Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

After Firing CEO, Yahoo Puts Itself Up For Sale

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the make-me-an-offer dept.

Yahoo! 264

Reeses writes "Fare thee well, Yahoo: In addition to firing CEO Carol Bartz, Yahoo's board has now put the company up for sale. From the article: 'It was once the world's leading search engine, its founders held talks about a merger with Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation – and it even managed to fend off a $44bn takeover bid by Microsoft. But Yahoo has put itself up for sale, after firing its chief executive of 18 months Carol Bartz by phone.'"

cancel ×

264 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Hmm, I might consider it (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37338404)

I have fond memories of using it briefly between Alta Vista and Google.

I'll offer $1

Re:Hmm, I might consider it (5, Interesting)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 3 years ago | (#37338554)

I've never had fond memories of using Yahoo: their front page has always been bloated, I preferred Altavista search results back when it existed for real, Yahoo made a mess of Egroups when they bought it and turned it into the loathsome Yahoo Groups of today...

I say good riddance.

Re:Hmm, I might consider it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37338676)

Yahoo made a mess of Egroups when they bought it and turned it into the loathsome Yahoo Groups of today...

I say good riddance.

i just hope that Star Trek Continuing Voyages will still have a home.

Moral of the story.... (5, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 3 years ago | (#37338406)

if the CEO has no personal deep financial stake in the company's success, then they are worthless.

Require a CEO to buy a large chunk of your company. IT's why the people that built the company are always far more successful at running it than some idiot that got his masters in Business Administration, and has connections.

Re:Moral of the story.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37338476)

You'd be shocked how many "smart" business people don't understand that one simple rule.

Re:Moral of the story.... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37338496)

The main reason the founders are more successful is that if they're not very good at it, the company never gets off the ground, and you just don't hear about it. Natural selection, let's call it. Unfortunately, you can't choose their successor the same way - you can't have many iterations of the company, each managed by different potential successor, and then choose the best one.

Re:Moral of the story.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37338518)

Yes you can, they're called business units. If someone is managing a substantial part of your company brilliantly, give them the whole company.

Re:Moral of the story.... (4, Interesting)

NormalVisual (565491) | more than 3 years ago | (#37338782)

It doesn't always work like that though. Case in point - Paul Pressler understood retail very well, and did a fine job running the Disney Store retail subsidiary of the Walt Disney Company. When he was given more responsibility in the form of managing the much larger Parks and Resorts subsidiary, it became quickly and painfully obvious that he didn't understand that market *at all*, and cost the company a lot of money due to his incompetence.

Re:Moral of the story.... (1)

backslashdot (95548) | more than 3 years ago | (#37338902)

Yes there will always be exceptions .. just because evolution can produce a Dodo bird once in a while doesn't mean it can't produce great things as well.

Re:Moral of the story.... (2)

ArhcAngel (247594) | more than 3 years ago | (#37339152)

But this is more common [wikipedia.org] than the Dodo.

Re:Moral of the story.... (3, Interesting)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#37339486)

IE: The Peter Principle [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Moral of the story.... (3)

rtaylor (70602) | more than 3 years ago | (#37339292)

There is a huge different in leadership requirements for a startup with zero to 3 employees versus an established firm with several thousand employees

Very few founders make that transition well. Most founders have a difficult time of letting go of the micromanaging and trying to take part in everything in order to scale beyond themselves.

Re:Moral of the story.... (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#37338512)

Unfortunately, that theory captures an incomplete picture of the founder effect:

Requiring the CEO to buy a chunk of the company can provide them with a greater financial stake in the company's success, or it can just provide them with the incentive to axe the R&D department, pump out a few quarters that Wall Street loves, and give themselves a giant bonus in the form of "shareholder value" before moving on...

If anything, having a CEO without major holdings(and without a "Congratulations, you fucked up!" bonus larger than a peon's lifetime earnings, if that isn't to scary to think about) might actually help ensure that they take the long view; because they don't have the same financial incentive to pump, loot, and leave.

Founders(except of built-for-acquisition jobs) tend to have major holdings and personal emotional investments, and it takes both to make them do what they do...

Re:Moral of the story.... (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#37338748)

If it were well understood what it took to be a successful CEO, they would likely earn far less money (the implied thesis here is that such knowledge would far expand the pool of candidates; maybe it would restrict it...).

A great example of an actual effective CEO that is not a founder is Alan Mulalley. So it is at least possible for a non founder to do a good job.

Re:Moral of the story.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37338950)

Mulalley? maybe.. he does get a lot of praise.. but you know he oversaw the Dreamliner at Boeing, right? The one that has been repeatedly delayed, and that outsourced major parts to outside companies. He left right before the shit hit the fan (publicly.. he couldn't have known about it before it was all over the newspapers, right?).

Re:Moral of the story.... (2)

Antarius (542615) | more than 3 years ago | (#37339388)

Better example: Ray Kroc.

He took a small hamburger place called "McDonalds" and made it into a slightly bigger hamburger place. You might have heard of it. ;)

Re:Moral of the story.... (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 3 years ago | (#37338802)

yup. That is the major cause of America's short-term focus. However, better than their not being allowed to own stock, is to instead require the use of employee stock. If you work at the company, you get employee stock that can not be traded. With this approach, employees have a strong incentive to make the company successful.

Re:Moral of the story.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37339268)

Come work for me for free and I'll give you 100% of the employee stock that cannot be traded. You can keep yourself warm and fed by looking at how much value you have in the stock.

Re:Moral of the story.... (2)

swillden (191260) | more than 3 years ago | (#37339476)

Come work for me for free and I'll give you 100% of the employee stock that cannot be traded. You can keep yourself warm and fed by looking at how much value you have in the stock.

It would have to be dividend-paying stock, or would have to convert to common stock at some point in the far future. But it's not a bad idea, and it might be useful if implemented well.

Re:Moral of the story.... (1)

UnresolvedExternal (665288) | more than 3 years ago | (#37339500)

Yup I totally agree - that's the way Lehman Brothers used to work and that went... err... well...

Being glib sorry!

Re:Moral of the story.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37338520)

Requiring your CEO to personally buy a large chunk of the company doesn't really make any sense. Yahoo has a $17bn market cap, there aren't a lot of people who can afford a "large chunk" of that and are also looking for a job. However, despite lacking your brilliant advice, the rest of the business world already figured this out a few decades ago with the concept of stock options. Also, for the record, when Bartz was hired she was given 5m shares of Yahoo and an $18m equity grant in stock, so it's pretty safe to say she had a "deep personal financial stake". Any more pearls of wisdom you'd care to share with us?

Re:Moral of the story.... (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 3 years ago | (#37338548)

I don't agree with your thesis.

I think a CEO can be a professional. Certainly they can also be "some idiot" with an MBA, but he/she can also be a professional. Certainly having some founder's son in charge who happens to own a bunch of the company doesn't make you inherently better off as a stockholder than having a professional in charge. Many formerly successful companies have died at the hand of the founder's children.

But most of all, I don't think that people who build companies are "always far more successful". First of all, most companies fail - so right off, most people who build companies fail. A few companies either get lucky with timing or innovate in some way, and many of these companies are built around their founder's unique personality. The founder doesn't necessarily have a business education, and probably isn't prioritizing very long-term sustainability. When the founder dies or is otherwise displaced, a company that is built around his unique personality is never going to be the same. Some will adapt and be just fine (IBM), and others will wither and die (A&P).

Re:Moral of the story.... (5, Insightful)

SlippyToad (240532) | more than 3 years ago | (#37338570)

Better yet, why not bar all forms of golden parachute compensation. If the CEO is fired, they're FUCKING FIRED, not given a huge handjob on the way out the door.

Our corporate culture rewards failure rather than success, which is why our economy sucks so badly.

Re:Moral of the story.... (1)

rtaylor (70602) | more than 3 years ago | (#37338724)

Part of the golden parachute is being a fall guy for things you did not cause.

The board makes a decision which cannot turn out well and you follow it as directed despite logging opposition to that decision Bad things happen and someone (you) are to take the blame for the implementation of that decision.

The payment for leaving is for not arguing or airing bad laundry.

Re:Moral of the story.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37338880)

Very true. Add to that some CEOs are taken on by floundering companies purely to be a figurehead when they go down. The main shareholders get time to dispense of their stock onto unsuspecting punters over a year or two, and then the company is left to its final death throes.

The token CEO gets lots of money knowing what's going on, and the rich get their money out. This doesn't make headline news, or any news, because the companies are 1000 employees. Such CEO have a long history of being the head of companies going down the shitter within a couple of years of joining, one after the other.

Re:Moral of the story.... (4, Insightful)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 3 years ago | (#37338910)

seriously, the reason for not airing bad laundry is the interview for the next job - you do not want to turn up to an interview with the guy hiring you reading all about the nasty bitchy things you said about your previous company in the newspaper.

The board makes decisions you don't like, then quit. The CEO is part of the board don't forget, its not some personal fiefdom where you and only you are the guy who has to do everything. Its not much different from being one of the peons whose boss and/or peers and/or upper management make a decision that you disagree with.

Payments for leaving despite making an almighty f***up are just plain wrong.

No fucking different (2)

Fujisawa Sensei (207127) | more than 3 years ago | (#37339014)

That's no fucking different from any other job. Boss makes a bad call, and you can be eliminated.

Look at the mass numbers of peons who get laid off or downsized because the CEO or someone higher on the food chain makes a bad call. While the execs and managers are the last ones to be laid off.

Re:Moral of the story.... (1)

lavalyn (649886) | more than 3 years ago | (#37339390)

So the CEO gets very good pay for things they didn't cause either? Don't give me that when a company fails it's always due to market circumstances (justifying the parachute) but when it's successful it's due to sound leadership (justifying the very high compensation).

Re:Moral of the story.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37339424)

Part of the golden parachute is being a fall guy for things you did not cause.
The board makes a decision which cannot turn out well and you follow it as directed despite logging opposition to that decision Bad things happen and someone (you) are to take the blame for the implementation of that decision.

Oh, you mean that they will be treated like every other employee? Obviously they need extra millions for that.

If it's because they might be fired, then they should be limited to 6 months salary of the lowest paid employee of the company, that's about $7,500 more than anyone else would get when upper management makes a stupid decision which cannot turn out well and they follow it as directed, despite objections, and then take the blame.

Re:Moral of the story.... (2)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#37338814)

Our economy doesn't suck because of the ways most businesses are run (the ones that stay in business generally manage to at least cover their expenses...).

Our economy sucks because we cling to the notion that capital and other forms of wealth are scarce, whereas the reality is that productive capacity has reached the point where most needs can be easily met.

(There are huge disparities in consumption across the world, but I would argue that this is 'merely' an organizational problem, a problem that further enjoys being mired in historical politics, not an actual problem of our civilizations ability to make things)

Re:Moral of the story.... (1)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 3 years ago | (#37338588)

Except then they'd want to drive up the stock price to better their forced investment...

I think it would be better to have a system where company ownership is dependent on employment there, that it cannot be sold and you rely only on dividends instead of artificial stock prices.

Re:Moral of the story.... (4, Interesting)

Xest (935314) | more than 3 years ago | (#37338708)

So why is Steve Ballmer so shit?

Honestly, I don't think it's that at all. I think it's that "business" folk in general are shit. They're great at fiddling spreadsheets, and ensuring they get awesome payouts for the most random reasons, and they're great at acquiring companies, ripping them to shreds and making headlines that give investors hardons.

But to actually innovate and get a company to produce a worthwhile product? No they're fucking useless.

The reason original founders do well isn't because they have a stake in the company, but because they are genuinely interested in what the company does- they came up with the idea they did because that idea appeals to them personally. This is why Ballmer sucks- because he's a businessman and doesn't give a flying fuck about software, it's why the company did so well under Gates.

This is why Google dumped Schmidt and handed things back to Larry, because Schmidt is a businessman. He's great at lobbying politicians and so forth, but creating worthwhile and innovative new products? That's not really Schmidt's area of expertise.

Really you need both to an extent, but there's a common pattern between all these companies who have lost their CEOs who were genuinely interested in the product of their company and replaced them purely with "business leaders" - they've all gone to shit.

Re:Moral of the story.... (3, Interesting)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 3 years ago | (#37338744)

Wrong approach. All employees and executives must NOT own any common stock. Instead, they should have employee stock. Upon getting a job with a company, employee gets a set amount of employee stock. No bonus are given. Instead, dividends are paid to employees or (employees AND common stock). With this approach, all have a common interest in seeing the company make the most money possible over a long term. With your approach, executives have a strong incentive to play the stock market game, instead of focusing on the company's long term gains.

Re:Moral of the story.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37338824)

so... you think tying variable compensation to stock performance for all employees will REDUCE incentive to play the "stock market game" (by which I presume you mean working to show short term market performance)?

Re:Moral of the story.... (1)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 3 years ago | (#37338904)

Yes, because the variable performance is earnings over expenses, not the stock price.

Re:Moral of the story.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37338764)

"Require a CEO to buy a large chunk of your company"

With the ridiculous amounts of money you pay them to work for the company?!

You could just pay them less, you know.

Re:Moral of the story.... (1)

voss (52565) | more than 3 years ago | (#37338772)

Like George W. Bush our first MBA president.

Unfortunately we cannot get the chinese to send some Taiwanese whiz kid (afterall being our largest bondholder they do have a stake in our success) :)

Re:Moral of the story.... (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 3 years ago | (#37339482)

Yes, very true.

However, I noticed that you didn't mentions that Obama is proving to be quite an ineffective community organizer in chief.

Re:Moral of the story.... (3, Interesting)

backslashdot (95548) | more than 3 years ago | (#37338884)

Lou Gerstner .. IBM didn't make him buy a huge chunk of the company .. hell the dude couldnt even operate a computer .. he was the former CEO of Nabisco ... but he turned things around at IBM .. so no huge financial stake isn't the answer. In fact it may lead to greed-based short term decisions.

Steve Jobs .. he owns more of Disney than he does of Apple .. and took a $1 salary. Obviously his main motive wasn't money ..rather making Apple the greatest company in the history of the world.

There are plenty of other examples as well. Financial carrots aren't necessarily best. And also, the most important factor is the horse, not the carrot.

Re:Moral of the story.... (1)

diersing (679767) | more than 3 years ago | (#37338932)

Remind me, how much Apple stock does Tim Cook own?

Re:Moral of the story.... (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 3 years ago | (#37339376)

Re:Moral of the story.... (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 3 years ago | (#37339430)

Sorry, second link is $8M, not 8M shares.

Pooling some money? (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 3 years ago | (#37338414)

So, yahoo is up for sale? If everyone empties their pocket change and we pool together we can own a piece of Internet history... ;-)

Re:Pooling some money? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37338450)

I refuse to own any piece of history that comes with employees and bills to pay.

Re:Pooling some money? (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 3 years ago | (#37338452)

Ooh! Maybe we can make them put GeoCities back up!

Re:Pooling some money? (1)

Confusador (1783468) | more than 3 years ago | (#37338584)

I'll put in $100 for that! So... if we get everyone to pitch in that much on average, we can come up with at least $178,346,800... that sounds about right for Yahoo! these days, I think.

Re:Pooling some money? (2)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#37338590)

So, yahoo is up for sale? If everyone empties their pocket change and we pool together we can own a piece of Internet history... ;-)

Do they accept BitCoins?

*logs onto ebay* (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37338416)

Do I need a PayPal account?

Better not include Yahoo Answers in the deal... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37338448)

They couldn't give that stupidity bomb away.

Re:Better not include Yahoo Answers in the deal... (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 3 years ago | (#37339396)

How do I sell a company?

Fight off all offers, fire CEO, offer for rock bottom prices.

YaWho? (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 3 years ago | (#37338482)

For historical reasons, I have a Yahoo! Messenger account, plus Freecycle for some reason uses Yahoo! Groups. I can't think of any other interaction I or anyone that I know has had with them in half a decade. If they went dark tomorrow, it would be a minor inconvience at most.

For them to still be valued in the billions just goes to show how much our personal information is worth. That purchase price? That's what buyers think that they can recoup from our pockets.

Re:YaWho? (2)

Trepidity (597) | more than 3 years ago | (#37338536)

They own Flickr, which is pretty widely used. It might be a good candidate to be spun back off, though.

Re:YaWho? (1)

edmicman (830206) | more than 3 years ago | (#37339224)

I'd be OK if Google somehow ended up acquiring Flickr...

Re:YaWho? (1)

welcher (850511) | more than 3 years ago | (#37339180)

Huh, and here was me thinking that it is the fourth most visited site on the web. But if you personally don't interact with those visitors, I guess they aren't important.

I was wondering... (2)

DataDiddler (1994180) | more than 3 years ago | (#37338490)

Who still uses Yahoo? I decided to take a quick trip to Alexa to get some sort of info about their demographics: "Relative to the general internet population, people over 65 years old are over represented at yahoo.com. Confidence: high"

That pretty much explains it. Grandpa learned to use the internet in the late 90's with Yahoo, and any other dangblasted, newfangled search engine won't be built like they used to be.

Re:I was wondering... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37338556)

They had to use something, when AOL tanked.

Re:I was wondering... (4, Interesting)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | more than 3 years ago | (#37338618)

I'm 22, and my primary email address is, and has been ever since 1996, a Yahoo, and I find their email front end THE best on the net so far: keyboard shortcuts (even if they recently removed the ability to sort into folders with the number keys alone, they just require one more keypress), easily managed, can generate disposable 'decoy' addresses, and has proper folders instead of Gmail's "Labels" (which also have their merits, but I prefer folders).
I really hope they won't axe the Mail service, even if they dump everything else, that is one thing worth saving.

Re:I was wondering... (1)

Karlt1 (231423) | more than 3 years ago | (#37338650)

Who still uses Yahoo?

Why do people, especially on Slashdot, post the same "Who uses x", when a simple search.....

http://www.alexa.com/topsites [alexa.com]

will show you that Yahoo is still the 4th most visited site on the Internet. Just because you don't use it, doesn't mean that no one does.

Re:I was wondering... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37338792)

Flickr. That's the only thing still worth it. The rest of Yahoo is shit.

Re:I was wondering... (2)

bahstid (927038) | more than 3 years ago | (#37338854)

Yahoo is still "The Internet" in Japan... weather, shopping auctions = yahoo. Search? About three weeks ago I was trying to help a student with their English google-fu... (I got sucked back in to teaching after the earthquake)... when I asked them to show me how they were trying to search, the first thing they typed into google: yahoo.jp

Not sure exactly how much of a separate company they are over here though, they were actually one of the biggest early pushers of broadband, handing out free ADSL modems + 6 months free access a few years back outside train stations.

Wikipedia also tells us the Yahoo Japan did $3.8 billion dollars in revenue last year, so I guess someone is still using it....

Re:I was wondering... (1)

hiryuu (125210) | more than 3 years ago | (#37339302)

Who still uses Yahoo?

A handful of years ago, I was looking for calendaring options; Google had just rolled out their offering, but I didn't have a Gmail or other Google account and didn't want one. I looked at Sunbird, but it wasn't going to be nearly as portable as I wanted it to be. Since I had a Yahoo account, leftover from my days of Yahoo messenger and chatrooms (but unused otherwise), I went that direction and have been very happy with it. I liked it even more after the beta and full roll-out of the purchased Zimbra stuff.

I've also tended to use Yahoo as my lunchtime news-reading portal for years now, though I have to say every re-design they implement makes it a less worthwhile avenue for news aggregation. The most recent change has almost driven me to give up and find another.

Fantasy Draft (1)

allanvarrette (2368408) | more than 3 years ago | (#37338492)

Yahoo's Fantasy Draft Pools are the only reason to login to a yahoo account anymore.

On /. by the end of the day (4, Interesting)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 3 years ago | (#37338498)

Microsoft buys Yahoo

Re:On /. by the end of the day (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 3 years ago | (#37338524)

... for pennies on the dollar...

Re:On /. by the end of the day (1)

alphatel (1450715) | more than 3 years ago | (#37338546)

and fires Ballmer...

Re:On /. by the end of the day (1)

MadKeithV (102058) | more than 3 years ago | (#37338926)

and fires Ballmer...

And puts itself up for sale.
Early tomorrow morning: "Ubuntu buys Microsoft".

Re:On /. by the end of the day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37338668)

They wanted to buy Yahoo before Bing existed. Right now, if they took over, they'd have to literally kill the Yahoo brand and slowly move people to MS services. It would work, and would get them an even larger market share, but it won't be the same dramatic effect as it would have been years ago, so, maybe not really worth the effort.

Re:On /. by the end of the day (2)

CSHARP123 (904951) | more than 3 years ago | (#37338698)

What would MS gain by buying Yahoo? They are already serving bing search results. It made sense at that time. Now I don't see much gain for MS from this buy other than for the asian assests that Yahoo may have (Alibaba investment)

Re:On /. by the end of the day (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 3 years ago | (#37339218)

I don't think Microsoft needs Yahoo, but I could see them bidding on it in an attempt to get Google to buy Yahoo (as a defensive, keep-it-out-of-Microsoft's-hands maneuver). Then, as Google after Google has spent a chunk of cash and is trying to somehow assimilate Yahoo into their offerings, Microsoft could catch up to Google. Of course, this could backfire and Google could, wisely, realize that Yahoo offers nothing they don't already have and let Microsoft waste their cash.

Re:On /. by the end of the day (1)

robthebloke (1308483) | more than 3 years ago | (#37339354)

What would MS gain by buying Yahoo?

User convienince mainly. Currently if you are an IE user, to get an improved search engine convieniently at your finger tips, you need to install some software from real networks. If MS were to buy yahoo, they'd be eschew the current malware distribution model, in favour of including the Yahoo toolbar with the IE installer. I think you'll agree, this is a compelling reason for MS to buy Yahoo, and a situation where the real winners would be us, the consumers.....

Re:On /. by the end of the day (1)

Walterk (124748) | more than 3 years ago | (#37338896)

Given /.'s record, that means it would've had to have been announced about 2 weeks to a month ago..

Re:On /. by the end of the day (1)

Vandil X (636030) | more than 3 years ago | (#37338900)

First MS buys Hotmail and my Hotmail goes to crap... Now my Yahoo mail...

Re:On /. by the end of the day (1)

Taibhsear (1286214) | more than 3 years ago | (#37339260)

This is slashdot. I think you meant "by the end of a week from now."

Re:On /. by the end of the day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37339362)

That's when the dupe happens

Yahoo! is not for sale (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37338540)

The Guardian says that Yahoo! put itself up for sale.
Yahoo! doesn't say that it is up for sale.

If all that newspapers wrote was or became true, the world would be a very scary place.

Re:Yahoo! is not for sale (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | more than 3 years ago | (#37338936)

Actually, The Guardian didn't even make that claim. Their claim is that an insider talked to the Wall Street Journal, and that the insider indicated to the Wall Street Journal that Yahoo is going to be putting itself up for sale.

I am confused (1)

Stratoukos (1446161) | more than 3 years ago | (#37338552)

There's a slashdot icon for Yahoo?

Seriously!! (1)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | more than 3 years ago | (#37338586)

Whats up with company sales?
Nokia effectively sold to MS
Motorola sold to Google
HP -> on the market
Yahpp -> on the market

Re:Seriously!! (1)

GrahamCox (741991) | more than 3 years ago | (#37338694)

Simple. When it comes to paradigms, shifts happen. We're seeing one now.

Re:Seriously!! (1)

debrain (29228) | more than 3 years ago | (#37339364)

Sir –

You've a noteworthy observation. Many mergers & acquisitions that would have taken place between 2007-2011 were put on hold (or impossible) because of the credit crunch.

Thousands of lawyers in London & New York were put out of work because the M&A departments were vacant in 2009 (search for "black/bloody thursday law firm layoffs").

Now that markets are becoming liquid again, M&A is coming back into vogue. We may be seeing a spike to resolve pent-up demand. Maybe the demand is overcoming the lack of liquidity â" I'm not sure.

Re:Seriously!! (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 3 years ago | (#37339484)

Poor business models == being sold?

Chasing revenues over profits == being sold?

In other news.. (0)

Severus Snape (2376318) | more than 3 years ago | (#37338596)

Jerry Yang has commited suicide.

Confirmed? (1)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | more than 3 years ago | (#37338600)

Is this confirmed news, or is this likely to turn out to be a false alarm?

Re:Confirmed? (1)

felipekk (1007591) | more than 3 years ago | (#37338976)

An analyst said:

"In all, we believe that it is more likely that the board reaches an agreement to sell the company or parts of the company before a new CEO is found"

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9PJM6TO0.htm [businessweek.com]

Suits x Brains (2)

your_neighbor (1193249) | more than 3 years ago | (#37338608)

The old history: Suits are overvalued, the techs are treated like shit. So, the thinking part spreads and the glorified millionary czars believe the company is lacking "quality control" and clutter the place with spreadsheets, metrics and all the control-freak mumbo-jumbo. To improve margins, let's order the salary spreedsheet and fire the better paid employees. Then crap hits the fan, and the omniscient suits don't know what is going on, since the luck has changed so "unpredictably".

Coward, A., "Traditional recipes for tech saavy inc. failure", vol I, pg 1

Easy guess (1)

aglider (2435074) | more than 3 years ago | (#37338626)

Microsoft will buy Yahoop before Google does it.

Re:Easy guess (1)

fredan (54788) | more than 3 years ago | (#37338822)

don't google get a dominant market share if so?

Re:Easy guess (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | more than 3 years ago | (#37338974)

Google already has a dominant market share. Buying Yahoo would just make it more dominant. Letting Microsoft buy Yahoo might actually help them too, since more people still prefer Yahoo to Bing, meaning that Microsoft buying Yahoo probably only has the potential to alienate Yahoo's existing customers.

Oops (1)

Tridus (79566) | more than 3 years ago | (#37338680)

Probably should have taken that $42 billion from Microsoft when you had the chance. But no, instead they let the MBAs run the place into the ground and now it's not really worth much of anything.

Re:Oops (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 3 years ago | (#37339010)

They definitely should have done so. It made the top ten [zdnet.com] tech industry executive disasters.

The offer was for more like $47bn, and was not in the interests of Jerry Yang, the f***wit.

It's still fun to troll Yahoo! Answers. (1)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 3 years ago | (#37338736)

Sometimes the askers make it too easy to pass up [yahoo.com] . Yes, I'm a proud troll.

Re:It's still fun to troll Yahoo! Answers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37339262)

You still get satisfaction from something posted two years ago? Don't you grow as a person at all?

Re:It's still fun to troll Yahoo! Answers. (1)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 3 years ago | (#37339422)

Oh, I've topped that one, it was just one of the better ones to come to mind. Hows this for recent? [yahoo.com] I've gotten front paged on the Art of Trolling a few times since then as well.

Yo mama so ugly... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37338842)

... they had to fire her by phone!

Yahoo has been for sale for years (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37339028)

It's publicly traded for years, if that doesn't count as "for sale", what does?

The only "news" to this "announcement" is that management might not fight a takeover as strongly, or that individuals with sufficient stock might be willing to sell their share.

YAAAAHHHOOOOOO!!! (1)

Flipstylee (1932884) | more than 3 years ago | (#37339322)

That is all.

Simple: accountant and BA pros should not be CEOs (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37339334)

That's a "paint everyone with the same brush" statement and I'm sure it wrongs the 5 or 6 people who are good CEOs and hold a B.A. or Accounting degree.

However, after many long conversations with my brother-in-law (accountant CFO), they are *purely* concrete numbers folks. Their scope and vision extends only as far as they have reliable corporate ops statistics. "Target market size, revenue, expenditures, etc" are the extent of their vocabulary. This is what they are taught, it works in the short term and in "commodity" companies with established long-running products. They are very good at maximizing revenue (or minimizing loss) with the window of "good data" they have. Long term R&D activities that take more than a couple quarters to reach fruition and profitability are like spending good money on lottery tickets to them.

In tech and sciences, when they get control they *will* kill the company. Imagine if the teams that built the iPod & iMac had been cut a year into their effort because they were just draining Apple's financial reserves and were still 18 months away from launching product? Accountants at Alcatel-Lucent did that to several projects, including a web services security gateway that beat out IBM and HP offerings to win contracts from major telco providers.
 

Severance pay please (1)

nikkipolya (718326) | more than 3 years ago | (#37339394)

I am willing to be hired for the position of a CEO for any company. I know how to screw up a company. I am really really good at it. I am also really good at taking a big severance pay check. Any takers? Please...!!

Oh, well... (1)

rootchick (910668) | more than 3 years ago | (#37339402)

Yahoo sucked anyway. Although I did meet my husband on their personals site....he's the best thing I ever found on the Internet! :D
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?