Yahoo and Microsoft haven’t been able to agree on very much over the last few months so it now appears fairly likely the battle will head into the shareholder meeting on August 1st.
Microsoft hasn’t lost many of these matches and the smart money remains on them to “win” this battle and take over Yahoo. My take is that there is now enough ego investment on all sides that you can expect Microsoft to be pretty ruthless in their efforts to replace the board and overhaul the company. Of course with with management leaving Yahoo at a record pace anyway, Microsoft is likely to inherit more of a management skeleton than a burden, and they are probably fine with this.
How poison will Yahoo make the pill? As a shareholder I’m concerned about this but comforted that the current board and Jerry Yang have a huge financial stake in this outcome. To Bostock and Yang’s huge credit they has been playing this game with their own money, though I’d argue they have not been playing it very well or with anybody’s best interests in mind (including their own). My take is that Yahoo simply could not readjust their expectations from the dramatic success story they enjoyed early on and the belief they could see that kind of success again. This gave them a perception of the current value of Yahoo that was completely out of line with the market perception, which by definition is the real value of a company. The $33 sale price has come from the desparate realization by Yahoo that they are going to lose the battle and possibly be forced to sell well below this price, though I think it’ll be in Microsoft’s interest to keep the tensions to a minimum and keep their new “post Yahoo merger” shareholders marginally happy with an offer above $30.
That said, Ballmer is clearly smelling the blood in the water and could probably force an eventual sale of Yahoo in mid to high twenties by jerking the strings for a few more months to soften up Icahn and other major shareholders who are clearly looking for something above the $31 offer Yahoo rejected a short time ago. Without Microsoft Yahoo’s share price would be well under $20 and this is now clear to everybody.
So the boxing match moves into the final rounds. It’s pretty much a corporate death match between Jerry “the Yahoo” Yang and Steve “the Basher” Ballmer. Although my money is invested with Jerry right now, I’d be betting on Ballmer to win this fight.
Microsoft’s very well played game to win Yahoo at a bargain price is wrapping up even more favorably than Microsoft planned. Yahoo refused the Icahn MS offer today to buy just pieces of the company, though in typical fashion Yahoo did not outline many details of their decision making process, rather they simply asserted it was a bad idea.
Obviously this was a strategic rather than serious move by MS as noted by Henry Blodget, though he’s wrong to think this is just a small play to soften up the Yahoo board before the proxy fight in August.
In fact this is the end game of a very smart plan by Ballmer / MS to aquire everything for less than they have been planning to pay for over a year. Yahoo’s intransigence has simply delayed the process by a few months and saved MS a few dollars per share on what they would have paid.
Over at Silicon Valley Insider we have Henry basically begging for an offer over $31 and indicating support for less.
Yahoo board is now *begging* MS for the $33 they could have had easily a few months ago but may not see again. MS can get it all for less so I’m now guessing the meeting offer will be $31 or $32. That will make MS look generous for keeping to the original plan in the face of a weakening Yahoo, and it will be acceptable to shareholders fearful of YHOO at $18 or lower if this all collapses.
Although this is likely to be resolved at or soon after the upcoming Yahoo board meeting it doesn’t have to resolve to work in MS’s favor. Yahoo’s pretty much exhausted all their options to the extent that it’s either Yahoo in the 30 range with Microsoft or Yahoo under 20 without MS.
The Yahoo Microsoft fiasco saga continues as Jerry Yang, in today’s interview with Kara Swisher, seemed to suggest he’d basically go down with the ship. Or perhaps more accurately he’s willing to take the ship down with him in what appears closer and closer to a Quixotic vision of what to do about Microsoft. Yang seems to suggest two incompatible things – first that Microsoft has not given a clear offer to Yahoo and second that:
“Their motivations are suspect and there is simply no good reason to think they will actually show up at the end of the day.”
Huh? MS is clearly prepared to buy Yahoo. This is obvious to everybody including Jerry. He could argue that they are going to screw up Yahoo after buying it, but that rings a bit hollow given the sad conditions of the company right now. In fact it’s hard to imagine how Yahoo, a key brand in the key global sector, can be doing so poorly right now. How in the world could Microsoft screw the company up more than Yahoo is screwed up right now?
Even if Microsoft *is* going to bring devastating changes to Yahoo, there is a shareholder obligation here that probably is not met without a sale to Microsoft. It is simply no longer viable to suggest that an independent Yahoo is likely to show the revenues required to bring the stock to 33+ within a year. Without any Microsoft interest YHOO would be trading at about $18, so the likely Icahnesque MS offer can arguably be viewed as a premium of close to 100% on what shareholders can expect if this deal *really* crumbles, which is what Yang clearly wants to happen.
I agree with Swisher:
… even with all the noise, it should be entirely clear by now that Microsoft and Yahoo need each other.
The Wall Street Journal has a great summary of the breakdown of the initial Yahoo Microsoft merger talks a few months ago, complete with something of a play by play in how corporate strategies on both sides …failed. My read is that the personal mix of Yang and Ballmer was probably all wrong for this, though I still think that part of Yang and Yahoo board’s idea was to play foolishly hard to get in an effort to either kill the deal or boost the price to an unreasonably high $37.
It’s now clear that strategy failed and I’m sticking to my prediction when all this began – Yahoo will be sold to Microsoft, who might work with other partners in the deal, for very close to $35 per share.
Microsoft and Yahoo are clearly back at the table and I think it is even clearer than before that a deal will be done. I’m compelled to say “I told you so” and I’m looking forward to looking up the many foolish stories written last month that suggested the deal was clearly over when it was obvious then and now that this is a deal that is very unlikely to die.
I’m posting this as vindication of my sarcastic view of the Yahoo reorganization plans. It’s an email sent to Fortune magazine from a Yahoo employee who sarcastically addresses Yahoo’s challenges of the past year – from the Peanut butter memo to the Microsoft merger mania.
Interestingly, soon-to-be-ex-Yahoo Jeremy Zawodny link was how I found this.
Yahoo’s plans for reorganizing their reorganization have now been announced. Kara seems to have the best scoops on this.
Meet the new boss Sue Decker, same as the old boss.
I am paraphrasing somewhat, but IMHO this is the gist of the Yahoo reorganization, sung to the tune of the Who’s: “Won’t Get Fooled Again”:
Yahoo’s fighting on the screen.
Over revenues unseen.
All the money that we worship will soon be gone.
And the Yang who spurred us on.
Sits in judgement – Ballmer’s wrong!
They decide and the board all sings the song.
I’ll tip my hat to Yahoo constitution
Take a bow for Yahoo revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Open my laptop and play
Just like yesterday
Then I’ll get on my knees and pray
We don’t get fooled again
[scream guest appearance by Carl Icahn: YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!]
One of the really intriguing aspects of the blogOspheric chatterfest is how the big markets tend to react to rumors from key business related blogs. When TechCrunch reported yesterday that talks between Microsoft and Yahoo had resumed Yahoo stock increased, only to fall after several other blogs reported the rumors as false or weak.
Although I have no reason to believe that Mike Arrington or Henry Blodget are trading options based on their market-moving blog reporting, I’m not at all clear it would be illegal for them to do so as long as they were reporting “real” rumors.
Henry answered at his blog that posting a false rumor to manipulate for investment purposes would likely be seen by SEC as a violation but this leaves a lot of gray areas open for an aggressive options trader/journalist.
Here’s what I just asked Mike Arrington over at TechCrunch: Mike just to set the record straight the ValleyWag poster “Mike Arrington”, who claims to have made 10k trading on Yahoo rumors, is fake … right?
More importantly I’m very interested in your views on legality/ethics of trading Yahoo options based on the rumor mill. Let’s say you heard a solid rumor that MS was about to offer $37 for Yahoo and Yahoo was going to sell. Could you legally trade on that before you posted it? One second after?
What if you emailed *me* right before you posted, I think I could legally trade based on current SEC rules, right?
P.S. What kind of Single Malt Scotch do you like? : )
Although I have no plans to manipulate any markets, it is reasonable to assume that if a market can be legally manipulated it *will be* manipulated, and soon.
There’s a new guy in blog town and he’s shooting from the hip about the defects of the corporate governance models we’ve all come to know and hate over the past decades. His name is Carl Icahn and his blog offers great insight into the mind of one of the most successful corporate raiders in history.
Although it is obviously favorable to Icahn’s bottom line to maintain how incompetent boards are leading to the decline of western economic civilization as we know it, I’m hardly going to disagree with the notion that corporate governance, especially in the technology sector, often seems out of whack with shareholder interests.
It is important not to confuse Icahn’s critiques with the whacky ones of many who suggest the corporation itself is a bad model and should be replaced by outmoded socialistic and centralized approaches that brought economic ruin on an entire generation of eastern Europeans and helped bring genocidal regimes into power in asia. On the contrary Icahn’s point is more that we need to make sure the corporation model can thrive by insisting on better governance for struggling companies.
In the case of Yahoo, Biz Doctor Icahn’s prescription is to buy up a huge share, then throw the corporate board bums out and sell the company to Microsoft. The stakes here are so high for Icahn (he could see over a billion in profit if his plan works), that he’s hardly in a position to entertain alternatives that might be better for Yahoo, but I think most shareholders already are rooting him on in the hopes of salvaging the $11+ per share lost when Microsoft withdrew from the bidding for Yahoo last month.
Silicon Valley Insider appears to be manufacturing some news with their misquote of Microsoft Johnson as stating that if Yahoo fires Yang, Microsoft may bid again. It appears that Johnson did not say that or even anything approaching that in the interview, not to mention that Microsoft has stated that nothing has changed. Of *course* Microsoft will consider bidding again for Yahoo if circumstances change, but there is a big difference between that state of affairs and Microsoft openly starting to talk about that, which would be a sort of shot over Yahoo’s bow. That does not appear to have happened at all, though now Silicon Valley Insider has nabbed another few thousand in advertising impressions for promoting the bogus story.
I assume what’s going on here is the blogOsphere’s normal nonsense where even major blogs write attention grabbing, inaccurate headlines to get the advertising eyeballs, and then mold the facts to support the headline, usually with some miinor disclaimer that, if read between the lines, explains that the story is near -meaningless.
This trend in blogging is pretty interesting and one of the many reasons blogging is only slowly gaining the journalistic credibility it probably already deserves.