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!

Yahoo To Reject Microsoft Bid

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the so-say-sources dept.

Yahoo! 302

Many outlets are echoing a subscribers-only report in the Wall Street Journal that Yahoo's board has decided to reject Microsoft's takeover offer. The NYTimes offers the only other independent reporting so far confirming this claim. The report says that Yahoo will formally reject the offer in a letter on Monday, since they believe it "massively undervalues" the company. Microsoft offered $31 per share, a 62% premium on the stock price at the time, for Yahoo; but the latter believes that no offer below $40 per share is tenable. The AP has some background on Yahoo's options in responding to the bid.

cancel ×

302 comments

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

In other news... (5, Funny)

FlyByPC (841016) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362330)

Redmond weather reports are predicting thunderstorms, with a 90% chance of scattered chair showers.

Re:In other news... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22362338)

I'm sorry, I give a shit about this WHY?

Re:In other news... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22362446)

Because falling chairs hurt.

Re:In other news... (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362678)

Not when they are falling in Redmond and you are in Sunnyvale.

Re:In other news... (0)

Larry Lightbulb (781175) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362520)

Given the accuracy of recent local forecasts (eg the inner-city areas will be covered by deep snow) what will really happen is that a cushion is put onto a sofa.

Ballmer: "Google's not a real company..." (4, Informative)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362552)

There may be some Slashdot readers who don't know the story about the chair: Ballmer Throws A Chair At "F*ing Google" [battellemedia.com] .

Quotes:

At that point, Mr. Ballmer picked up a chair and threw it across the room hitting a table in his office. Mr. Ballmer then said: "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." ....

Thereafter, Mr. Ballmer resumed trying to persuade me to stay... Among other things, Mr. Ballmer told me that "Google's not a real company. It's a house of cards."


Quoted from legal papers in a court case brought by Microsoft.

Re:Ballmer: "Google's not a real company..." (4, Funny)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362706)

Of course Google is not a real company. If Google was a real company, then Steve wouldn't be buying their competitor. They'd be buying Google.

Re:Ballmer: "Google's not a real company..." (4, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362952)

Ballmer is correct to an extent - google and yahoo ARE a house of cards, completely reliant on the fickle advertising market and pumped up share prices.

yahoo shows this in their insane logic that shares in their company are worth 2x what they are selling for in the market.

Re:Ballmer: "Google's not a real company..." (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22363094)

whereas microsoft is reliant on...?

Re:Ballmer: "Google's not a real company..." (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22363208)

Um, people's reliance on the Windows OS, Office, etc?

Re:Ballmer: "Google's not a real company..." (4, Insightful)

hostyle (773991) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363222)

An entrenched monopoly on x86 Operating Systems where the likes of Dell must bend over and sign their souls away and the industry leading Office Suite?

Re:Ballmer: "Google's not a real company..." (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22363256)

What's the matter? Is the Micro-soft-dick whore that you are upset by the rejection from tiny Yahoo?

Re:Ballmer: "Google's not a real company..." (4, Insightful)

HUADPE (903765) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363312)

Buyout offers are consistently above market prices, consider the following.

1/2 of 1% of a company's outstanding shares being traded in a given day is a VERY high volume. This means that even on a big news day, well over 99% of shareholders still think owning the stock is a good idea. They value it therefore at some amount higher than the going price.

In order to get these people to sell to a buyout offer, you have to make it go from 1/2 of 1% thinking that they should sell to 50%+1. To convince all the shareholders between .5% and 50.0000001% to sell means you have to raise the price, substantially.

Re:Ballmer: "Google's not a real company..." (1, Insightful)

glitch23 (557124) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363034)

At that point, Mr. Ballmer picked up a chair and threw it across the room hitting a table in his office. Mr. Ballmer then said: "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." ....

Just goes to show me that even on the off chance I would want to work for MS, had an interview, and was offered a position that I would not take it after hearing that. To have a CEO who can't use professional language is just showing that the company needs to look elsewhere for a CEO, not to mention it shows his lack of variety and knowledge of the English language. But maybe they have the cream of the crop already. After all, how many CEOs have morals and ethics?

Re:Ballmer: "Google's not a real company..." (1)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363332)

Wait holdup...

So because Ballmer had a little breakdown, and said some things he shouldnt have, you are judging his entire ability to understand the english language?

Not that I agree with Ballmer, or that I like him on any level (not saying I dont, only that I dont really know him) but its hard to say what led up to these remarks, and I dont mean the previous few sentences, I mean who knows what was happening in his life at that time, for all we know his daughter could have ran away the day before, or maybe his mother died, etc, etc.

I cant think of anyone thats at the head, or close to the head of a business, nevemind a corporation that hasnt lost it at least once...

Of course it's not a "real" company... (5, Insightful)

BattyMan (21874) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363230)

If it were a "real" company, like, say, Netscape (was), the Empire could cut off its air supply. Same with "Linux" (_not_ a "real company", doesn't need to make money or stay "in business" in order to survive and continue to challenge The Monopoly). "Real Companies"(tm)(r)(c) can be eliminated using "real" monopoly business abuse. This is what _really_ has SteveB pissed off and frustrated to the point where he's reduced to swearing and throwing things.

He has viable competitors out here, about which he can't do a fsckin' thing.

Oh, and _zero_ market loyalty, after ten years of abuse. Make that negative numbers...

Not smart (1, Flamebait)

horcy (545339) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362334)

I think Yahoo! makes a big mistake here. Stock will fall even lower then the $19,18 it was at the moment of the hostile take over from MSFT. We'll see what happens.

Re:Not smart (3, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362394)

Stock will fall even lower then the $19,18 it was at the moment of the hostile take over from MSFT...
Sure, or course. The circling money vultures who could not really care any less about Yahoo! or it's business will flee to other more tasty rotting Interweb meat. And Yahoo will live another day.

The problem with American business and the financial "industry" built around it is that there is actually no interest at all in sustainable business, but rather exponential profit growth at all cost, even the death of the company itself. The company dies, the money vultures move on to the next target.

Re:Not smart (1)

mrxak (727974) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362458)

I think there's definitely some people that are only interested in a quick buck, but a lot of investors are looking long-term.

In any case, yes, Yahoo's stock will take a hit, but the company will survive. Frankly, it's probably a good time to buy their stock once everyone that thought microsoft would take them over dumps theirs.

Re:Not smart (1)

Dare nMc (468959) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362620)

The problem with American business and the financial "industry" built around it is that there is actually no interest at all in sustainable business, but rather exponential profit growth at all cost

what you describe would be a working open market. IE where if a business is not getting good consistent return on capital/assets then it needs changes.
That is something most individual investors don't understand, compounded interest grows exponentially because you get the same return on a growing valuation. I well managed company must do the same.
The issues come with building expectations into stock price, when you start expecting PE ratios 10-50x. then the stock price doesn't follow the true assess their managing. So you could expect exponential growth of the company's hard assets, but once the stock price gets inflated, then only using the stock as a leverage to build your company can pay off anymore.

Re:Not smart (1, Interesting)

vertinox (846076) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363004)

what you describe would be a working open market. IE where if a business is not getting good consistent return on capital/assets then it needs changes.

Its not that hard to be a stock vampire. If you had $1,000 and bought 1,000 shares at $1.00 and then just waited for an invariable 5% change price to $1.05 then have a limit sell then you just made 50 some odd bucks. This may seem small but if you do it at larger scale and of course higher returns you can scale it up to higher returns. Your not even waiting for a quarterly return nor news but rather brute forcing money out the company and other investors over and over again as your ride the price changes.

Of course if the whole market collapses like it did in January that one day, you might be out of a lot of money if you were trying something like this.

I'm not saying its good or bad, but the current system leaves open a few loopholes so that a company can be exploited by investors bleed it dry of money. However, generally companies that give dividends tend to keep those kind of investors at bay by simply having enough long term investors soaking up the dividend returns over several years.

Re:Not smart (1)

Pecisk (688001) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362752)

Duh. It is called speculation for a reason and is only known legit way how to get more money from others than you actually have to. It is basis of capitalism, so we have to live with that. If you don't, try other system and see how savage actually people are.

Stupid survive instinct.

Re:Not smart (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363120)

It is basis of capitalism, so we have to live with that. If you don't, try other system and see how savage actually people are.

Wouldn't it make more sense to sell long term bonds? Or heck... Why not just sell non-voting stock so you don't have to give a damn what the investors say? I'm just saying you can get capital some other way than the stock market.

Obviously, the shareholders at MSFT are basically the people that run the company so (Balmer and friends) so its not like if they make a bad decision that Balmer would vote himself out (well there is Gates and he doesn't' work their anymore, but I doubt he'd vote Balmer out even if they did poorly).

Only a silly investor gets sentimental (1)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362792)

Sure, you can invest out of ethical reasons, but face it most investors are out to make money. And yes, you're correct, this does lead to unsustainable business practices but so does the whole Wall St model of quater-to-quarter business and the demand for growth. If you're expecting to find anything other that quarter-to-quarter profits and greed you got off the subway at the wrong station. City Mission is a few stops along.

So.... Yahoo! won't come easy, MS will just mount a hostile take over. That won't slow them for long. If anything a Yahoo rejection will lower stock price making it cheaper for MS.

Re:Not smart (1)

homer_s (799572) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362994)

Why would Yahoo, or any other company, ask money from these 'money vultures' in the first place?

It is these 'money vultures' who provide funding that gets ideas off the ground. And it is precisely their greed that takes money away from lower performing businesses and moves it into higher performing ones.

It is a third rate intellect that takes into account what is seen, but ignores the unseen.

Re:Not smart (2, Insightful)

glitch23 (557124) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363282)

Sure, or course. The circling money vultures who could not really care any less about Yahoo! or it's business will flee to other more tasty rotting Interweb meat. And Yahoo will live another day.

This also explains why oil is currently at $90 a barrel and why it jumped ~$20 in a few weeks time. Even though the poor are having trouble getting to work to make money the high and mighty rich investors are making profits on oil. Just another day of work for them.

Re:Not smart (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22362410)

Microsoft aren't stupid and they obviously think Yahoos true value is not reflected in the current stock price. If anything, the share price should rise on this news.

Then again perhaps Microsoft are playing characteristically dirty and are about to dump any Yahoo shares they acquired on the open market in an attempt to destabilize the stock?

One way or another, we'll all know soon enough.

Someone should warn Jerry (1)

rainhill (86347) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362348)

a lot of chairs are on his way.

Re:Someone should warn Jerry (1)

indiejade (850391) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362758)

<p>Microsoft-ites wanted to "kill Google" . . . but they couldn't.  So now they're attempting to kill Yahoo!, the company that gave Google bocos of it's initial funding:  <a href="http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/02/1456237&from=rss">as noted during Yahoo!'s 10th birthday.</a>.  Good for Yahoo! rejecting a hostile takeover attempt; the last thing it needs is to take on the burden of Microsoft's <a href="http://www.zentu.net/network/?q=node/3">inefficiency</a>, regardless of how much that might bring them pseudo-gains in stock price during the short term.</p>

<p>Something tells me Microsoft-ites will be wanting to throw more than chairs on Monday.</p>

Good to have more search engines (4, Interesting)

Besna (1175279) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362354)

As much as we all love Google, I think there needs to be a variety of search engines. Microsoft-Yahoo might have been a bigger player, but we'd lose the variety. Ask.com almost doesn't count.

Excuse me? (1)

mrbcs (737902) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362356)

Microsoft is offering a 62% premium on what the shares are worth now, $31... and they want $40. WTF? Would they rather they get nothing once their market share drops some more?

Re:Excuse me? (3, Insightful)

downix (84795) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362390)

You're ignoring, they're offering $31 "equivelent" in Microsoft stocks. Not in cash in hand. How will the stock market respond when suddenly there's this extra 20% in loose Microsoft stocks floating out there?

Hello stock price freefall!

$40 as a minimum is quite reasonable when you consider the massive devaluation which will occur the moment the deal goes through.

Re:Excuse me? (5, Informative)

Dr Kool, PhD (173800) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362408)

That's simply wrong. The offer was $31 in cash OR 0.9509 of a share of Microsoft common stock.

Re:Excuse me? (1)

downix (84795) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362478)

You may be right, but have you ever checked on microsoft's cash assets? A large portion of them are:
Stock, specifically microsoft stock, used for quick liquidation.

So, you have "get stock" or "get cash paid for with stocks", both of which would flood the market with loose shares almost immediately. Since these deals do typically require the largest stockholders to accept in stock... well, you can imagine the position they are in.

Re:Excuse me? (4, Informative)

Pendersempai (625351) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362612)

There's an equilibrium, though. When a large block of stock is sold, the price of the stock may drop momentarily, but then it is undervalued and hedge funds and mutual funds snap it up until it is back to where it was. This effect is born out empirically. The demand curve for a stock is extremely steep: if it drops even a dollar, everyone and his mother wants to buy, which pushes it back up to its equilibrium price.

The one exception is when insiders sell large blocks of stock -- then the market assumes there must be bad news coming, and the price does drop and remain low. But this effect is informational, and the magnitude of the drop has much less to do with how many shares are dumped onto the market than it does with what the dump says about the insider's opinions (e.g. what proportion of his stock he dumps, and how many other insiders do the same simultaneously).

In any case, the fact that there are "loose shares" dumped onto the market does not by itself affect the price.

Re:Excuse me? (1)

downix (84795) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362650)

If it were just loose shares, I'd agree with you. But we're talking a LOT of loose shares, 1.1 BILLION loose shares.....

Re:Excuse me? (1)

Pendersempai (625351) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362850)

It still wouldn't matter. An undervalued stock is like money lying in the street. Your position is like saying that, while people will pick up $3000 in hundred-dollar bills if a helicopter drops them on Manhattan, they won't bother to pick up $1 billion. Even if it cost $70 to pick up a single $100 bill (analogous to fronting the money to buy an undervalued stock), they would all be gone in no time.

Re:Excuse me? (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362898)

There is also the issue that if Microsoft pays over the odds for Yahoo, where does that money come from.

It is easy to see that Yahoo shareholders benefit, but this extra benefit comes out of the Microsoft shareholders' pockets. The only time it wouldn't is if there are synergies to be obtained from merging the two companies. That could happen, but it is more likely that there will be diseconomies of scale as a result of the merger, and the total amount lost by Microsoft shareholders will be more than what Yahoo shareholders gain.

Re:Excuse me? (1)

Pendersempai (625351) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362966)

Completely agreed. In fact I think this is the most likely scenario. When the deal was announced, YHOO rose but MSFT fell even further -- clearly the market thinks this is a value-destroying merger.

My point was merely that "dumping" stocks onto the market at below-value does not, by itself, affect the price of the stock for more than a few seconds.

Microsoft will borrow money to buy a losing Yahoo. (1)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362496)

"The offer was $31 in cash OR 0.9509 of a share of Microsoft common stock."

Yes but, as I understand it, Microsoft's offer of real money was only up to half of the total.

Re:Microsoft will borrow money to buy a losing Yah (1)

ejdmoo (193585) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362608)

That's still pretty damn good. A lot of these kinds of deals involve stock only, no cash.

What happens next (5, Insightful)

Dr Kool, PhD (173800) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362358)

Either:

1. Microsoft ups their offer. Yahoo board indicated they wouldn't consider anything under $40.

2. Microsoft walks away. Shareholders revolt after stock drops big time.

3. Microsoft wages a proxy fight and tries to win over shareholders over the board's head.

(3) is the most likely outcome. Microsoft already said something like "we won't take no for an answer".

Re:What happens next (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362422)

I think the exact words were "by any means necessary", so yes, I'd expect a hostile takeover at this point.

My bet... (2, Interesting)

Xenographic (557057) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362472)

(4) Their bid is denied thanks to EU anti-trust regulators, but they manage to cause havoc for Yahoo anyhow by distorting their stock price.

Re:My bet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22362642)

Anti-trust? Exactly what limit would Microsoft+Yahoo exceed that isn't already exceeded by Microsoft alone?

Re:My bet... (1)

aesiamun (862627) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363330)

Microsoft and Yahoo are the 2nd and 3rd place players in this game...MS buying Yahoo doesn't weaken google's already 60%+ position.

An anti-trust case has no legs to stand on in this case.

Re:What happens next (0, Flamebait)

rainhill (86347) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362572)

(4) throw some chairs

Re:What happens next (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22362592)

Microsoft already said something like "we won't take no for an answer".
I got an offer you can't refuse Yahoo.

Re:What happens next (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362654)

1. Microsoft ups their offer. Yahoo board indicated they wouldn't consider anything under $40.

Microsoft must be strapped for cash these days...

Re:What happens next (4, Insightful)

kripkenstein (913150) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362676)

2. Microsoft walks away. Shareholders revolt after stock drops big time.
You know, the paranoid in me thought that this might be Microsoft's strategy all along.

Surely Ballmer knows many/most Yahoo! engineers aren't happy with the idea of being Microsoft employees (even if they do endure it, they won't do so happily, which affects productivity). Also most/all of Yahoo! is built using tools not easily integrated into Microsoft's (but this could be mitigated with a slow integration process). So the actual value of Yahoo! for Microsoft isn't all that great. Is this worth wiping out all of Microsoft's war chest and going into debt to boot? I doubt it.

Instead, imagine what would happen if Yahoo! vanished overnight. Yahoo! users would migrate either into Google services or Microsoft ones. Ballmer might believe that he can woo the majority of them; even if not, it still raises Microsoft's market share, even if while doing so it does the same for Google. And this might be achievable by doing exactly what Ballmer is doing: getting Yahoo! directors (and employees) to fight with Yahoo! stockholders. Yes, it might not wipe out Yahoo! overnight, but as a consequence the stock might topple downwards, and who knows what might happen then - the board might get replaced, internal turmoil, etc. etc. Even if it doesn't kill Yahoo!, it might make it less competitive, again, something that is good for Microsoft.

Re:What happens next (1)

rainhill (86347) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362830)

"So the actual value of Yahoo! for Microsoft isn't all that great"

If genuine, Microsoft most probably is after Yahoo's user base, not its software nor its engineers.

Re:What happens next (1)

Nullav (1053766) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363134)

Yahoo! users would migrate either into Google services or Microsoft ones.
MS has the most popular desktop OS, has its browser as the default on the most popular desktop OS, and has its search engine as the default homepage on the default browser of the most popular desktop OS, but they're still having trouble with Google/Yahoo. Something tells me it wouldn't be worth that much to just buy and get rid of Yahoo.
Rather than removing it entirely, I imagine MS finding ways to beat Google in the adspace game after getting two of the top search engines.

Re:What happens next (1)

metlin (258108) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362810)

A link to the WSJ article would have been nice, as some of us do have subscriptions - Yahoo Board to Reject Microsoft Bid [wsj.com] .

And to your point, I would have agreed that #3 is the most likely, although the final paragraph in the WSJ indicates that Yahoo has taken the "poison pill" in order to prevent a hostile takeover and that Microsoft may have to oust the entire board to do it.

I find that particularly interesting - either they (Yahoo) are very desperate and are hoping for a miracle, or they really do believe in what they say.

Re:What happens next (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363060)

3. Microsoft wages a proxy fight and tries to win over shareholders over the board's head.
Isn't a 62% premium likely to make them jump? That's a lot of free money.

Good for them! (1)

Hawthorne01 (575586) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362366)

Yahoo, at least, now has a small glimmer of hope in changing itself from what Jeff Jarvis calls "the last old media company" into something relevant.

Microsoft can't see beyond the desktop. Everything they do is tied to selling OS's and Office. They had absolutely nothing to offer Yahoo! beyond an aging and stale brand name.

Kudos to Yahoo!'s board for showing some cajones and nailing yet another nail into Redmond's coffin.

Re:Good for them! (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362438)

They had absolutely nothing to offer Yahoo! beyond an aging and stale brand name.
They had absolutely nothing to offer Microsoft beyond an aging and stale brand name.

Re:Good for them! (2, Informative)

jt2377 (933506) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362484)

You do know MS business software (Office) along generate as much revenues as Google, right? For at least the next ten years, i don't see how Online (Cloud Computing) Office suite from Google going to beat MS Office.

Re:Good for them! (1)

ZerMongo (1129583) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362686)

This should not, in any way, be construed as Yahoo standing up to Microsoft. They're going to sell. They have to sell. If they outright refuse these offers by Microsoft, the shareholders will revolt, take them to court, then they'll sell. The only thing in question is how much Microsoft's willing to pay for Yahoo. Not whether or not it's going to happen.

Idiots (4, Interesting)

Tanman (90298) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362368)

Their P/E is 62. *SIXTY-TWO*

That means they don't make money. At least not compared to the already-inflated value of their stock. The value of their shares should be down in the single digits right now based on their income -- a P/E from 15-20 would be much more reasonable. Microsoft comes along and offers to buy them out for an amazing amount of money, and they turn it down?

Refusing this deal borders on illegal, assuming their job is to act in the interests of their shareholders.

Re:Idiots (5, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362420)

Refusing this deal borders on illegal, assuming their job is to act in the interests of their shareholders.
Instant profit is not always in the long term benifit if it comes along with total destruction of the company. And who says short term profit is what Yahoo!'s shareholders want?

Re:Idiots (2)

rainhill (86347) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362514)

"And who says short term profit is what Yahoo!'s shareholders want?"

Well, money (shareholders) always prefer instant gratification, seldom does it care about the company and its long term health, it can always move to the next company.

Re:Idiots (4, Informative)

Tanman (90298) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362646)

Long-term benefit? Excuse me?

We are talking about a deal that instantly infuses into the Yahoo shareholders' bank accounts more money than the company would earn in 20 years. It IS long-term benefit, and they ARE idiots to reject it.

Insiders think it is worth $40? Who the hell are they fooling? Themselves, obviously.

Re:Idiots (2, Insightful)

Mikachu (972457) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362660)

Well, it looks like we'll find out what the shareholders want soon enough. Since Microsoft doesn't look like they're taking no for an answer, my guess is that they're going to try and win the shareholders over without even bothering with Yahoo's board.

Re:Idiots (1)

eshefer (12336) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363262)

if you RTFA you'll see that they said "at least 40$ per share". it's not a denial it's bargaining.

what they are doing is EXACTLY in the interests of their shareholders. if MS really wants then that bad they'll have to pay more.

One word (1)

bobbonomo (997543) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362372)

Hurrah!

Re:One word (1)

kc2keo (694222) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362490)

Correction: Huzzah!

Re:One word (3, Funny)

phalse phace (454635) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362578)

Shouldn't that be Yahoo! ?

Re:One word (1)

bobbonomo (997543) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362648)

Yes, you are correct.

It was always going to happen (2, Interesting)

MLCT (1148749) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362412)

Yahoo would have been daft to accept as it was. The position they have taken (if correct) is the obvious line - "massively undervalues". The ball is firmly back in MS's end of the court - they will be forced to put themselves into substantial debt trying to force a hostile takeover (aren't MS sharholders going to love that on - yeah go ahead and piss away our 19B cash pile for a failing company) - or give up on it and look like a coward. Ballmer always likes to play the big man - it will be interesting to see how big he reacts to this. Depending on how obsessed he is about getting his own way this could end up making the AOL Time Warner debacle look like a minor business misdemeanour decision. 60B would be a out-of-thin-air figure I could see this ending up at - that would be absolutely hilarious.

The other main option, namely attempt a takeover by proxy by trying to fill the Yahoo board has now (broadly) been nullified. If the current board is taking a position that will (if the takeover happens) make YH shareholders more money then they are not going to vote on MS stooges who would immediately accept the MS offer.

Re:It was always going to happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22362754)

AOL Time Warner debacle look like a minor business misdemeanour decision

An even better comparison I heard the other day: "This is Sears and K-Mart all over again."

Re:It was always going to happen (1)

metlin (258108) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362934)

Eh? You are kidding, right? 62% premium and they reject it?

Unbelievable and surreal.

The stance the board has taken is only going to make it worse when/if MS actually does do a hostile takeover.

*shakes head*

Re:It was always going to happen (1)

MLCT (1148749) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363108)

Of course they would. MS has made it plain they want the company, and would not give up easily - those statements made with far less subtlety than you would normally find in takeover bids (short of outright hostiles).
Yahoo have nothing to loose in attempting to shake a couple more dollars out of MS. It was a 62% premium on the back of a weak Yahoo boardroom who don't know what they are doing, coupled with poor recently reported results. It is nowhere near a 62% premium on the real worth of the company (when viewed in the context of what it is worth to MS - and ultimately in terms of worth; something is only worth what someone else is willing to pay).
MS (and given we know who is solely in charge of this, Ballmer) have made a ham fist out of this - the only way they are likely to get Yahoo now is by a hostile - and the current Yahoo share price indicates that is going to cost them a lot of money (and if the markets judge that MS will pay any price then MS could end up paying ridiculous sums to buy the stake they require as it would turn into a bull run).

Re:It was always going to happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22363138)

>Eh? You are kidding, right? 62% premium and they reject it?

Yahoo was as high as $34 in October. This is just good market timing that they caught them at a low.

Re:It was always going to happen (2, Insightful)

Hangtime (19526) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363058)

This thing is not going down for $45 a share (60 billion). This is going down for $34 - $35. MSFT might be loaded but they will not go all the way to the mat. If MSFT makes a $35 offer and its not accepted...Microsoft won't have to wage a proxy fight, YHOO instititutional shareholders will do it for them. Yang and the board own like less then 6% of the company. While YHOO may point back to its high $35 price in November...a whole lot of stocks were high in November and tech is out of favor right now. MSFT backing out would take this stock to $17 in a hurry and is why ultimately MSFT wins and wins at a much lower price.

Re:It was always going to happen (1)

MLCT (1148749) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363188)

You may be right - and 60 was broadly at the upper limit (I would guess 50 odd is more likely). But I just have a bit of a feeling on this - if MS keeps giving off the signals of desperation about *wanting* Yahoo so much - to the extent that this has all been a tiny step away from being a hostile - then the institutional shareholders might think twice. If they judge that MS are stupid enough to go as high as $45 a share then they certainly aren't going to cave too soon. So far MS has played this as an "all in" hand - such that they are risking the institutionals calling their bluff.

Buying Yahoo will not make Microsoft smarter. (4, Insightful)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362434)

It's possible to learn a lot by examining the world around you. For example, what am I bid for this half-eaten, moldy burrito? I am accepting no offers below $40.

Microsoft has proven, over many years, that it does not know how to run a search engine. Buying Yahoo will not magically make Microsoft smarter, especially since Yahoo has proven, over many years, that...

Well, that took long enough.. (3, Interesting)

dynamo (6127) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362456)

Most of Yahoo's value spawns from how *completely* different their company attitude comes across from stuck-up, self-important, dying companies such as microsoft.

This is backwards. Give it five or ten years, and Yahoo could be buying microsoft (and not just because Yahoo's value is going up.)

But Yahoo's value would plummet by at least 75%, according to my completly random guess, if it were a division of MS. Imagine if your yahoo mail account was suddenly an MSN account. Your Yahoo IM suddenly merges with MSN. They both become worse than trash - I cannot imagine an organization (aside from the current executive branch of the us government) that I trust less than microsoft - all incompetence aside.

If they were people, I would invite Yahoo over to a backdoor bbq. MS, on the other hand, I'd invite to.. nowhere.

- d

Re:Well, that took long enough.. (2, Insightful)

owlnation (858981) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362558)

While I don't disagree that Microsoft is in a slow downward spiral. I'm not sure I understand the rest of your post.

Yahoo has sharks circling. This is because it's dying much faster than MS. Yahoo, is essentially an empty brand name, content, and a database -- i.e. just like AOL before it. It has executives who have never understood its client base, nor cared for one single second long enough to find out what they want. It is astonishing that it survived the 1st dotcom crash -- it was in trouble then. Even now, in its final throes, they trundle out yet another doomed to fail product in "unlimited" webhosting. Except it is not unlimited. Just another Yahoo lie that will backfire like all the rest.

The only bad thing about this is that Yahoo is so toxic that it may have brought MS down faster. Nevertheless Yahoo will be a dead name before MS is, and it won't take 5 years. Both are, however, definitely dying.

Re:Well, that took long enough.. (3, Interesting)

doktor-hladnjak (650513) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362674)

Yup, it's true--Microsoft is dying [engadget.com] .

Re:Well, that took long enough.. (1)

arse maker (1058608) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363092)

Yes, Microsoft is dying so fast they have been posting record revenues and profits. http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/080124/aqth094a.html?.v=1 [yahoo.com] To compare the strengh of yahoo verse microsoft is laughable. Yahoo has always struggled to turn a profit despite restructuring after the dot com crash, microsoft is the posterchild of profit making. Sure microsoft is dying, just like we are all dying. I think people also don't put into perspective recessions, advertising traditionaly is the worst hit. Yahoo will have trouble justifying their decision to shareholders at that point, hell even at this point. They wanted 12 months to turn it around last time microsoft came knocking with a few jumbo jets of money. I can't see any sizable future for yahoo, google will just keep eating away at them and provide and alternative to microsoft people want, yahoo will get squeezed out.

Re:Well, that took long enough.. (1)

The One and Only (691315) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363182)

Your Yahoo IM suddenly merges with MSN.

Already happened [yahoo.com] .

This is done (5, Interesting)

Hangtime (19526) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362466)

YHOO board comes out against, MSFT will rail that YHOO isn't worth that much, a month from now MSFT will offer a sweetened offer - call it $34 and propose its own slate of directors for the annual meeting. YHOO board will accept because they don't have a choice. MSFT will complete the purchase Jerry Yang and his cronies will go back to the bars in the Valley start their own venture capital firms or become part of one of the VCs like Kleiner-Perkins. Deal closes in the 4th quarter.

Re:This is done (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22363294)

I'll bet you think you're smart by using the stock symbols when "talking" about Yahoo! and Microsoft. You think it makes you look knowledgeable even though in reality you have no clue what you're yammering about. You're exposed, idiot. Go back to masturbating in your mom's basement, it's the only thing you're good at.

The FTC should reject this. (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362492)

Come on, folks. Nobody but Microsoft thinks this is a Good Idea. I mean nobody. Microsoft has enough monopoly-like leverage as it is, without using that to leverage itself into even more markets where it could throw its weight around. In case nobody has noticed, there is a lot of weight to throw. Just try to heft Vista, for example. My computer was two pounds heavier after the install.

board incentives (1)

Normal_Deviate (807129) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362510)

After due consideration, Yahoo's board members have decided that they prefer to keep their jobs, which they would lose in the event of takeover. Somewhat more difficult was the task of determining that $39.99/share was the highest offer they could reject on behalf of shareholders without being sued for breach of their fiduciary duty. In a properly functioning market (that is, without ethically dubious anti-takeover provisions in the corporate charter) nobody would really care what the board members thought about the offer.

Maybe this will be good for Yahoo (1)

incer (1071224) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362528)

If Microsoft doesn't buy Yahoo, who says that no one else will take up a few shares, now that the spotlight's on them again (even if only for a brief moment), thanks to this offer? Also those who bought in anticipation for the takeover will probably be selling now...

Thank God. (5, Insightful)

F34nor (321515) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362556)

As a share holder in Microsoft I think that Microsoft has way better things to do with my retained earnings than pay too much for nothing right before the whole economy tanks.

He's an idea. Sell you stupid DRM pipe dreams down the river of wasted time and turn into what you should be, a DIVIDEND paying LOW GROWTH utility company. Make a good operating system with no bells or whistles that will pass any anti-trust case, sell it for a low enough price that the trouble of downloading a bit torrent crack isn't worth it. Make it so I can add/remove modules over the Internet at will for low low prices. Then make a a version that looks fucking fantastic and sell it like a Mac for a premium to fanboys and people who think translucent colored baubles are the shit.

Someone over there has finally woken up. I have been teaching Office 2007 and for god's sake it's a great product. 90% of the things that have made want to skull fuck the assholes in the Office department to death are gone. The menu system is great. The Page layout break controls are great. The automatic formating is now controllable. Best of fucking all you can now set the default action for paste to be text only.

I want Microsoft to stop being a bitch like Sony. (Don't FUCKING sue yourself.) Don't get delusions of being a media company or and Internet company you twits. Give me my fucking retained earnings as a dividend, make Office for a profit, make Server for a large profit, and make Windows so it works underwater in space, in the future, across standards, platforms, without a hoot because it is a god damn utility that doesn't give a fuck because everyone has to use it and doesn't hate it because it just fucking does its job come hell or high water.

I agree (3, Funny)

OMNIpotusCOM (1230884) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362644)

The only thing the parent needs is some cool, blue, semi-translucent baubles and a Star Trek reference.

Dear Microsoft employee (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22362796)

Douglas Copeland said hello. As a shareholder your desire to see good in server sales is worrying if you think your posting to slashdot will increase them then you better be wary of the penguin followers.



Beware of uncle Tux



So do you want to see a patent fight between Linix and MS ? yes ? to help your shares ?

Re:Thank God. (1)

LetterRip (30937) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363128)

"Someone over there has finally woken up. I have been teaching Office 2007 and for god's sake it's a great product"

For Excel 2007 they've made adjusting charts extremely painful and non obvious. To me that is a huge downside - the rest of the changes I'm fairly neutral on. Spreading the Blender interface to more programs is great of course (Ribbon is essentially a port of the Blender buttons interface).

LetterRip

Yahoo is bluffing - and plays lousy chess (1)

mark99 (459508) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362574)

Microsoft doesn't really need Yahoo - it just looked cheap at $19. They can walk away and persue any of a dozen other strategies. They probably just want the advertising customers - and can might even get them by buying AOL for much less.

Most of Microsoft's business are thriving - Yahoo is not.

The numbers are sobering. Yahoo's stock owners will not get a better chance than this. For their sake I hope they are just bluffing to try and get their price up - because there is no other reasonable strategy on the table.

WTF? (4, Insightful)

ohtani (154270) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362594)

I don't get why people are bitching at Yahoo! over this. Do you WANT Microsoft to own them? I don't care WHY they turned it down, I'm just glad they did, I personally don't want to see it happen at all! I'm not even sure if the FTC would like it much.

Something stupid this way comes.... (2, Insightful)

asaivan (1025940) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362818)

Why do I have the overwhelming sense that something immensely stupid is about to occur? I've got my popcorn ready. Who knows, SCO did it...they banked everything on a whim. Maybe M$ will follow suit and bank everything on a hostile takeover. I wouldn't put it past Ballmer. But with the insanity that seems to be taking firm hold of the world and everything in it, I wouldn't be surprised if Ballmer, in a monumental display of egotistical machismo, tries to take down Yahoo, and his own company with it.

The clue train..... (1)

budword (680846) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362832)

The clue train has not pulled into the yahoo station yet. They will only figure it out once yahoo is a penny stock. I figure, 7 or 8 years. I used to use yahoo email as my primary, but it's slow, and now they make you click through their home page, just for the extra hits. It's irritating. I've moved on to a gmail address. I haven't used yahoo search in years. Has anyone else here ? Yahoo got out of the auction biz a long time ago. They are giving up on the streaming music biz. What's left for them ? That makes any money I mean. Movie time look ups and games ? Personals maybe. Even there, craigslist and similar services are eating their lunch. It's only a matter of time now. The market know it, but the board ? The clue train is going to pull right through the station there, and the board will never even know it was there.

It is compatibility problem really (4, Interesting)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 6 years ago | (#22362918)

FreeBSD doesn't work well with Windows. It is not a joke. If it worked (or works) it could be a huge disaster for both companies. Yahoo buyout is not some "dotcom startup invented something, lets buy it" thing, 46 billion is a huge money even for Microsoft. They can't say "Oh it didn't work" and turn their backs.

Companies are not compatible with each other. Yahoo is a open source powered services giant. MS is Windows maker who struggles to make Windows more credible in large installations. Would MS pay $46 billion to further advertise open source technologies and operating systems like FreeBSD?

I suggest Slashdot people who thinks Yahoo is lame because of their homepage check http://developer.yahoo.com/ [yahoo.com] to see what Yahoo actually is.

Phblllltttt! (1)

kabdib (81955) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363040)

"Neeners! We want to do our *own* layoffs!"

Microsoft buys companies to squish their tech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22363224)

On live.com, Microsoft's search results suck.

The results are usually irrelevant. Not helpful.

If Microsoft eats Yahoo, we can expect them to throw away anything that was good in Yahoo.

For example, they bought the company that made Lookout and did not integrate the technology into MS Outlook. As a result searches in MS Outlook are excruciatingly slow if you have a large amount of emails. http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/12/24.html [joelonsoftware.com]

When Google bought Youtube, they didnt squish it to replace it with google video.

When Apple bought Coverflow, they included it in their products.

When other companies buy companies, they tend to absorb their technology. Nowadays, in Microsoft's case it's only to steal traffic and to eliminate technological competition.

interesting (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363252)

So, is Yahoo the first and only company that dared to say "No" to Microsoft? I think it is.

Yahoo board to reject Microsoft bid (1)

djupedal (584558) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363258)

SAN FRANCISCO - Yahoo Inc.'s board has concluded Microsoft Corp.'s $44.6 billion takeover bid undervalues the slumping Internet pioneer and plans to reject the unsolicited offer, a person familiar with the situation said Saturday.

The decision, first reported by The Wall Street Journal on its Web site, could trigger a showdown involving two of the world's most prominent technology companies.

If it wants Yahoo badly enough, Microsoft could try to override Yahoo's board by taking its offer -- originally valued at $31 per share -- directly to the shareholders. If Microsoft pursued that risky route, it will likely have to nominate its slate of directors to supplant Yahoo's current 10-member board.

CNBC video: Microsoft's Yahoo strategy Many analysts believe Microsoft is prepared to offer as much as $35 per share for Yahoo, which still boasts one of the Internet's largest audiences and most powerful advertising vehicles despite a prolonged slump that has hammered its stock.

Yahoo's board reached the decision after exploring a wide variety of alternatives during the past week, according to the person who spoke to The Associated Press. The person didn't want to be identified because the reasons for Yahoo's rebuff won't be officially spelled out until Monday morning.

Microsoft and Yahoo declined to comment Saturday.

It's called negotiation (2, Insightful)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363286)

MS bid $31. Yahoo counters with "Not a penny under $40". MS counters with $35 or just does a hostile takeover.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>