn't cash out for $1,500,000,000 because he could have made $1,550,000,000
Which may be exactly why MS is so interested in acquiring Yahoo. They do a lot of the same things. And so does Google. So, instead of MS vs. Yahoo vs. Google, it would be MS Yahoo vs. Google.
Sometimes the point isn't to expand into new markets, but to gain control of the ones you're already in.
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
Not exactly...many investors are gambling rather than investing.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
Teh surpreme court ruling does not matter.
The shareholders legally run the company and as such can do whatever they hell they like including firing CEO's who do not sell out for get rich quick schemes.
You can try to protect the company and what you feel is the best but the shareholders can legally fire you for doing so if they disagree with yoru directions. Actually they fire the board and create a new one who replaces you but still.
I wish these financial institutions would return to long term growth.
http://saveie6.com/
Of course they are, and they continue to innovate. The iPhone interface isn't an innovation? And are you fucking kidding me about the so-called "Best Page In The Universe"? Anyone who could have such a shitty-looking website doesn't have the least goddamned clue about design, or its importance, especially when it comes to human interface. Microsoft and Dell have also introduced dramatic innovations, and I'm fully aware that that statement is heresy on Slashdot, but give credit where it is due (and I'm saying this as a Mac user). The problem is that the word doesn't mean what most people think it means (apologies to Inigo Montoya). From Dictionary.com:
innovate : to introduce something new; make changes in anything established.
People usually mistakenly conflate "innovate" with "invent", and to say that any of these three companies has not innovated would be wrong. Apple's innovations were to bring geeky technology to the masses in a way that made sense and were useful (GUI, CD-ROM drive, USB, Unix); Microsoft of course were the ones who spread computing far, wide, and deep; Dell's innovations were in manufacturing and sales, and they can be fairly credited with commoditizing the personal computer. In my opinion Michael Dell has done more to drive down the cost of computers, thereby bringing heretofore artificially expensive gadgets into the mainstream, than anyone else. Like him or loathe him, his place in computing history is secure.
A HAHAHAHAHAHA. You honestly believe that after some pending MS collapse that 3 different linux distributions will have the OS top market share? And you got modded Informative...
The level of self affirmation on this site has hit a new level.
Indeed, this is the case- and that's what most people, even the sharesellers, don't seem to get.
There's a set of specific obligations that a BoD and the Company Execs have to everything- sometimes it's to the shareholders, sometimes it's to the company. Some of the obligations end up overlapping, sometimes they're at odds and you have to actually consider the company, it's employees, etc. FIRST.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Office 2007 is actually very successful. Don't allow yourself to be manipulated by the Slashdot anti-Microsoft sentiments.
I also found the assertion of the GP hilarious. Do you interpret this graph as showing Microsoft's impending doom? If you do, you need glasses.
People seem to forget what a disaster HP/Compaq was, and what a money sink-hole AOL/TW was.
Yahoo has been known to do most of their web development on open platforms and languages. Microsoft's web services often come in third place. By purchasing Yahoo, you either allow Yahoo to remain Yahoo and abandon existing Microsoft services (never going to happen), or you force Yahoo's users into Microsoft services they didn't want (wasting what you just spent billions on), or you basically keep the two companies as seperate companies.
These two companies were not meant to be merged.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
If you are interested in discussing morals, ethics and "feelings", you should have kept the company private
Unmitigated nonsense, and typical of bottom feeders who want to rationalize their unethical behavior.
Making a company public does not mystically give the company directors or shareholders a free pass to act unethically.
Ethical and other rules apply to people regardless of whether they are participating in a company or not. Companies are just individuals cooperating to achieve common goals and if those individuals are acting ethically then the company is acting ethically also.
---
Marketing talk is not just cheap, it has negative value. Free speech can be compromised just as much by too much noise as too little signal.
Without Jerry Yang, or thousands of Yahoo employees there'd be no Yahoo either. Do you not think they're also "entitled to be greedy" too? I think so. Also keep in mind that Icahn is leading this crusade. Icahn didn't "put up the money for the company" to help start and nurture and grow the company. Icahn set his "corporate raider bastard" target on Yahoo LONG after it came to prominence, and bought up millions of shares with the full intention of flipping them to MSFT.
Not only is Icahn NOT responsible for Yahoo's existence, it is full intention to END Yahoo's existence. That is his modus operandi: March into a public company using loads of capital and credit, start scheming to out all the directors and replace them with his cronies, start throwing the lawsuits around until he gets his way, then evicerate the company and sell off its guts to the highest bidder.
I don't have all that much love for Yahoo, but I'd have to say that my distaste for pushy, selfish corporate raiders exceeds whatever beef I've ever had with Yahoo, and even Microsoft.
I use Linux at home and I got to agree that he's living in a fantasy land. Linux has less than 1% of the desktop market last I saw. When at least 10% of the desktops sold have Linux on them, Ill start to believe in Microsoft's death. Hell, their nearest competition is Apple at some 7%
And at one time, Netscape had a monopoly on web browsers. Sure, it took all sorts of illegal actions on Microsoft's part to obliterate that monopoly, but 8-9 years ago, if you had said that another browser would start to seriously displace Internet Explorer, you'd be laughed out of the room.
Now Firefox/Mozilla/Netscape are gaining ground monthly - while still battling the "same old" (actions) from Microsoft. At the current rate, Internet Explorer will soon no longer be the browser holding majority marketshare.
What makes you think that Apple (gaining market share almost monthly) or Linux (slowly gaining market share for most of the months over the past 2 years) will not eventually reach the same point?
Here's the beauty of it that most people dont think of. For the most part (for the average user) a web browser is a web browser - if it works (and they all do - to at least the extent that the average user needs), then it doesnt matter too much which they use, so why not use the one that their tech/computer saavy friend/some site advertised to them? And in doing so, nothing has to be changed and nothing else needs to be written for it.
Now, when it comes to computers, Apple is beating the odds in that there are more things available for Windows... but for how much longer? The more market share Apple or Linux or whatever gets, the more stuff that will be written for it. That means less reasons not to switch (added to all of the many reasons cited on /. every day on why people should).
See the difference? Browser share gains are a relatively flat "curve" because of that... but soon, the OS curve will change from somewhat flat gain by non-Windows, to an actual curve (higher number of people switching each month) for whatever OS starts to truly compete with Windows, simply because as the percentage of users grows, the software to run on the OS will increase, fueling an even larger percentage per month to switch.
Other things that will help increase that uptake are things like the growing interest in OpenOffice and the growing defection from IE to Firefox or Safari.
Dont say it wont happen... it already is.
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!