Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Microsoft Businesses The Almighty Buck The Internet Yahoo!

Yahoo Rejects Another Bid From Microsoft, Icahn 119

Posted by Soulskill
from the is-that-your-final-answer dept.
Last night Yahoo rejected another offer for its search business from Microsoft and investor Carl Icahn. The proposal also included conditions that would have required the replacement of Yahoo's top management and board of directors. This is not the first time Icahn has pushed for such a measure. Quoting: "Yahoo said in rejecting the offer it told Microsoft it was willing to sell the entire company for at least $33 a share and its board believed such a deal could be negotiated and executed before its annual shareholders meeting on August 1. Yahoo said it also informed the software giant it remained willing to negotiate an 'improved search-only transaction.' Microsoft, however, rejected both offers, Yahoo stated."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Yahoo Rejects Another Bid From Microsoft, Icahn

Comments Filter:
  • by DarkOx (621550) on Sunday July 13, 2008 @09:19AM (#24171939) Journal

    This is about as hostile now as these types of deals get. Microsoft won't make an offer Yahoo's current board will accept so, they are openly asking shareholders to vote the current board out so they can replace it with one lead by Carl Icahn.

    Investors are always looking at the short term these days so they will probably do it, which is dumb. I mean really, Microsoft is basically saying "Help us replace your board of directors with one sympathetic to us, oh and hey no worries we still make a purchase offer in your best interests."

    I know one thing if I had any plans to hold Yahoo stock for past next few months I'd be voteing to keep the current board. I would probably be out numbered though by the guys who just want to keep the stock long enough that it looks like a deal will happen and the price runs up so they can then dump it before the specifics of the deal which would no doubt be favorable to Microsoft are revealed. With that in mind like many little investors I will probably have to jump on the bandwagon and get while the gettins good if the board is voted out. Yahoo its been nice knowing you but Wall Steet is going to sell you out for a quick cash grab.

    • by the_womble (580291) on Sunday July 13, 2008 @09:35AM (#24171997) Homepage Journal

      I mean really, Microsoft is basically saying "Help us replace your board of directors with one sympathetic to us, oh and hey no worries we still make a purchase offer in your best interests."

      It is worse than that. MS is saying "replace your board of directors with a board especially appointed to sell the company to us".

      The problem with that it that it rules out refusing to sell, which greatly weakens Yahoo's negotiating position - it is much harder to get a good price if the buyer knows you have to sell to them.

      The current board should have sold at the higher price, but changing the board now will not help.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Metaldsa (162825)

        But the first board is tainted in a sense. $31 was a great deal. $33 was even better. Asking for $40 was just greedy and it bit them in the ass. Yahoo is a $19 stock and if investors want to make 50% return than they should sell off to MS. Icahn isn't going to get screwed over.

        • by ozmanjusri (601766) <aussie_bob@NOsPam.hotmail.com> on Sunday July 13, 2008 @10:12AM (#24172199) Journal
          Yahoo is a $19 stock and if investors want to make 50% return than they should sell off to MS.

          Yahoo isn't a $19 stock, and investors wouldn't make a 50% return.

          It's a volatile stock which was at $31 three months prior to the Microsoft offer. The $19 price at the time when MS made its offer was unusually low, and I wouldn't be surprised if the SEC investigated events surrounding the the fall in Yahoo share value in the months leading up to the bid.

          The purchase price for the search assets would also have been taxable, which means Yahoo would only have netted 70% of the offer's value. In reality, Microsoft's initial bid didn't appear to be a serious attempt to purchase - there's more to this game than a simple buyout.

          • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 13, 2008 @10:33AM (#24172319)

            there's more to this game than a simple buyout.

            3's a crowd. Ballmer isn't interested in a buyout, they're not even buying Yahoo's market share in the traditional acquisition sense. What Ballmer is doing is eliminating the current number 2 player in web search^w^w the online ad market, a position that will automatically be filled by MSN. We already know what Ballmers game plan is, in his own words...

            "Fucking Eric Schmidt is a fucking pussy. I'm going to fucking bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to fucking kill Google."

            "Google's not a real company. It's a house of cards."

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              Ballmer should worry less about "Fucking Eric Schmidt" and more about making quality software. Even if they do succeed in tearing apart the competition (namely Yahoo), can they really afford Windows 7 to turn out like Vista? P.S. this is not a Vista jab, merely a question/observation.
            • by Eddi3 (1046882)

              Sorry to be pedantic, but Microsoft has basically given up on MSN at this point. They're now focusing on Microsoft Live Search.

          • by menace3society (768451) on Sunday July 13, 2008 @11:52AM (#24172847)

            I think the plan is to force out the directors, get them to hire new executives, and then act *shocked* when the SEC blocks the buyout. MS keeps its cash, Y! has been crippled beyond competition, investors lose.

            I'm not sure if I should hate MS for this latest bout of evil, or love them for trying to pull a fast one on Icahn.

            • by oever (233119)

              Mod parent up! This is very plausible. It's a way for Microsoft to kill Yahoo! for free.
              Even if the SEC does not block it, Microsoft can still walk away after having replaced the board of a competitor with sock puppets. If shareholders go along with this, they're really dumb.

              I wonder why Icahn is playing along with this. Maybe he simply cannot go back.

              • by Meski (774546)

                Mod parent up! This is very plausible. It's a way for Microsoft to kill Yahoo! for free.

                I'd be happy to see Yahoo! gone. All those useless searches from Google pointing into Yahoo sites gone? What's not to like about that?

        • by CTachyon (412849) <chronosNO@SPAMchronos-tachyon.net> on Sunday July 13, 2008 @03:40PM (#24174645) Homepage

          The otherwise farfetched-but-partially-plausible article that Slashdot ran last week [techuser.net] had one thing very right: there's no logical reason to believe, based on YHOO's performance over the year prior to Microsoft's first offer, that $19 was anything but a temporary low blip before Microsoft swooped in like a vulture at just the right moment to make their takeover bid look more impressive.

          The average YHOO stock price over the preceding year [tinyurl.com] was (eyeballing here) roughly $27 per share, with a general slight downward trend but still high enough that a linear fit would still predict a price around $23-$25 (again, eyeballing) at the time of Microsoft's first public offer. When you compare YHOO to NASDAQ over that same year [tinyurl.com], it becomes obvious that the timing of YHOO's ups and downs had much more to do with volatility and emotions on NASDAQ (and the larger oil-credit-bear global stock market) than it did with news regarding Yahoo itself. The buys and sells, modulo the bump-and-slump after the layoff announcement on Jan 21, clearly aren't due to new information about Yahoo's fundamentals as a company, so it seems fairly reasonable that the $19 share price (which lasted for a mere 2 days) wouldn't have lasted any longer than the wait for the next ephemeral upward bump in the NASDAQ. (Not that YHOO would've outperformed NASDAQ, necessarily, but it quite likely would've be back to the $21-$23 range soon enough, and possibly higher.)

          When you combine this information, it makes Microsoft's $31 deal look much more like a lowball number that it does at first glance, and makes it quite clear that Yahoo's board was reasonable to perceive it as such, even if it turns out they were wrong in the final analysis.

          In addition, for most of the last 5 years, YHOO has traded $25 or higher, and sometimes as high as $40. Traders who bought YHOO as a long-term tech investment when it was $25 or higher -- likely the majority of YHOO shareholders -- would've been treated to a much less impressive return in the MS deal, or even a loss depending on the original buy price. For them, the MS deal could easily be beaten by simple share appreciation over 5 to 10 years if Yahoo just manages to get its house in order, even if it's merely to be a more solid runner-up behind Google. Yahoo is, after all, #2 overall and #1 in certain markets when it comes to search, and they own Overture, the only company that's been doing online text ad auctions for longer than Google, so they clearly have the potential for a turnaround. This whole Microsoft fiasco might be the kick in the pants they needed to make it actually happen.

          So, in the long analysis for all those investors who bought before YHOO reached $19, it's not even remotely a guarantee that they would've been happy with Microsoft's $31 numbers, or that they're upset the Microsoft deal fell through on the terms that it did. Anyone who says "I poached YHOO at $19 and got ripped off because I didn't get my 63% return" is a moron short-term gambler who deserves to get burned.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by MrNaz (730548)

        No, just because you hate Microsoft does not mean that they could return a better profit then the Yahoo board. If track record is anything to go by, then, from a business point of view, getting in a MSFT appointed board is the best thing they can do.

        Hating Microsoft does not *make* Microsoft a bad business proposition. Let's try to make a token effort to separate MS hatery from investment analysis.

        • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

          by Hurricane78 (562437)

          > If track record is anything to go by, then, from a business point of view, getting in a MSFT appointed board is the best thing they can do.

          Well, it depends on if you have a soul...

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by the_womble (580291)
          Where exactly does MS hating come into my argument?

          MS does not seem to be anything like as well run under Ballmer as it used to be my Bill Gates.

          In addition, it is not in MS's interests for Yahoo to be well run as an independent entity. MS wants to buy Yahoo, or bits of it, as cheaply as possible.

          The cleverest thing for MS to do at this point would be to keep the uncertainty going for as long as possible, cause as much disruption as possible, watch the price fall and aim to buy selected bits (the sea

          • by Meski (774546)

            Where exactly does MS hating come into my argument?

            MS does not seem to be anything like as well run under Ballmer as it used to be my Bill Gates.

            Ballmer is to Gates, as Sculley is to Jobs

        • For bunnies sakes, Ballmer is riding the value downwards (check long term please, not for the las t2 or 3 weeks or whatever), depleting cash reserves and in general showing no idea where the company is going.

          To say that MS ownership would be great is a huge leap of faith.

      • by Escogido (884359)

        It is worse than that. MS is saying "replace your board of directors with a board especially appointed to sell the company to us".

        Since that (being sold to MS) is the best thing that Yahoo can do, there's really not much difference whether the new board is 'especially appointed to sell' or not. Whatever board there is, they *have* to sell - at least if they respect the approach that they have to act in shareholders' interests.

    • by SerpentMage (13390) <ChristianHGross.yahoo@ca> on Sunday July 13, 2008 @09:39AM (#24172015)

      >I know one thing if I had any plans to hold Yahoo stock for past next few months I'd be voteing to keep the current board.

      Well then you are a bad investor. And you are damming Wallstreet without even knowing the entire story.

      Have you looked at the bottom line of Yahoo lately? Read their cashflow statements maybe? If you had then you would be furious since Yahoo is doing a good job of screwing itself into the ground.

      Yeah I made some money buying Puts when the Microsoft Yahoo deal was announced. I knew Yahoo was too damm stupid for its own good. The problem Yahoo has is that it has some great properties, but it can't monetize those properties. That's why Yahoo is executing way under its potential.

      • by DarkOx (621550) on Sunday July 13, 2008 @09:54AM (#24172111) Journal

        I am not daming them at all. I am simply stateing the trend the past few months has been to go for the quick cash. I think that has a great deal to do with all the uncertainty right now.

        I also think your wrong. Yahoo is an established internet company with a wide range of services. They are number two in search and not likely to be pushed out of that position by anyone else out there right now. If you look at Yahoo historically before all the Microsoft Hubub started you'd see their stock prices tracks the index by and large. Yahoo is not just a search company they are a media company. I think there is a long term slow growth value play in Yahoo is Microsoft is run off.

        • by wan-fu (746576) on Sunday July 13, 2008 @10:13AM (#24172203)

          But that's exactly the problem: Yahoo is a media company. Good media companies are able to generate plenty of good content at the lowest cost. At the same time, good media companies do a good job monetizing their content, whether through advertising, subscriptions, value-add, etc.

          Yahoo does a poor job doing both. They have tons of content creators and developers working on each property. For example, Yahoo! Finance has roughly 700 people working on that aspect of the portal alone. Yahoo's efforts with Panama are a failure and they have trouble monetizing their search.

          I think their poor use of resources and inability to monetize efficiently points at poor execution. Add on top of that the fact that Yang has not changed much since Semel shows that the company is continuing it's downward march.

        • by Hangtime (19526)

          Quick cash? Stock hasn't done anything in four years. Company has tracked the SP500 for the last year (both down 18%). Buy the SP500 at least you get the diversification.

          YHOO got rid of that media company strategy when Terry Simel left. YHOO is now hooked its wagon to search and the overseas assets. BTW, Yang is selling the only way to monetize his search to GOOG. Who cares if YHOO is 1st, 2nd, or 7th in search if GOOG is the one selling the advertising. YHOO with the sell is doomed to average returns and w

        • by canuck57 (662392)

          I am not daming them at all. I am simply stateing the trend the past few months has been to go for the quick cash. I think that has a great deal to do with all the uncertainty right now.

          Yes you were, short term investors. No such a thing. Investors will price a stock on a future value and risk, period. The statement of short term just shows you displeasure in Yahoo valuation - nothing more.

          I also think your wrong. Yahoo is an established internet company with a wide range of services. They are number two in search and not likely to be pushed out of that position by anyone else out there right now. If you look at Yahoo historically before all the Microsoft Hubub started you'd see their stock prices tracks the index by and large. Yahoo is not just a search company they are a media company. I think there is a long term slow growth value play in Yahoo is Microsoft is run off.

          Yahoo is a mature company, not a venture start up. MAKE SOME MONEY or watch the stock drop. Many investors got burned on the dot-com hype. Cheap talk, no results is a lower stock price. For me, Yahoo financials suck, over valued. They should have sold, as it isn't often you get a company like Micr

          • by Anonymous Coward

            shareholders get a slice.

            It's only stupid practice that says you MUST INCREASE.

            Think about it.

            If a company must increase profits each year, at some point they have to pick one or more of:

            1) Increase prices
            2) Decrease costs (sack people)
            3) Increase market share

            Increase prices won't work in a commodity world. Sacking people (which is the only long term solution to costs) means there are fewer people who can buy what you're selling. And increasing market share is nearly impossible (without killing off your com

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              Point 2) breaks down as:

              2a) Pay your existing workforce less (ie keep pay increases below inflation);
              2b) Sack them and replace them with low-paid new graduates;
              2c) outsource to a country where wages are lower;

              However, it's actually worse than that, because profit is measured by its rate of change. Investors will withdraw their money if the profit rate of another company is higher. But the more money you've already made, the more extra profit you must make to make that percentage look attractive.

      • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Do you know why Yahoo!'s share price is dropping? Probably because it has something to do with MS's predatory practices. They're bad for investors, I guess. And if MS gobbles up Yahoo!, they'll just be part of a company that's leveling off and will probably soon start trailing off. I guess if you want that, you must be a bad investor too!
      • by speedtux (1307149) on Sunday July 13, 2008 @10:50AM (#24172445)

        The problem Yahoo has is that it has some great properties, but it can't monetize those properties.

        And Microsoft would do any better? Have you looked at how badly Microsoft's own on-line efforts have been going? Microsoft doesn't know what they are doing, and they'd run Yahoo into the ground even faster.

        Yahoo should have taken Microsoft's money and run, but afterwards, Microhoo would have failed as surely as Microsoft and Yahoo are failing separately.

      • by vertinox (846076)

        Have you looked at the bottom line of Yahoo lately? Read their cashflow statements maybe? If you had then you would be furious since Yahoo is doing a good job of screwing itself into the ground.

        I'm tempted to short both MSFT and YHOO the day the deal is done and throw the money into Oil and Euro ETFs.

        The problem with modern investing is that money (and lots of it) can be made by simply determining the emotional behavior of investors and market trends rather than cold hard financial facts.

        Did Oil supply decr

      • Have you looked at the bottom line of Yahoo lately? Read their cashflow statements maybe?

        Yeah, I have. And they're pretty dammed impressive. They've got good cashflow, nice margins, and decent profits.

        If you had then you would be furious since Yahoo is doing a good job of screwing itself into the ground.

        I'm only furious because too many folks claim they've looked at the balance sheets - and then repeat (groundlessly) the analysts party line.

    • by maxume (22995)

      The current board previously rejected an offer higher than the one that they are now asking Microsoft to accept. Apparently because they thought they were awesome, as nothing else makes any sense.

    • by conark (871314)
      well, the other thing i don't know if people had looked at is that it's only been a year since Terry Semel got canned. I blame a lot of Yahoo's stagnation when Semel took charge. He really didn't have any clue about the internet and so the innovative nature in Yahoo at one time went down quickly. Worse yet, they bought out duplicate services or even avoided great buys while Semel was in charge. Also, people for some reason think that the recent departures of all the execs are alarming. I'm probably in
    • by Hangtime (19526)

      So who are short-term investors and what do you classify as being short-term? Let's say for instance you purchased your YHOO stock four years ago what would be your reward for your efforts? Well the SP500 would have gone up 10% (which is pretty weak) and your YHOO stock would be worth 30% less. In fact, you would not have seen positive territory since Jan 2006. Let's say you believe Jerry Yang has it right and will take you to the promise land. Well he has at least kept pace with the SP500 both are down rou

    • by KGIII (973947) on Sunday July 13, 2008 @12:23PM (#24173073) Journal

      ...lead by Carl Icahnhascheezburger?

  • Heh. (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 13, 2008 @09:20AM (#24171945)

    Icahn? More like Icahn't.

  • Back Pocket (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mrbill1234 (715607) on Sunday July 13, 2008 @09:23AM (#24171957)

    Icahn is only interested in his back pocket, not the interest of shareholders, or the employees of Yahoo. He is acting like a little child because he can't get his way.

    • by dkleinsc (563838) on Sunday July 13, 2008 @09:30AM (#24171983) Homepage

      His only real regret is that he still hasn't found a way to cure his bone-itis.

    • Re:Back Pocket (Score:4, Interesting)

      by owlnation (858981) on Sunday July 13, 2008 @09:35AM (#24171999)

      Icahn is only interested in his back pocket, not the interest of shareholders, or the employees of Yahoo.

      Of course he is. But... so are the board of Yahoo. Don't dare look to them as doing the right thing.

      Yahoo is a dead company. It's going one way or the other, it's only a question of when. It's better for Yahoo to get it over with quickly in the interests of the employees, and those customers who have not already jumped ship.

      Yahoo has never given a shit about its customers, its employees, nor much in the way of ethics (China, as one example). The sooner Yahoo dies the better for everyone.

      • BSD is dead (Score:3, Funny)

        by bussdriver (620565)

        Didn't you hear? BSD is dead--- it died decades ago way before it became the foundation of Mac OS X: the #1 unix distribution.

        Yahoo is #2 and that doesn't mean they are dead. The market is doing poorly not just Yahoo; even if they are not making as much as they should be Yahoo is literally just an idea or two from improvement (and we all know Microsoft isn't the place for profitable ideas; their SEC filings show they are entirely dependent on their TWO overpriced monopoly product lines.)

        • by sponga (739683)

          The point is Microsoft has something to fall back on to keep their other assets afloat.

          Yahoo is at a dead end and no other markets to really pull them out of this hole that Google hasn't already conquered or that is in beta, it is holding onto a legacy audience who are much like the AOL audience

          I always say to the Yahoo defenders these days, put your money where your mouth is and invest in their stocks. Yahoo has not really 'Yahoo'd!!' me into getting into their products or services. Sorry just cold hard tr

          • by bussdriver (620565)

            I don't use yahoo for almost anything and haven't for many years.

            #2 is not dead. Change is not the game; the shareholder game is about unsustainable growth at any cost. The traditional business model which used to be more common was about sustaining the business and long term growth and stability. Being #2 in search and not doing much else is just fine if they do not have to constantly INCREASE each quarter earnings and then get judged on the rate of increase as well...

    • Re:Back Pocket (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DancesWithBlowTorch (809750) on Sunday July 13, 2008 @09:39AM (#24172017)

      Icahn is only interested in his back pocket, not the interest of shareholders, or the employees of Yahoo.

      Well, Icahn is a shareholder in yahoo. And I would be surprised to find out the other shareholders are not interested in "their backpockets".

      Now, I agree that the whole thing sucks for yahoo's employees. But that's the way the system works. It's called capitalism because the capital controls the system, not employeeism. Within the bounds of this system, Icahn has a perfectly valid point: He thinks Microsoft is offering a great deal to Yahoo's shareholders, and since Yahoo's board has to answer to the shareholders (and only the shareholders), he thinks they are not doing their job well.

      Honestly: Jerry Wang is as rich as he is because he sold his company to outside investors (by going public). He can't cry foul now that they want to act out their control over the company he sold them.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by gtall (79522)

        "He thinks Microsoft is offering a great deal to Yahoo's shareholders,..."

        There is no basis of fact for this statement. Right now, it isn't clear (given the discussion) whether it is best for Yahoo's shareholders or for Carl Icahn.

        My own belief is that Icahn is only interested in Icahn. He's not a young man. He thinks short term, but he's certainly not the only one and sometimes it makes sense to think short term. I do not believe this is one of those times. A good management could make Yahoo again a rising

      • You're absolutely right. We should sell every public company on Wall Street for a quick profit _now_, and without regard to the consequences if all those companies fail as a result.

        The problem with unrestrained capitalism is this extreme short sitedness, when the world will (hopefully) continue on beyond the next quarter--and we're all going to still need to make a living then. And if people don't have jobs, you have a shantytown ghetto outside the gates of your mansion.

        And who wants that?
        • by TheLink (130905)
          I call those people "slash and burn" CEOs/shareholders.

          You see lots of people saying bad things about people/countries who burn or chop down forests to put plantations/property/livestock on them.

          But even that sort of thing is a lot longer term than the next quarter.

          Oh yeah maybe in the long run global warming will kill us. But in the long run we are all dead. And in the next few hundred years, what are the odds we'd work out a way to survive off this planet in a _sustainable_ way before killing ourselves or
          • Damn dude, although I think you make a good point, I think you overestimate he damage modern capitalism does in relation to the good.  By an order or magnitude, or so.  There's far more good than bad--even though the bad can be very bad.
      • I would advise against speaking about Icahn as if he were a long-time investor in YHOO. He only becomes interested in companies if there's an opportunity to conquer the board of directors and steering the company in a direction that makes him the most money. It's like a pump-and-dump scam, only slow enough that the regulators don't notice. Carl Icahn only started massively buying YHOO stock when they turned down MSFT's offer.

  • the board in yahoo has enough balls to suffice for entire i.t. sector. much bravado.
  • Dear Microsoft (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Buying Yahoo! doesn't equal to buying the user marketshare. If you buy Yahoo! a lot of users are going to go elsewhere.

    The same goes for everything else you buy/acquire/copy.

    • Re:Dear Microsoft (Score:4, Informative)

      by digitig (1056110) on Sunday July 13, 2008 @10:08AM (#24172179)
    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      If by "a lot" you mean the small fraction of geeks who give a shit, sure. However, if by "a lot" you mean the 99+% of other completely clueless users they have, you are delusional. Most of them will just keep using the service until it dies.

      • by hairyfeet (841228)

        Yes,but you seem to forget that the clueless users are also nearly always running IE without any adblocking. Have you seen what MSN looks like without adblocking? EEEEK! Good luck trying to find anything under all that crap. Just for sh*ts and giggles I unblocked IE from my firewall and tried both Yahoo and MSN using IE6,since most clueless users don't really update/upgrade IE(as a PC repairman I know this is all too true,which is why I give my customers FF or Seamonkey),while Yahoo worked just fine,a littl

    • Ray Bostock: Governor Icahn, I should have expected to find you holding Balmer's leash. I recognized your foul stench when I was brought onboard.
      Carl Icahn: Charming to the last. You don't know how hard I found it, signing the order to terminate your employment.
      Ray Bostock: I'm surprised you had the courage to take the responsibility yourself.
      Carl Icahn: Chairman Bostock. Before your termination, you will join me at a ceremony that will make this search engine operational. No users will dare abandon Microso

    • by SL Baur (19540)

      Buying Yahoo! doesn't equal to buying the user marketshare. If you buy Yahoo! a lot of users are going to go elsewhere.

      I see this was moderated "-1 I don't like what you're saying". It doesn't make it any less true.

      Indeed, Microsoft astroturfers have taken over slashdot.

      I'm not a Microsoft "hater", I just don't care. I'm O/S agnostic only so far as if it was based on Ken Thompson's work in the 60's and 70's. Computer software and particularly web sites should work with any O/S + browser and when they don't, I give them the finger and go elsewhere. Sadly, Yahoo! has been going towards being a Microsoft-only oriented site

  • End game's near (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 13, 2008 @09:28AM (#24171977)

    So far Yahoo seems to have come down a bit on the price, and Microsoft (and now, Icahn) seem to have more or less stuck to the offer -- hard to tell because it was a stock + cash offer and MS stock has declined after the offer was made. If they make a $33 all cash offer or something very close to it in the next couple of weeks, the deal may still get done pending regulatory approval. If the offer is any less, there will likely be a proxy fight and stockholder vote in early August to decide the fate of Yahoo board and its future. [The higher offer of $47.5B details still remain a bit of a mystery from early May -- with current Yahoo demands seemingly at $45.4B.]

    This is getting more interesting to watch, since people are getting their egos involved. Microsoft team gave Yahoo only 24 hours to consider the latest proposal, which appears too short for a complex transaction, even assuming Yahoo had a chance to think through at least *parts of it* earlier. The current Yahoo position seems reasonable, since the deal will take time and MS team wants the Yahoo board and upper management fired NOW.

    POPCORN TIME!

    In a statement issued Saturday night, Yahoo said Microsoft imposed the "completely absurd and irresponsible" condition that it wouldn't deal with, or otherwise engage with, Yahoo's management to reach agreement on the new proposal. ... In response to Microsoft's latest overtures, Roy Bostock, Yahoo's chairman said in a statement: "This odd and opportunistic alliance of Microsoft and Carl Icahn has anything but the interests of Yahoo's stockholders in mind." "It is ludicrous to think that our Board could accept such a proposal," Mr. Bostock said. "While this type of erratic and unpredictable behavior is consistent with what we have come to expect from Microsoft, we will not be bludgeoned into a transaction that is not in the best interests of our stockholders."- WSJ

    And although Yahoo's board "acknowledges that the current proposal contains a number of improvements over Microsoft's earlier proposal," the Yahoo board's believed this latest proposal is not in its shareholders best interests.- CNET

    ``Carl Icahn and Microsoft presented us with a `take it or leave it' proposal,'' Chairman Roy Bostock said in the statement.
    - Bloomberg

    _srr

  • of hearing about this crap... We are owned, and we are being more owned. Can't we just post pictures of some nice butterflies?
  • by Ukab the Great (87152) on Sunday July 13, 2008 @09:45AM (#24172057)

    Microsoft had tens of billions of dollars and their usual way of doing things drove MSN into the ground. Why do they think that their usual way to of doing things combined with a Microsoft-owned Yahoo will yield a different result?

  • I see a hostile takeover in Yahoo!'s future...
  • I'm not sure which is getting to be more tedious -- this crap, or the Presidential elections. Maybe the MS-Yahoo merger is supposed to be this year's "October Surprise?"

  • It's nice to see at lease ONE company with a backbone.

    It's not always about money you know...sometimes it's about ethics and integrity.

    Microsoft is a slimy, deceptive piece of shit, Yahoo seems to have some thread of moral fiber to them. I don't blame them for continuously giving Microsoft the proverbial finger when it comes to these buyout deals.

    I for one...would never buy another yahoo product, if Microsoft was to take ownership of them.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by maxume (22995)

      At least you read the headline. If you read the summary, you will see that the Yahoo! board offered to sell the company to Microsoft for $33 a share. I guess someone could twist that into giving them the finger, but I wouldn't.

      • by X3J11 (791922)

        At least you read the headline. If you read the summary, you will see...

        Obligatory "you must be new here", in spite of your low uid.

        • by Svartalf (2997)

          Low user id? Heh... I guess when you've got a 790000 series id number, a 22000 series id would seem "low"... ;-)

      • by residieu (577863)
        And I wouldn't be surprised if they'd accept a lower offer than that if MS made it. Sounds more like haggling than blowing them off.
    • No-ones standing up for anything here.. Yahoo are simply holding out for a better price, and thats all.
      No backbones, no standing on principles, ethics, morals, fighting the good fight or any of that crap.

      For the right price Yahoo is going, going, gone. Whether thats good for YAHOO! or its employees is irrelevant. Whether thats good for Microsoft is irrelevant. MS has decided they want Yahoo...now they need to decide how badly... From MS perspective its strategic, from Yahoo's perspective, its about cash -

  • I think they are going for either $42/share or $42 Billion. Wonder what the total would be for per share, or what the share price would be for $42 Billion?

  • there goes the plan^H^H^H^Hinterweb.
  • Found this nifty little site: I thought it was hilarious. No idea who made it, though: http://yahoorezinr.com/ [yahoorezinr.com]

Is a person who blows up banks an econoclast?

Working...