Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Yahoo To Spin Off Everything That Makes It Yahoo (nytimes.com)

Posted by Soulskill on from the maybe-not-the-worst-idea dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Yahoo has confirmed reports from last week by saying it plans to spin off all of its assets aside from its $31 billion stake in Chinese e-commerce company Alibaba. "In the reverse spin off, Yahoo's assets and liabilities other than the Alibaba stake would be transferred to a newly formed company, the stock of which would be distributed pro rata to Yahoo shareholders resulting in two separate publicly-traded companies." Their decision was spurred by how stock market traders were weighing the tax risk of spinning off the most valuable part of the company.

The article notes that this probably means trouble for CEO Marissa Mayer: "Ms. Mayer, who was hired in 2012 to turn around Yahoo, had planned to spin off the company's 15 percent stake in Alibaba, bundled with a small-business services unit, into a new company called Aabaco. She then planned to focus on improving the company's core business, the sale of advertising that is shown to the roughly one billion users of Yahoo's apps and websites. Ms. Mayer is now effectively back to square one. Yahoo's core Internet operations are struggling, even though the chief executive has made dozens of acquisitions, added original video and magazine-style content, and released new apps."

15 of 210 comments (clear)

  1. Anyone else think she could be a plant? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So, new CEO from Google comes in, sucks up a huge salary, drives Yahoo further into the ground, and is still there after almost four years. Does anyone else think that "Ms. Mayer" may have been planted at Yahoo to keep the old Internet giant from 1) threatening Google in any meaningful way 2) keep Yahoo out of the hands of Microsoft (remember that?) and 3) keep Yahoo large enough to keep Google out of antitrust trouble (here in the states anyway)? [/conspiracy]

    1. Re:Anyone else think she could be a plant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No. Only an unthinking paranoid moron would think that. The rest of us will just see this is as normal business SNAFU.

    2. Re:Anyone else think she could be a plant? by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That would be a great theory if, post-1999, Yahoo actually had the ability to threaten Google in any way.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    3. Re:Anyone else think she could be a plant? by DarkOx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In fairness she is probably on the right track.

      Their balance sheet isn't all that bad. Probably the thing to do was and still is turn it into an investment house. By that I don't mean the lets buy and re-brand start-ups kind of investment, I mean the Berkshire Hathaway type of operation.

      A lot of people suggested Microsoft should go in that direction around 1999-2001 or so. Frankly in terms of maximizing shareholder value they were probably correct. MS had really lost its way there for awhile. Shortly after they got some focus back and started producing 'quality' well marketable software again. Here we are in 2015 and I kinda think they are headed back off the deep end trying to change the revenue model for Windows and Office and continuing to muck around in the mobile space where they are simply to late to the party. MS has remembered where their bread is buttered before and probably will again.

      Yahoo I am way less optimistic. In terms of technology, they have produced a gem or two along the way like 'web pipes' I think called it? Most of those never really took off though. In terms of their technology being relevant in the market place they have been floundering since before Google showed up. With the resources they have handy they could probably print money if they had a plan and drove some cool products, but they don't seem to have a technology plan. So this move probably is the best option.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    4. Re:Anyone else think she could be a plant? by SecurityGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yahoo was already dying. Nobody needed to do anything to drive it into the ground. For years people have been saying the best thing about Yahoo is that it owns a chunk of another company. I think Marissa Meyer was probably looking at no possibility of taking the helm at Google, through no fault of her own, so looked elsewhere. She got a chance to try to turn it around and a pile of money if it didn't work. I don't think we need a conspiracy to explain it.

    5. Re:Anyone else think she could be a plant? by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So, new CEO from Google comes in, sucks up a huge salary, drives Yahoo further into the ground, and is still there after almost four years.

      Welcome to the world of CEOs, where competence and results have nothing at all to do with how much damned money you get paid.

      I don't think she's a plant, I think Yahoo was a company which was far too screwed to readily turn itself around, and they've utterly failed to do it.

      Inability of a CEO to turn around a company which has been floundering and lurching around for years doesn't necessitate a conspiracy. I think it points to the fact that people act like CEOs have any actual idea of what they're doing.

      I mean, I can incompetently manage Yahoo for half the money.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    6. Re:Anyone else think she could be a plant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      More like it was a combination of Yahoo!'s tanking business, then they saw this superstar engineer at Google, then they hired her and put her in charge to try to make another Google.

      Except Google came about as a unique confluence of people, talent, and technologies, and won't be duplicated. Especially not with one "superstar" employee trying to force the transformation.

    7. Re:Anyone else think she could be a plant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Let's not put the female part into it. What I see is a typical worker who goes through the motions of the right university degrees, the right employer, the right talk, but also a person who has never run a company before, let alone start one, or display any great vision. It was a completely random appointment of an unproven person. They risked their multi-billion company on that. Idiots.

    8. Re:Anyone else think she could be a plant? by lucm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      MS had really lost its way there for awhile. Shortly after they got some focus back and started producing 'quality' well marketable software again. Here we are in 2015 and I kinda think they are headed back off the deep end trying to change the revenue model for Windows and Office and continuing to muck around in the mobile space where they are simply to late to the party. MS has remembered where their bread is buttered before and probably will again.

      Microsoft is selling more tablets than Apple, making more money than Amazon in the cloud business, and based on market cap is the 3rd biggest company in America (after Apple and Exxon). Microsoft is bigger than Berkshire-Hathaway, bigger than Wells Fargo, than JP Morgan. Twice the size of Coca-Cola, Chevron or Verizon. I don't think they need the advice of some dude in the peanuts gallery as to how they should manage their business.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    9. Re:Anyone else think she could be a plant? by KGIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of course you can. Just read things like your post. A fine example would be that I bought a buttload of shares in Tesla when they were $24 each. Why? Well, I read a *lot* of comments and pay attention. Timing the market doesn't appear to be too difficult at all, if you're not greedy. I am not a professional but if I include the first year and a half of rather miserable investment performance, I'm averaging a 17 or 18% growth as of six months ago when I crunched the numbers. They're higher now but that's without excluding my first year and a half where I lost about 43%.

      It does not appear difficult. ;-) So, you might know more than I (and I'd not contest that) and that's likely a good thing but, frankly, it's been pretty damned lucrative. I don't do the short-term investing thing. I invest for at least a year. Then, I'm just patient. My next one will be to watch VW to see how low they go this spring (maybe summer) and then I'll jump on that and probably buy at least 1000 shares while they're dirt cheap as it finally reaches the court systems and they're being dragged through the mud. Then I'll hold it, perhaps for years.

      So far so good. But, certainly, I've not had much trouble timing the market. I just read comments like yours and know enough to know that I don't know everything so I learn from 'em and use the comments and use them to aid my decision making. I tend to buy and just wait. I've got patience. Then when it reaches a reasonable value, I bail. I'm not that greedy and there's no reason to stay all in if I can make a healthy profit. Hell, I don't even check stock prices daily, sometimes not for weeks.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    10. Re:Anyone else think she could be a plant? by Zak3056 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Do you know who uses the term SJW?

      Assholes, losers, and whiny little fucking punks with little tiny penises who have nothing to do but piss and moan about such things.

      Given that the above is what your side of the argument means by "having a conversation" the reason for the skepticism (or even outright hatred) thrown your way becomes clear. When having a conversation consists of screaming "SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP!" at someone whom you disagree with, you've proven that you're not worth listening to.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    11. Re:Anyone else think she could be a plant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Let's not put the female part into it.

      Tell that to all the SJW's who treat the appointment of every female CEO as if it were the second coming of Jeebus. They act like a vagina is some sort of magic wand that can only do good things. And way too many Silicon Valley liberals are buying into the hype.

      It seems that the anti-SJW crowd is just as active in whining about this issue at any and all opportunities.

    12. Re:Anyone else think she could be a plant? by jcr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you know who uses the term SJW?

      I do. Go fuck yourself.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  2. Re:Am I being naive by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    >> is this just a way of moving Alibaba into American ownership?

    I saw it as a defensive move by Yahoo bigwigs. Alibaba is the only thing in the Yahoo portfolio that's worth anything. If Yahoo's CEO/board sells Alibaba, the rest of Yahoo gets liquidated and they're quickly out of their cushy jobs. By hanging onto Alibaba, Yahoo's CEO/board forces Yahoo stockholders have to get even more creative (e.g., invest in bigger golden parachutes) to get them out of the way. And by hanging onto the assorted businesses, Yahoo's CEO/board look busy "managing" them or spin them off (like chaff) to distract any pesky press continuing to ask why Yahoo continues to fail.

  3. Trouble for Marissa Mayer? How about employees? by JoeyRox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Marissa's salary at Yahoo (wages, options, and bonuses):

    2014: $42 million
    2013: $25 million
    2012: $36 million
    And I'm sure she'll be getting a nice parachute as well. That's pretty steep compensation for a company that has performed so poorly.

    Meanwhile employees had their remote-work privileges revoked, allowing them to watch this slow-motion trainwreck of a CEO up close. And employees were recently asked by Mayer to reup for a long-term commitment to the company. Where does this leave all of them?