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

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."

Comments

Re:Anyone else think she could be a plant?

[Captain Splendid]

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

Re:Anyone else think she could be a plant?

[DarkOx]

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.

Re:Anyone else think she could be a plant?

[SecurityGuy]

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.

Re:Anyone else think she could be a plant?

[gstoddart]

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.

Trouble for Marissa Mayer? How about employees?

[JoeyRox]

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?

Re:Anyone else think she could be a plant?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Anyone else think she could be a plant?

[Zak3056]

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.