Microsoft Crosses a Line 23 comments
an article to
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Until today I’ve largely been a big supporter of Microsoft’s (MSFT) efforts to acquire Yahoo (YHOO). A couple of days before Microsoft placed its initial $44.6 billion bid for the company, I told Fox Business Channel that a Microsoft merger had to happen to save Yahoo (and I certainly wasn’t the first to say this, I just had magnificent timing).
Throughout the ups and downs and stupendous drama of the negotiations, I held firm that a deal was in the best interests of both companies. Not because I’m a huge Microsoft fan, but because the health of the Internet requires a competitive search market. Google controls too much market share and too much related search revenue. A counterbalancing force is needed to keep the system healthy. And Microsoft or Yahoo standing alone cannot counter Google.
But when Microsoft pulled its bid just as Yahoo was about to accept and replaced it with a search buyout deal that I described as equivalent to them trying to get the milk for free instead of buying the cow, I began to wonder if things were getting out of hand. Since then, Yahoo has quite literally prostrated themselves before Microsoft to get a merger done, even perhaps at a price much lower than Microsoft’s original bid. And Microsoft has largely toyed with them.
Yesterday’s shenanigans, however, clearly crossed a line. Microsoft and activist Yahoo shareholder Carl Icahn jointly announced that they’ve been talking, and that Microsoft may be willing to entertain a full buyout offer once again. But only on the condition that Yahoo’s board of directors is replaced: “We confirm, however, that after the shareholder election Microsoft would be interested in discussing with a new board a major transaction with Yahoo!, such as either a transaction to purchase the “Search” function with large financial guarantees or, in the alternative, purchasing the whole company.”
Icahn explained further, saying that Microsoft can’t be expected to let Yahoo stay in current management’s hands during the months-long closing period after a transaction is consummated. He added: “Jerry Yang and the current board of Yahoo! will not be able to “botch up” a negotiation with Microsoft again, simply because they will not have the opportunity.”
This is largely complete nonsense. During the transition period after a merger agreement Microsoft and Yahoo would be working closely and Yahoo would be unlikely to take any actions that jeopardize the deal. What’s far more likely is that Microsoft, led by CEO Steve Ballmer, have taken Yahoo’s rebuffs entirely too personally. It’s no longer just about business, it’s about destroying and humiliating the people who embarrassed Microsoft. And sadly, that has nothing to do with creating a balance of power in search.
Just as I criticized Yahoo for not quickly accepting Microsoft’s offer in early February before the mass executive exodus and destruction of shareholder value, I now point the finger at Microsoft. Yahoo is standing at the alter waiting for you to say “I do,” Microsoft. Time to put up or shut up.
I’m all for a merger. But I won’t stand by quietly while Microsoft destroys what’s left of Yahoo just because it can.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
Top
StockTalkers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
Cliff Wachtel
-
3
Mike Havrilla
-
4
David White
-
5
Hedged In
Top StockTalkers » -
1
We in the outside have no way to know the truth, but appear to me, Yahoo never wanted a deal of any sort. MSFT first offer $41 a share, they said NO, then $31 they said NO, then $33 they said No, then partial deal they said NO. No only that, they made a deal with google, that's stupidest thing in the world. And they generate an employee protection plan, which is no question they want stop any acquisition. You know why, because Jerry in control.
Can't understand why there are so many stupid people in this world.
Looks like it was the original plan. Has nothing to do with search. MSFT and YHOO compete in Web portal business.
Microsoft made an offer and yahoo started playing games by engaging with google and creating poison pill etc. You cannot expect a friendly behavior from others if you're acting hostile. I'm surprised that msft has been much less aggressive than they used to be. The following from msft sounds completely sane business.
"Despite working since January 31 of this year, as well as in the early part of last year, we have never been able to reach an agreement in a timely way on acceptable terms with the current management and Board of Directors at Yahoo!. We have concluded that we cannot reach an agreement with them."
Question - when all is said and done, what is the foundation of Microsoft's success? It's control of the OS.
Given that, Vista should be (and is) representative of the best they can offer to their customers.
If I were Ballmer, I would do whatever necessary to keep investors from focusing on that. Ultimately that is a management issue.
If I were a Microsoft investor, I would certainly want to understand how they intend to improve the management of Yahoo when they can't even manage/protect their most valuable asset.
This isn't the right way to do things. MS will piss off the employees big time. You think the exodus now is bad, wait til you see when MS takes control.
This isn't the right way to do things. MS will piss off the employees big time. You think the exodus now is bad, wait til you see when MS takes control.
MSFT has no other choice at this point but to use a heavy hand, to do otherwise would be to risk real embarassment.
the change of control severance plan is NOT a poison pill to any would-be acquiring entity that actually wants the most valuable assets: the people and technology. It's also not uncommon to have similar things enacted for higher management: it's only unusual that it extends to everyone, down to the lowliest clerks/peons in the company. But if you want something intact and aren't intending on gutting it, it helps to assure those that desire to stay (for whatever reason) that at least if there is a major layoff, they will have something to live off while competing against all their former coworkers for a dearth of jobs with a sudden glut of people to compete against. In all reality, it's the people and their knowledge of the technology and their established teams that Microsoft values: without that, none of what you know as Yahoo! would have succeeded. Without the people who already know how to work together, all Yahoo! (or Microsoft, or Google) would be is a bunch of leased buildings and rapidly depreciating, horribly abused computer hardware.
If it were only about money to get things done by hiring people, Microsoft would already have managed to do it: the reality is if people don't work together properly, things aren't managed properly, and you can't get people to even interview because of who/what you are in the eyes of the potential employees, you'll never achieve the goal. You can't simply hire a bunch of software developers and point them at something and say "Go make us a bunch of money, and we'll pay you!" and have it be successful. After all, how many people do you think Microsoft has working on MSN and all other online properties? Now, how much have they made in terms of profit? (Answer: it'd only be impressive if negative numbers were considered profitable).
Both Yahoo! and Microsoft know that regardless of all other outward appearances, money isn't the solution: having the people Yahoo! has already is the solution, because they know what they're doing from a technical standpoint. Now, the management, well, it may be sinking towards the mess that defines Microsoft: if Microsoft could already manage their way to success, with their many times larger employee base, surely they would have done so by now, wouldn't they?
If stories are correct, top people at Yahoo are leaving in droves now, as they know the ship is way off course. It's time to get very profitable for Yahoo (this won't happen) or sell. Yang is in a corner and can't get out!
Can you say greenmail?
Look, if you are Icahn, would you try to elect a full slate of directors with a huge risk of failure and a total loss financially? Or would you take a guaranteed two or more seats on the board to harass Yahoo and Yang?
Now, if you are Yang, would you leave the fate of your company to a proxy battle that could leave you with a total loss of all of the seats? Or would you bribe Icahn with two or more seats to get past August 1st?
The way this ends is not with a bang but a whimper. Yang eventually pays Icahn for his small stake in Yahoo at $34 a share and says goodbye!
It's happened before and it will happen again. Just ask Carl.