Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang To Step Down
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."
when a company's main goal is to be acquired as soon as possible?
That's not Picasso, that's Kandinsky!
...it was to avoid doing the deed w/MS at any cost.
the next AOL.
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.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Refusing M$ proposition was probably one of the worst business decisions ever made, and can lead to the end of the company. The CEO is there to execute the shareholders interests... Unfortunatly this is not the case in a lot of places.
Math is beautiful... e^(pi*i)+1=0
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.
...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.
I think the Yahoo/Microsoft saga is one of the most shocking displays of directors' self-interest vs their shareholders' interests. For the sole reason of maintaining independence, Yang and the rest of the Yahoo board instituted poison pill defences worth millions, attempted to a deal with a competitor which was good short term but very bad long term and held out for a price (in the absence of any other interest too) that was way above their previous closing price.
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.
I'll see your hokum and raise you a boondoggle.
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.
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.
Rethinking email
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Companies continue to exist until they run out of money. Yahoo! made a $92m profit last quarter and they have assets worth over $11bn. They are growing, albeit slowly, so it will be a long time before they go away. They still have a recognisable brand and a lot of customers.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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?
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.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.