Is it just me, or is there only chaos and mayhem in store if MS tries to merge with Yahoo? They are two incompatible business and I can't see what MS would gain from their multi-billion dollars 'investment'.
Microsoft is trying to get into net, online, advertising and by buying Yahoo! they'll become #2 in ads, behind Google.
I gather that his implication is that Microsoft might be willing to pay more than their current offer, but I'm pretty sure they're not willing to budge as they've previously stated they will not increase the already extremely high offer.
This is one reason MS needs to raise it's offer, it needs Yahoo! MS is trying to get into net advertising whereas Yahoo! is already established and has a healthy though small chunk of the market. MS already acquired online advertiser aQuantive, for $6 billion and handles ads on Facebook but it wants a bigger piece of the pie to take on Google.
I would have done the same, it looked like Microsoft would have to pony up the cash at the time with more potential suitors out there. But with the current economy, Yahoo's current share price, and no other suitors waiting in the wings any leverage for a higher price is gone.
Actually because MS's offer was for an exchange of stocks and MS's stock price has gone down there's more leverage. When MS made the offer MS stock was $32.60 but today it closed at $28.75, almost $4 lower. And Yahoo!'s price has gone up quite a bit.
MS buying Yahoo is stupid; as in: stupid. What are they paying for . . . really? A brand name that is on its way out? Heck, while they're at it, why not buy up Wards department stores too. And CompUSA.
Microsoft wants Yahoo!'s eyeballs I think. Unlike MS it is big in net advertising, but MS wants in. As for buying CompUSA, Bill Gates is no longer the world's richest person, that title now belongs to Carlos Slim Helú the largest shareholder of CompUSA.
his merger is going to happen, regardless of what the current Yahoo board may say. If they don't approve it, they will be replaced by the angry shareholders, who are being robbed of the best offer they'll ever see for their shares.
If I were a stockholder I would of been mad if the board had accepted MS's offer. Those who have been to a bazaar and have offered to buy something, an those merchants who sell in bazaars, know the first offer a buyer makes is low.
If Microsoft is going to do a hostile take over by buying their shares on the open market, they'll probably get Yahoo for less than their current offer.
No they wouldn't, as more stocks are bought it drives up the price of the remaining stocks.
Same thing happened with Cablevision a few months ago. When the Dolan family offered a buy-out for $36, some 'major' shareholders rejected the offer, pompously saying that Cablevision is worth more. Well guess what, the market didn't think so. The second the buyout was rejected, the stock plummeted below $30 and is now at $23!
Yahoo has been discussing possible partnerships with other companies they are less afraid of. Yahoo wants no part of Microsoft. Price isn't an issue here. The stock went up with Microsoft's offer initially, but has gone done since then, and will likely continue to drift back down to the pre-offer value.
According to Google Yahoo!'s stock price has been on a roller coaster. At closing of NASDAQ today the price was $27.70, and on 17 March 2008 it was $25.85. I wouldn't call today's price lower.
The only reason a stockholder would not accept an offer at twice the stock's value was if said individual thought he or she could somehow gain more utility from holding on to the stock. This letter is simply Yahoo! covering its ass.
"Finally, I do believe that Yahoo! is worth more than that ammount," If that was true, Yahoo would already be valued at that much. While it may be true at some point in the future that may be the case, but if I was a Yahoo investor considering the economy is entering a recession and Google is starting to slow down I would take the money and find a better investment. The Yahoo board doesn't have its shareholders best interest in mind here. Whether it is good for the internet, computers, world peace, global warming or the war in Iraq it doesn't matter. The CEOs have a duty to the shareholders that they seem to be neglecting here.
Your personal opinion is swell and all, but the fact is that the market values Yahoo! differently. The Microsoft bid is something like 68% more per share than Yahoo! was worth the day before it was announced. If people genuinely believed Yahoo! was worth more than this, they'd put their money where their mouth is and Yahoo! stocks would rise.
AH but some large Yahoo! shareholders said they wanted Microsoft to raise it's offer otherwise they'd oppose a buyout. And buyers have raised share prices, it's above $27, whereas MS's stock dropped below $30.
I heard years ago Microsoft sold the Apple stock they had, nonvoting stock. Unfortunately, hoping to provide a link I didn't find one that gave details though I did find a slashdot article from 2005 with comments saying the same thing.
I am certainly no technophobe, but a cell phone is one piece of technology which I do not carry (and don't want to). I suppose that it has a safety advantage, but to me that just isn't worth the hassle and annoyance of constant interruptions
Between having either a landline phone or a cellphone, I'll take a cellphone, which I have. With the cellphone I can take it with me and when I don't want to receive any calls I can either turn it off or set to vibrate only. And it's cheaper for me, I pay less for service than I did for landline phone service.
Do I really need to hear a dozen teenagers talking to their boyfriends/girlfriends about fucking every time I go to the store?
That's all a matter of curtsy. Too many are too rude today.
DO I really need drivers not paying attention to the road because their wife can't wait until they get home to discuss where they're going to eat that night?
Now this is one thing that really pisses me off, people talking on their cellphones while driving. I've narrowly avoided a bunch of accidents because of it, and I used to ride my bike a lot. What I do if I get a call while driving is I will pull over to answer it. If it's important I'll talk then but if not I'll tell them I will call back later.
I think a more positive word than introvert though would be reflective or thinker.
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator he links to the wiki article separates introversion and thinking as they aren't the same. For instance the first tyme I took the MBTI my results were INTP, Introverted, iNtuitive, Thinking, and Perceptive. I am very much an introverted person but fluctuate between Thinking and Feeling.
After all it's is thinkers who have given humanity it's greatest insights and tools, right?
It takes intuition as well. One such intuitive thinker was Nicola Tesla, listed among others.
The issue I would take with the article is to do with the term introvert. I think the author has decided they are an introvert
I ran into this problem as a full time student. Back then though I already knew I was an introvert I took the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, MBTI he linked to, and after getting the results I brought it up with my adviser that I was introverted. She told me that as I was outgoing so much I couldn't be introverted. So I copied a case study of my personality type for her to read and once she read it she admitted I must be introverted because I was exactly like the person in the study.
If you are prepared to set aside the other purpose for the moment, then the annoyance goes away. If you really listen to him, it won't feel like you are wasting your time.
It's very much a waste of tyme if you're in the middle of something and you're interrupted which then requires you to spend another hour to get back into what you were doing. As TFA says not everyone is able to multitask, some of us have to concentrate on one thing at a tyme.
But try setting aside time for yourself and time for other people, just for a few days. Then ask yourself: the problem is really that people bother you with useless information, or that you are blaming others for your own failure to manage your own attention span?
For many it's not simply a matter of managing attention or concentration. It used to be that I would be doing something by myself and getting a lot done then I'd be interrupted and wouldn't be able to get as much done afterwards. My concentration would be shot so I wasn't "in the game".
IM allows us to calmly discuss the most sensitive topics. Writing down your response forces a moments reflection and the medium strips any unwanted or imagined inflection.
It may work for you but many don't put much if any thought into IMing. For many it's an impulsive communications.
Just leave it always on with your status set as Available.
The problem is though is that you'll be getting notifications constantly which disturbs some of us, it interrupts my train of thought for instance. And when it says "Available" the sender expects a response quickly.
While the first two paragraphs leave something to be desired I thought how he used the rest of it to explain things fulfilled the desire.
Like him, as an introvert, it takes me some tyme to compose a message or reply. As a Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI, survivor I used to blame my slowness on the injury. However now I'm thinking my slowness is a combination of both.
That would be a wonderful bit of irony if they were. As other people here have noted, it is the shareholders who decide who they are going to sell out to not the BOD.
If Microsoft were to take over Disney then it would really be a poke in the eye with a blunt stick for Jobs.
Steve Jobs is on Disney's board of directors in part because he's a major stockholder. This is from when Disney bought his Pixar in an all stock exchange.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it just me, or is there only chaos and mayhem in store if MS tries to merge with Yahoo? They are two incompatible business and I can't see what MS would gain from their multi-billion dollars 'investment'.
Microsoft is trying to get into net, online, advertising and by buying Yahoo! they'll become #2 in ads, behind Google.
FalconI gather that his implication is that Microsoft might be willing to pay more than their current offer, but I'm pretty sure they're not willing to budge as they've previously stated they will not increase the already extremely high offer.
This is one reason MS needs to raise it's offer, it needs Yahoo! MS is trying to get into net advertising whereas Yahoo! is already established and has a healthy though small chunk of the market. MS already acquired online advertiser aQuantive, for $6 billion and handles ads on Facebook but it wants a bigger piece of the pie to take on Google.
I would have done the same, it looked like Microsoft would have to pony up the cash at the time with more potential suitors out there. But with the current economy, Yahoo's current share price, and no other suitors waiting in the wings any leverage for a higher price is gone.
Actually because MS's offer was for an exchange of stocks and MS's stock price has gone down there's more leverage. When MS made the offer MS stock was $32.60 but today it closed at $28.75, almost $4 lower. And Yahoo!'s price has gone up quite a bit.
FalconMS buying Yahoo is stupid; as in: stupid. What are they paying for . . . really? A brand name that is on its way out? Heck, while they're at it, why not buy up Wards department stores too. And CompUSA.
Microsoft wants Yahoo!'s eyeballs I think. Unlike MS it is big in net advertising, but MS wants in. As for buying CompUSA, Bill Gates is no longer the world's richest person, that title now belongs to Carlos Slim Helú the largest shareholder of CompUSA.
his merger is going to happen, regardless of what the current Yahoo board may say. If they don't approve it, they will be replaced by the angry shareholders, who are being robbed of the best offer they'll ever see for their shares.
"Yahoo's second-largest shareholder says Microsoft will need to up ante".
FalconIf I were a stockholder I would of been mad if the board had accepted MS's offer. Those who have been to a bazaar and have offered to buy something, an those merchants who sell in bazaars, know the first offer a buyer makes is low.
If Microsoft is going to do a hostile take over by buying their shares on the open market, they'll probably get Yahoo for less than their current offer.
No they wouldn't, as more stocks are bought it drives up the price of the remaining stocks.
Same thing happened with Cablevision a few months ago. When the Dolan family offered a buy-out for $36, some 'major' shareholders rejected the offer, pompously saying that Cablevision is worth more. Well guess what, the market didn't think so. The second the buyout was rejected, the stock plummeted below $30 and is now at $23!
Guess what? "Yahoo's second-largest shareholder says Microsoft will need to up ante". And today the price closed higher than before MS made the offer.
FalconYahoo has been discussing possible partnerships with other companies they are less afraid of. Yahoo wants no part of Microsoft. Price isn't an issue here. The stock went up with Microsoft's offer initially, but has gone done since then, and will likely continue to drift back down to the pre-offer value.
According to Google Yahoo!'s stock price has been on a roller coaster. At closing of NASDAQ today the price was $27.70, and on 17 March 2008 it was $25.85. I wouldn't call today's price lower.
FalconYou're right. I wouldn't be surprised if the shareholders file a class action against the board on this one. That's a huge premium to walk away from.
"Yahoo's second-largest shareholder says Microsoft will need to up ante".
FalconWhy would Yahoo refuse to accept an offer that is clearly more than they'd get from anyone else?
"Yahoo's second-largest shareholder says Microsoft will need to up ante".
FalconThey can simply buy up enough stock. Provided there aren't majority holder(s) that simply don't sell stock, and I don't think there are for Yahoo
"Yahoo's second-largest shareholder says Microsoft will need to up ante".
FalconBut really, this purchase is redundant. They're better off taking the excess cash, paying dividends, and let that be the end of it.
Microsoft would actually make better use of the money they have by innovating and creating something people would actually want to buy.
FalconI'd go with incredibly stuck-up and stupid, to be honest. Coy would be if the offer legitimately undervalued the company, which it does not.
Do you know more than Yahoo!'s largest stockholders? "Yahoo's second-largest shareholder says Microsoft will need to up ante".
FalconThe only reason a stockholder would not accept an offer at twice the stock's value was if said individual thought he or she could somehow gain more utility from holding on to the stock. This letter is simply Yahoo! covering its ass.
"Yahoo's second-largest shareholder says Microsoft will need to up ante".
FalconYahoo can only make demands if their shareholders back the current board, but they do not.
"Yahoo's second-largest shareholder says Microsoft will need to up ante".
Falcon"Finally, I do believe that Yahoo! is worth more than that ammount," If that was true, Yahoo would already be valued at that much. While it may be true at some point in the future that may be the case, but if I was a Yahoo investor considering the economy is entering a recession and Google is starting to slow down I would take the money and find a better investment. The Yahoo board doesn't have its shareholders best interest in mind here. Whether it is good for the internet, computers, world peace, global warming or the war in Iraq it doesn't matter. The CEOs have a duty to the shareholders that they seem to be neglecting here.
Back when Microsoft made the offer one of Yahoo!'s largest shareholders said MS had to raise the offer: "Yahoo's second-largest shareholder says Microsoft will need to up ante"..
FalconYour personal opinion is swell and all, but the fact is that the market values Yahoo! differently. The Microsoft bid is something like 68% more per share than Yahoo! was worth the day before it was announced. If people genuinely believed Yahoo! was worth more than this, they'd put their money where their mouth is and Yahoo! stocks would rise.
AH but some large Yahoo! shareholders said they wanted Microsoft to raise it's offer otherwise they'd oppose a buyout. And buyers have raised share prices, it's above $27, whereas MS's stock dropped below $30.
Falcon- they own stock in the company.
I heard years ago Microsoft sold the Apple stock they had, nonvoting stock. Unfortunately, hoping to provide a link I didn't find one that gave details though I did find a slashdot article from 2005 with comments saying the same thing.
FalconI am certainly no technophobe, but a cell phone is one piece of technology which I do not carry (and don't want to). I suppose that it has a safety advantage, but to me that just isn't worth the hassle and annoyance of constant interruptions
Between having either a landline phone or a cellphone, I'll take a cellphone, which I have. With the cellphone I can take it with me and when I don't want to receive any calls I can either turn it off or set to vibrate only. And it's cheaper for me, I pay less for service than I did for landline phone service.
Do I really need to hear a dozen teenagers talking to their boyfriends/girlfriends about fucking every time I go to the store?
That's all a matter of curtsy. Too many are too rude today.
DO I really need drivers not paying attention to the road because their wife can't wait until they get home to discuss where they're going to eat that night?
Now this is one thing that really pisses me off, people talking on their cellphones while driving. I've narrowly avoided a bunch of accidents because of it, and I used to ride my bike a lot. What I do if I get a call while driving is I will pull over to answer it. If it's important I'll talk then but if not I'll tell them I will call back later.
FalconI think a more positive word than introvert though would be reflective or thinker.
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator he links to the wiki article separates introversion and thinking as they aren't the same. For instance the first tyme I took the MBTI my results were INTP, Introverted, iNtuitive, Thinking, and Perceptive. I am very much an introverted person but fluctuate between Thinking and Feeling.
After all it's is thinkers who have given humanity it's greatest insights and tools, right?
It takes intuition as well. One such intuitive thinker was Nicola Tesla, listed among others.
FalconThe issue I would take with the article is to do with the term introvert. I think the author has decided they are an introvert
I ran into this problem as a full time student. Back then though I already knew I was an introvert I took the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, MBTI he linked to, and after getting the results I brought it up with my adviser that I was introverted. She told me that as I was outgoing so much I couldn't be introverted. So I copied a case study of my personality type for her to read and once she read it she admitted I must be introverted because I was exactly like the person in the study.
FalconIf you are prepared to set aside the other purpose for the moment, then the annoyance goes away. If you really listen to him, it won't feel like you are wasting your time.
It's very much a waste of tyme if you're in the middle of something and you're interrupted which then requires you to spend another hour to get back into what you were doing. As TFA says not everyone is able to multitask, some of us have to concentrate on one thing at a tyme.
But try setting aside time for yourself and time for other people, just for a few days. Then ask yourself: the problem is really that people bother you with useless information, or that you are blaming others for your own failure to manage your own attention span?
For many it's not simply a matter of managing attention or concentration. It used to be that I would be doing something by myself and getting a lot done then I'd be interrupted and wouldn't be able to get as much done afterwards. My concentration would be shot so I wasn't "in the game".
FalconIM allows us to calmly discuss the most sensitive topics. Writing down your response forces a moments reflection and the medium strips any unwanted or imagined inflection.
It may work for you but many don't put much if any thought into IMing. For many it's an impulsive communications.
FalconJust leave it always on with your status set as Available.
The problem is though is that you'll be getting notifications constantly which disturbs some of us, it interrupts my train of thought for instance. And when it says "Available" the sender expects a response quickly.
FalconWhile the first two paragraphs leave something to be desired I thought how he used the rest of it to explain things fulfilled the desire.
Like him, as an introvert, it takes me some tyme to compose a message or reply. As a Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI, survivor I used to blame my slowness on the injury. However now I'm thinking my slowness is a combination of both.
FalconThat would be a wonderful bit of irony if they were. As other people here have noted, it is the shareholders who decide who they are going to sell out to not the BOD.
If Microsoft were to take over Disney then it would really be a poke in the eye with a blunt stick for Jobs.
Steve Jobs is on Disney's board of directors in part because he's a major stockholder. This is from when Disney bought his Pixar in an all stock exchange.
Falcon