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!

Why Yahoo and Marissa Mayer's Over Reliance On Alibaba Could Spell Trouble

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the zombie-yahoo-wants-your-ad-channels dept.

Yahoo! 91

DavidGilbert99 writes "Marissa Mayer has been in charge at Yahoo for one year now. In that time she has seen the share price rise 70% and she's made some headline grabbing acquisitions — notably Tumblr for over $1 billion last month. However, look beneath the surface and things are not going so well. In this week's quarterly results, we saw ad sales fell by 12% year-on-year and as Alistair Charlton says in IBTimes UK: ' Yahoo earned $846m in cash by redeeming its shares in the group, representing a significant chunk of Yahoo's $1.07bn revenue for the quarter, down 1% on last year. ... The next few years will be a balancing act as the stabilizing wheels are removed and Yahoo, with dozens of acquired startups patching up the rust, will have to make progress under its own steam.'"

cancel ×

91 comments

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

Bunch of fagets (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44309079)

Hey fagets, lick my ass and fuck my butt!

Re:Bunch of fagets (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44310761)

Sounds hot. Can you post your address?

No duh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44309093)

This just in: Throwing money at startups and other unstable revenue streams gets you... unstable revenue streams and some guys who like to play ping-pong at work. Film at 11

The 40 thieves... (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about a year ago | (#44312031)

....are the reason that it would spell trouble

Income source (4, Interesting)

schneidafunk (795759) | about a year ago | (#44309101)

What exactly does Yahoo sell? Do they even have a mission statement? Personally I do not understand why they didn't sell to Microsoft when they had the chance.

Re:Income source (3, Insightful)

plover (150551) | about a year ago | (#44309159)

Advertising revenue and fees for operating online stores, as far as I can tell. They probably sell business intelligence data from their tracking efforts, too.

Re:Income source (1)

lgw (121541) | about a year ago | (#44309967)

Yahoo has been 90% "the Alibaba holding company" for so long now I have to wonder if they know what they sell.

Yahoo! Mission Statement (5, Funny)

eldavojohn (898314) | about a year ago | (#44309175)

What exactly does Yahoo sell? Do they even have a mission statement?

From several investor [businessweek.com] calls she has said:

“Yahoo is about making the world’s daily habits more inspiring and entertaining,”

Which is a little more positive and slightly better than Yahoo!'s previous mission statement:

"Now open up all your little fucking birdie mouths because Papa Yahoo!'s got a big juicy unwanted browser toolbar to slam down your goddamn throats."

Re:Yahoo! Mission Statement (1)

Squidlips (1206004) | about a year ago | (#44309437)

They must have used the Dilbert Mission Statement generator

Re:Yahoo! Mission Statement (2)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | about a year ago | (#44309709)

âoeYahoo is about making the worldâ(TM)s daily habits more inspiring and entertaining,â

Interesting articles printed on toilet roll? Holidays that take themselves? Little toy dogs that can bark my name? A help page that isn't a compendium of broken or misleading links?

Re:Yahoo! Mission Statement (1)

mrspoonsi (2955715) | about a year ago | (#44313097)

Except: “Yahoo is about making the world’s daily habits more inspiring and entertaining,” Really means "Yahoo is about making the world’s daily habits more inspiring and entertaining, with our great browser toolbar"

Re:Income source (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44309217)

Ads. The same Google sells and Microsoft's Bing group sells. Yahoo is behind in the game, but the balance can change very quickly. The reason for that being that in the end it's about how much traffic you get and social network effects can make traffic grow or shrink at an exponential rate.

Re:Income source (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44310053)

You are correct, a large portion of their income is from ads.

But the ad revenue is in a steep 2-year decline, including a 12% decline in the most recent quarter (compared to 1 year ago).

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/17/technology/companies/yahoos-profit-rises-but-revenue-slips.html?_r=0 [nytimes.com]

So it's mostly the China cash windfall that's keeping them afloat. And that's just temporary!

Re:Income source (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44314447)

The BBC reported as if Mayer's was some sort of goddess for yahoo. She is showing a women CEO is just as worthless as her male counterpart. Google has go on to sell actual products, and MS is trying to save face by getting into advertising.

Should go without saying but, the only reason there shares went up was because of Mayer's involvement with Google, before being hired a CEO of Yahoo. They are even seeking out former employees that she cut off when she decided to stop the work at home programs, shouldn't say cut off, they had a choice.
I am not sure what she is trying to do, but so far it appears she has allowed herself to become an arrogant ass because of who she worked for prior, and the fact she is now CEO of another company. But in all fairness Yahoo really haven't lost out as of yet, it is only one year and it will take at least 5 years before anyone really sees if she can turn the company around, tho because she is a women I fear Yahoo will fire her before they wait that long. If it was Steve Ballmer they would any him to sink the company for those 5 years.

Re:Income source (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44309299)

they outsource email surveillance to the NSA. This ruckus they claim to be raising is false and only done to make people think they are a good "brand"

Re:Income source (0)

somersault (912633) | about a year ago | (#44309393)

Except that they didn't tell anyone about it (and in fact it was illegal for them to do so). Edward Snowden leaked info on private court proceedings.

Re:Income source (4, Insightful)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | about a year ago | (#44309365)

>> What exactly does Yahoo sell?

As a Yahoo webmail user, it appears that they sell an annoying little ad that looks just like an email entry and gets inserted into your list of emails. When people click on it (I've done it myself a couple of times by accident), some stupid mark gets charged and the clicker makes a mental note to never buy anything from that advertiser again.

Re:Income source (2)

ArhcAngel (247594) | about a year ago | (#44310425)

Switched to Yahoo webmail a month after Microsoft bought Hotmail. I eventually opted to pay the $20 a year to get rid of the ads. I don't miss the $20 and not having every email tagged with Do You Yahoo or any ads is well worth the costs. I have a Gmail account but rarely use it for email.

Re:Income source (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44311347)

I've used Yahoo mail since I first got online in '99, but I rarely use the web interface since I've always had POP3 access to it and I switched to IMAP when I found out they had made that available a couple of years ago, you don't get ads through POP3 or IMAP. And I use my ISPs SMTP server for sending email so my outgoing emails don't get tagged with their ads.

Re:Income source (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44312337)

Im sorry to hear that. People shouldn't have to pay for email. Yahoo gets hacked all the time. I would not pay Yahoo a cent, and I have absolutely no reason to hate them either. Email should be free. Just learn how to manage your inbox.

Re:Income source (1)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#44309373)

they used to be where you go for news, but lots of start ups have taken over this function. AOL and a few other big companies host most of the internet's big blogs

Re:Income source (1)

formfeed (703859) | about a year ago | (#44309551)

they used to be where you go for news, but lots of start ups have taken over this function. AOL and a few other big companies host most of the internet's big blogs

But if start pages, web-portals, and animated gifs ever become popular again they will be there first.

Re:Income source (1)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#44309679)

you would be surprised how many sites AOL owns. none of them use the AOL brand name to make the idiot internet cool people think they aren't dealing with AOL because its not cool

Re:Income source (1)

ArhcAngel (247594) | about a year ago | (#44310479)

you would be surprised how many sites AOL owns.

Not if he's been here. [aol.com]

Re:Income source (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44311903)

Dammit ArhcAngel, why'd you have to go and spill the beans? Now we have to rename everything again!

Re:Income source (4, Funny)

Minwee (522556) | about a year ago | (#44309403)

What exactly does Yahoo sell?

Yahoo! Sells! Exclamation! Marks!

Re:Income source (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44309423)

I assume now that Marissa is there, they will soon be selling Laughs In A Jar. Laughs In A Jar, for all the family, buy yours now from the Yahoo! Store.

Re:Income source (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44309585)

Apparently they sell ads. They increase their number of ad views by making their most useful offerings more confusing and hard to use, like Yahoo News. This makes more people add comments to news stories trying to tell Yahoo how badly they're screwing up, which means more ad views as comments make the extra page views to enter a comment.

Re:Income source (3, Interesting)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about a year ago | (#44309731)

Welcome to Wall Street 2100, the sequel. I watched a pretty good panel discussion about the subtle change in our financial sector from investment- to trader-focused. People aren't worried about profit or fundamentals or products. Companies aren't even trying to sell themselves to the individual investor anymore since it's all about the big boys slinging massive HFTs. It's about how your stock is playing in the market. I always wondered how so many ubersmart people could be duped by Enron. The reality is, they weren't. They just didn't care so long as the checks continued to clear.

Re:Income source (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44310181)

it's all about the big boys slinging massive HFTs

Not even close.

Do you have any idea how many trillions of dollars sit in pension funds invested in bonds, indexes, and plain-old boring, non-growth, dividend-paying stocks in large, boring, stable industries? HFT is a fraction of a rounding error compared to them.

Re:Income source (1)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year ago | (#44309821)

Yahoo was doing quite well with its shitty search engine until Google came along. I still remember the tv ads they used to run. Funny how technology tends to surpass your best efforts.

Re:Income source (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44309837)

I came here for extremely sexist, demeaning, and true comments about their CEO taking on the burden of viewing the world completely different than she did before she was hired and immediately had her hormones and priorities flipped over by a new baby. Seriously, I've known many women who have gone from the care-free life of an American spoiled brat to a mother who had to make real life decisions. They simply don't give a shit about the stuff they cared about before baby--no way around it. She is collecting her check and living life--Yahoo should get a new CEO.

Re:Income source (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44309891)

100 times this. If I was a CEO and had an important manager have her first baby I would buy her out of the job and get a replacement. Doesn't sound nice but the dynamics are not in the favor of the business.

Re:Income source (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44310103)

Given that the previous CEOs were much worse than her, I would say your advice is shit.

Can she give Yahoo some new life ? I seriously doubt it. They lack technology "top guns" (superstart developers). Their search engine is outsourced to MS and it is frankly shite.

What she could do is to take Android phones and try to innovate and differentiate. Maybe less built-in, dragnet spying ? Maybe "due process, rule of law" and so on ? But I am sure she is too much immeresed into the GoogleNSAplex to use this massive opportunity.

But let's dream for a few seconds: Whatabout making a fully encrypted YahooDroid ? Government only gets access after performing twenty CPU hours of workload. That would still allow for Law enforcement to get access (they can force yahoo to provide them access), for SPECIFIC devices as opposed to "let's suck in the data of 1000 million Android users and store it forever".

But then, Mayer is already part of the ruling classes and what they want is as much control as they can get. They want to shaft the little guy to further their insane ambitions. That will do it for yahoo, as the world needs only one GooNSA.

Re:Income source (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year ago | (#44310001)

I don't know what Yahoo sells today.

But come October, I imagine they'll be selling lots of google.com/ig replacement impressions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IGoogle#Decommission [wikipedia.org]

Re:Income source (1)

genericmk (2767843) | about a year ago | (#44310217)

Yahoo sells you. My wife works in advertising and marketing and Yahoo sells them user profiles for targeting ads and focusing their efforts.

Re:Income source (1)

ciotog (1098035) | about a year ago | (#44313141)

The company where I work uses their BOSS Geo service, which costs us about $20-100 per month depending on what marketing campaigns are being done.

Confusing luck with talent (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44309195)

Most of those "superstar" business executives are no better than their college classmates. They just happened to land in the right company at the right time.

I don't believe that Mayer has CEO super powers. She was lucky to have worked at Google at a time when it was poised to take off. Putting her in charge of a wounded beast like Yahoo is a completely different ball game though. I don't know that she actually has the chops to handle that kind of situation.

The problem with Yahoo is that it's an aimless company. Essentially an answer to a question nobody asked. Everything that used to make Yahoo special, somebody else now does better. They either get back on top in search (unlikely) or find something new to excel at.

Re:Confusing luck with talent (2)

Pinky's Brain (1158667) | about a year ago | (#44309363)

Here's a different idea ... they slim the fuck down to focus on the parts of the business turning a profit and liquidate assets not to pay beyond market price for startups but simply to pay dividends to shareholders. Let those shareholders find new uses for the money, of course then Yahoo would be a small company and Mayer would be grossly overpaid ...

Shareholder diligence doesn't exist any more, the lunatics are running the asylum.

Re:Confusing luck with talent (2)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | about a year ago | (#44309871)

I agree with you, but isn't it the shareholder's fault if they're holding stock in a company that doesn't care about them? If they're not happy about Yahoo's lack of focus or a plan, they should sell before the stock crashes.

Re:Confusing luck with talent (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | about a year ago | (#44310921)

If they're not happy about Yahoo's lack of focus or a plan, they should sell before the stock crashes.

Which is why I didn't buy GOOG.

Re:Confusing luck with talent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44313533)

Yeah, and GOOG is right near it's all-time high. How's that working out for you?

Re:Confusing luck with talent (1)

Pinky's Brain (1158667) | about a year ago | (#44312073)

The people holding the shares during the AGM should vote ... when people simply bounce stocks around we get the current situation, where once great companies with large reserves of money, assets and good will become vehicles for self-enrichment of management as they perform a decade long nosedive.

Re:Confusing luck with talent (1)

datavirtue (1104259) | about a year ago | (#44309951)

slim the fuck down to focus on the parts of the business turning a profit

That is what companies or professional managers would normally do if they had a solid fundamental business. Yahoo is.....I don't know what it is but a website with tons of residual accounts and users who are not cool. It reminds me of AOL and it will be around for a long time due to the accumulation of certain assets. Assets are not a business though. Sell.

Re:Confusing luck with talent (1)

pnutjam (523990) | about a year ago | (#44316983)

The problem is that people think our system is capitalism, as in the capital owner runs the show, unfortunately it is managementism, as in the managers take what they want and dump the rest on the owners (who have no say beyond non-binding votes).

Re:Confusing luck with talent (0)

H0p313ss (811249) | about a year ago | (#44309411)

Mayer has a proven track record in industry, what do you have exactly?

Re:Confusing luck with talent (4, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about a year ago | (#44309461)

There's an old stock market scam. You open 100 accounts. You invest randomly. After a week, roughly half will be turning a profit. You close the ones that aren't, and do another round of random investing. Again, roughly half make a loss, half a profit. After a few rounds of this, you have lost quite a lot of money, but you have one account that looks really stellar - huge returns on investment. You then open this up to investment, with the disclaimer that past performance does not guarantee future results, and wait for the money to roll in (you can then invest this in your own companies, or just take it and run away).

Much the same applies with CEOs. You take a few thousand business graduates each year and put them in management positions. They all make random decisions. Then you cherry pick the handful that have made decisions that turned out well. Then you say 'Superstar CEO, please pay enormous salary'.

Re:Confusing luck with talent (2)

hdas (2759085) | about a year ago | (#44309813)

Congratulations, you discovered an important machine learning meta-algorithm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weighted_Majority_Algorithm [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Confusing luck with talent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44311721)

No, it isn't. Perhaps read his post again.

Re:Confusing luck with talent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44309853)

I've seen this scam where they send you stock tips in the mail once a week. You'll keep getting the tips only if they were right. This entices people to invest.

Re:Confusing luck with talent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44315175)

There's an old stock market scam. You open 100 accounts. You invest randomly. After a week, roughly half will be turning a profit. You close the ones that aren't, and do another round of random investing. Again, roughly half make a loss, half a profit. After a few rounds of this, you have lost quite a lot of money, but you have one account that looks really stellar - huge returns on investment. You then open this up to investment, with the disclaimer that past performance does not guarantee future results, and wait for the money to roll in (you can then invest this in your own companies, or just take it and run away).

Much the same applies with CEOs. You take a few thousand business graduates each year and put them in management positions. They all make random decisions. Then you cherry pick the handful that have made decisions that turned out well. Then you say 'Superstar CEO, please pay enormous salary'.

What's the equivalent of "casting couch" in the search world?

Gp is right (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44309499)

Mayer has a proven track record in industry, what do you have exactly?

I just flipped 10 heads in a row, do I have a "proven" track record?

And judging by her acquisitions, her strategy seems to be "throw a lot of money around and see what works."

You want an example of great CEO leadership? Go back and see what Lou Gerstner did to IBM in the 90s - THAT is how it's done.

Re:Confusing luck with talent (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44309693)

A proven track record of what? She was at Google when Google did extraordinarily well. Correlation doesn't equal causation. Using your criteria, until 2000 Steve Ballmer also had a "proven track record in industry".

If she had taken 3 companies to the height Google went to (or even half of that) she would have a "track record". Until she's done that all she had was wither the good sense or the dumb luck to join Google when she did.

Re:Confusing luck with talent (1)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#44309521)

not like google just grew magically

there were a lot of decisions to be made over the years

Re:Confusing luck with talent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44309761)

not like google just grew magically

there were a lot of decisions to be made over the years

Think about Steve Ballmer. He was in various high-level executive positions at Microsoft from 1980 to 2000. During that era the company did extraordinarily well. So if I follow your logic Ballmer was superstar material, and when he became CEO in Jan 2000 Microsoft should have kept on its upwards trajectory.

Except it didn't. Again, Ballmer had either the dumb luck or the good sense to join Microsoft. In his case it might have been dumb luck. I once attended one of his talks when he recalled that at some point he was ready to leave MS and Bill Gates and Bill Gates Sr took him to dinner to convince him otherwise. Left to his own devices he might have gone back to P&G where he would have plateau'ed somewhere in middle management.

Re:Confusing luck with talent (1)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#44309897)

google started in 1997, not 1986 like microsoft. there is a huge difference in running a company from start up to peak profit growth than from peak profit growth to maintaining market share

in fact i think that google and apple are right about where MS was in 2000. the fast growth is over, lots of employees have been hired compared to the fast growth phase and going forward its going to be a lot of internal politics

google is a lot like MS in that a few money making parts like advertising support a lot of cash burning projects

Re:Confusing luck with talent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44309977)

Wait, you just admitted that Mayer was at Google during the "fast growth" era, didn't you?
That was my point exactly. She was there at the right time, when the company was expanding, when the whole Internet thing was still pretty new (just like the micro-computer thing was still quite new in 1986).

I want to see how she does in a slower-growth environment, heading a company whose prospects aren't what Google's were when she was there.

Re:Confusing luck with talent (1)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#44310835)

and yahoo has a tiny fraction of the revenue of google and MS. apple was almost like a start up from 1997 through 2012

yahoo might not be a start up but its pretty close where she can get it turned around

Re:Confusing luck with talent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44311085)

and yahoo has a tiny fraction of the revenue of google and MS. apple was almost like a start up from 1997 through 2012

yahoo might not be a start up but its pretty close where she can get it turned around

I don't think your analogies work. It's one thing to be a startup in a brand new area where market share is still up for grabs. It's another to be a startup in a mature industry dominated by established behemoths. You don't see a lot of people starting car companies, do you? Given that Yahoo once was one of the behemoths it might have a chance of regaining its former glory, but it's still a long shot.

I remember reading an article about the lifecycle of companies and the success rates for declining firms attempting a turnaround was basically in the single digits. Apple did it but corporate cemeteries are littered with the bodies of once mighty brands. In the high tech industry alone, the dead far outnumber the living.

Re:Confusing luck with talent (1)

datavirtue (1104259) | about a year ago | (#44310049)

going forward its going to be a lot of internal politics

Don't say that, I'm about to join a maturing start-up.

Re:Confusing luck with talent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44310607)

google started in 1997, not 1986 like microsoft.

Microsoft was founded in 1975. It _went public_ in 1986.

Re:Confusing luck with talent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44310919)

Ballmer has one qualification. He had the right roommate in college.

He should give 90% of his compensation to whoever makes up the dorm assignments at Harvard.

Re:Confusing luck with talent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44315067)

Yes, and she made many incredibly poor ones that held lots of Google products back. Everyone I knew hated her.

Re:Confusing luck with talent (1)

korbulon (2792438) | about a year ago | (#44309547)

If I had mod points, I would mod parent up. Nice brief summary of what's happening here. The Google aura has begun to wear off, and now the cracks start to appear.

Re:Confusing luck with talent (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#44310283)

I don't believe that Mayer has CEO super powers. She was lucky to have worked at Google at a time when it was poised to take off.

That, and she works really, really hard. Like the quote from this story: [cnbc.com]

"For my first five years at Google, I pulled an all-nighter every week," Mayer said in a recent talk at New York's 92Y cultural center. "It was a lot of hard work."

It doesn't matter what you're doing, if you're working that hard, and actually make it productive, you're going to get better. If I spent an all-nighter every week, and actually made it productive, I would be really, really good at programming right now.

Re:Confusing luck with talent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44310747)

Wow, you have a quote from the lady herself claiming she works super hard. Shocked, I'm shocked!

Re:Confusing luck with talent (1)

rioki (1328185) | about a year ago | (#44315617)

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha! Funny that you say that. Since I can attribute to the opposite. True, it "takes 1000 hours" to get good at anything. But you have a limited mental capacity and when you exceed this capacity you are actually reducing your quality of work and learning.

Since the mid 19th century you will find numerous studies about worktime / overtime affect on productivity and all of them indicate that the more you work above something around 30-40h the less you get done. That is not less for the hour, but less in total; so at 35h you more done than 60h weeks.

And if you think about it, it makes sense. So you where able to pull an all nighter, not only did you probably make more mistakes at 3am, but also now you are tired as hell and can't think straight. All morning you try to concentrate and basically just sleep-work (as in sleep walk) thought the day. Now compare that with being well rested and focused. Sure you don't have that many hours of work, but you spend each hour highly concentrated. You get more done, it just does not feel so heroic when you get the solution right the first time instead of fixing bugs all night.

I for myself have reduced my contract to "part time" and work 4 days 8h. I am regarded as one of the best / productive developers on my team and that was one of the reasons why my PL had no problem with that. But maybe, just maybe it is just that, at some point in my career I learned that working "harder" does exactly nothing, but "smarter" is most part enabling to really concentrate on the job.

Re:Confusing luck with talent (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about a year ago | (#44310637)

Is this evidence of either? It sounds like Yahoo is continuing its downwards spiral to obsolescence.

Re:Confusing luck with talent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44311779)

Her feet suck too.

Wasn't really her doing (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44309273)

In that time she has seen the share price rise 70% and she's made some headline grabbing acquisitions...

That's just people's expectations and hopes. Meaning, any increases in revenue from those purchases has already been factored into the price and if the targets aren't meant, the stock will just go down.

OTOH, if things turn out better than expected, then there may be more upside.

I think all those purchases are going to bite her in the ass.

Duh... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44309353)

They've existed by cashing out their own property ever since she came on board. It's corporate cannibalism designed to make her look great at the expense of the company and its employees.... yet she is lauded as the second coming of Joan of Arc or something. The next few years will see her jump ship just before the company takes yet another nosedive, which will probably be attributed to her loss of leadership. It's fucking disgusting to anyone who is paying attention.

Re:Duh... (2)

cmorriss (471077) | about a year ago | (#44310339)

Not that I think Mayer is any good as a CEO, but this entire article is based on the premise that most of their revenue in the second quarter was from selling off an investment which is false. The $1.07 billion in revenue is completely separate from the investment gain from Alibaba. Investment gains like that are never counted as revenue.

See official quarterly results for more details: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/yahoo-reports-second-quarter-2013-200500159.html [yahoo.com]

selling shares is not revenue (2)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#44309359)

there is no way this is legal to report in the USA as revenue

Re:selling shares is not revenue (2)

H0p313ss (811249) | about a year ago | (#44309387)

there is no way this is legal to report in the USA as revenue

> Yahoo earned $846m in cash by redeeming its shares in the group, representing a significant chunk of Yahoo's $1.07bn revenue for the quarter

It's income from investment, it should be in a different line from other forms of revenue in the quarterly statement.

Re:selling shares is not revenue (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | about a year ago | (#44310575)

Yahoo financials are here [yahoo.net] .
2013 second quarter is here [yahoo.net]

Note that under assets in the balance sheet there is a line item for "Investments in equity interests"

And that in the statement of income there is a line item quite separate from income for operations: "Earnings in equity interests"

It's all very clearly laid out if you bother to do your homework.

And yes there will be a quiz this week.

Re:selling shares is not revenue (1)

cmorriss (471077) | about a year ago | (#44309537)

It is NOT reported as revenue. TFA and summary are wrong. If you want the details: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/yahoo-reports-second-quarter-2013-200500159.html [yahoo.com]

Yahoo! reported $1.07 billion in revenue without including the gain from Alibaba. The whole article makes little sense and the summary plays up a small piece from the article that isn't even correct. This should never have made it onto Slashdot.

Re:selling shares is not revenue (1)

LearningHard (612455) | about a year ago | (#44310279)

It isn't. Under GAAP it would be reported as an increase in Cash and Stockholder's Equity. Would never touch the income statement.
source: I worked 3 years doing revenue recognition. Plus this is a basic thing covered in accounting 101 under the accounting identity (Assets = Liabilities + Stockholder's Equity).

Alibaba, really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44309581)

I was under the impression that Alibaba was a scam site. Exhibit A: http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/517265716/Factory_Promotional_OEM_MP4_Player_with.html

Re:Alibaba, really? (1)

EvilSS (557649) | about a year ago | (#44309687)

It's a B2B site for (mostly) Asian suppliers. While there is a lot of junk on there it is a legit site. For example: need a few dozen tons of rice? [alibaba.com]

Re:Alibaba, really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44310899)

Its really useful for rfp's to asian manufacturers. It isn't intended for consumer level transactions.

Alibaba and the 40 Thieves (1)

frovingslosh (582462) | about a year ago | (#44311741)

There are plenty of sellers on there at least representing themselves as selling single units or low quantities directly to U.S consumers.

Not all is lost. (3, Insightful)

formfeed (703859) | about a year ago | (#44309595)

Slashdot apparently still has a special icon for Yahoo stories

Which can only mean one of two things:
(1) Yahoo still is very cool, hip, and totally in.
or (2) /. isn't

Re:Not all is lost. (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about a year ago | (#44309965)

Slashdot apparently still has a special icon for Yahoo stories

Which can only mean one of two things: (1) Yahoo still is very cool, hip, and totally in. or (2) /. isn't

News flash. Slashdot never really has been any of those things. It's further away than ever now that Dice bought it.

But, I have to ask... Icons? What you talkin' bout, Willis?

Re:Not all is lost. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44311195)

Who the fuck not still going through puberty worries about stupid, irrelevant shit like what some idiots think is cool or hip?

That is a time-honored tactic (2)

mveloso (325617) | about a year ago | (#44310119)

Apple used to do that all the time back in the day, before they started doing well. They used to sell shares of ARM to keep themselves afloat. In fact, there's an article about it, so I don't have to rely on my faulty memory.

http://www.cultofmac.com/97055/this-is-how-arm-saved-apple-from-going-bust-1990s/ [cultofmac.com]

strong opinions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44310129)

Talk is cheap: those of you who are willing to predict Yahoo's future can go eother long or short on the stock.

Learn to SEC (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44310267)

The author of this article does not know what the fuck he is talking about.

Proceeds from sales are NOT counted in revenue numbers. Yahoo! earned 1.071 billion doing exactly what it has always done to make money: sell ads.

Alibaba, truth in naming (0)

frovingslosh (582462) | about a year ago | (#44310985)

Just this afternoon I opened my first dispute with Alibaba. This was on my first received shipment through them. Actually my second order, but the first order still has not been received. I got the package on Monday but the enclose item was not at all as advertised. I wrote to the seller on Monday but two full business days later I still had no response and Alibaba wanted to close out the payment so I tried to open the dispute. Interesting to note that your detailed explanation of the problem is artificially limited to 512 characters. You are encouraged to include attachments and they mention correspondence, but the attachments will not accept text files. (Almost like they don't really want the details). And they all know it will be too expensive with US International postage charges to return the item.

You gotta give them credit. Most of use remember the stories of Alibaba and his forty "business associates". This has got to be one of the best choices in names since years ago when a similar American fencing organization wanted to call themselves "The Electronic Bay of Thieves" but it was pointed out that this was too long and hard to type correctly and they decided to shorten it.

Buying=easy, integrating=hard (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44311129)

I am waiting to see if Yahoo can integrate its acquisitions into a platform. I see their strategy, to provide an end-to-end platform that combines Google, Facebook, and more - sort of everything you can do on the Internet rolled into one with great mobile support. If it works, this will be the most brilliant turnaround ever. Problem is that Yahoo has all the pieces, but they're not integrated into one platform. That's going to be hard, and may be impossible. Yahoo is going for the home run, because it has no other choice - the only way to survive is to hit a home run.

yahoo news (1)

bugs2squash (1132591) | about a year ago | (#44311309)

yahoo news seems to have lurched to the right. It was probably fairly left-tilting before but now it seems to feature endless stories on the imaginary atrocities of obamacare, "truths" from the blaze etc. And there are quite a few ads posing like news stories that were not there before.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?