achates

Yahoo's Partnership with Facebook: Strength or Weakness?

I don't think there was anything in the announcement to suggest that Yahoo! was dumping profiles...

Yahoo Outsources All that Social Nonsense to Facebook

Not sure why you consider interoperating to be outsourcing. Do you think rewiring internally would imply cutting off connections to the rest of the world? You're a walled-garden guy?

Yahoo's Dispute of Eric Jackson's Articles

No, the company simply doesn't issue part of the stock that the employee would have received, sending an equivalent amount of money to the Feds as withholding. The shares were never delivered to the employee, so they were never sold.

[IANAL - this is just my understanding of the way it works...]


On Oct 11 10:36 AM icepop wrote:

> So, basically, YAHOO ! is saying that yes this is an open market
> sale.
>
> The only difference between YAHOO ! rhetoric and EJ's is how/when
> someone is liable to pay taxes.
>
> It's not surprising that Google is so far ahead of the shallow-enders's
> @ YAYHOO !!!

Are Yahoo's Charitable Donations Right and Proper?

Umm - those two contributions are in the statement you cited specifically because the Board reviewed them as part of its process of assuring director independence. That is, the Board agreed with you that they needed to consider whether those contributions affected the independent judgment of specific directors. Presumably they decided there was no conflict.

I do agree with you that the company should publish a complete list of its contributions.

Yahoo CEO Bartz Has a Lot of Explaining to Do

It's not that I'm a loyalist, it's just that I tend to post when I think someone is being unfairly described. I sometimes defend people I don't like and don't approve of, if I think the criticism is wrong.

I never post about company negatives - that's for comment inside the company, not with bloggers. That could, I realize, make it appear that I am blindly supportive.

I enjoy working at Yahoo! - it's still full of smart people and is cooperative and supportive, at least at the level of the engineering community. It's not perfect, but a lot of the perception expressed in the blogosphere bears no relation to the reality I see around me.

CEO compensation, here and elsewhere, seems bizarre, but so does lots of other high-earner compensation (sports, entertainment, banks, the market,...). I assume this is a problem with that free market thing. The Compensation Committee presumably arrived at numbers it was willing to pay (because they thought it was to the company's benefit) and Carol was willing to take. We are advised by free marketists to assume that was a rational decision. Why should I be more affronted by the $150K for a financial advisor than about the rest of the package? It's just what they agreed to pay hert.

If you have things to complain about in her actual performance of her job, feel free. My complaint is with you picking on things that have nothing to do with her performance. People are entitled to be paid what their employer agreed to pay them and they're free to do what they like with their pay. That seems basic.

[NB - I work at Yahoo!, but I have never met Carol or any member of the Board and have no special insight into their compensation.]

Yahoo CEO Bartz Has a Lot of Explaining to Do

Jackson's riding this hobby horse for all he's worth, even though nobody else seems to think it's worth talking about.

If what she's doing works, and she does seem to be making some real progress, she's worth what they paid her and more. If it doesn't work, it's just another sorry example of a company paying too much.

In neither case is it her fault that the company agreed to pay her what they did. I want my CEO to be a good negotiator. I'd like to think CEOs are smart enough to know they need to diversify their personal investments as well as riding their company's stock. Since the bulk of her compensation depends on performance, would any reasonable money manager suggest she invest more?

Why Did Yahoo's Carol Bartz Use Shareholders' Money to Pay Taxes?

I still don't think Bartz's decision to take fewer shares instead of paying witholding is a non-story. And I still don't understand how you characterize it as "the shareholders' money" - once the shares go into her account they are presumably off the company's books, whether she sells them or not.

However, if you want to complain about the deal the company gave her and the Directors who negotiated and signed off on it, go for it! I have no strong opinion on that - I don't know what you have to offer to get a viable CEO candidate to agree to come into what seems like a difficult situation. I have to assume they did their due diligence and decided she was worth what she asked for.

It's hard to fault Bartz, though, for abiding by the deal the company offered her. Saying she should give back money is just silly she negotiated for it fair and square, and shouldn't be hassled for taking what the company felt she was worth.

Also note one nit-picking point - she actually didn't sell the shares, she just agreed to take fewer shares instead. It's a fine point, and I have no idea whether she had that in mind when she said she didn't sell anything.

Why Did Yahoo's Carol Bartz Use Shareholders' Money to Pay Taxes?

The Guardian article was, in fact, a balanced piece, unlike this one.

Bartz didn't pay the tax bill with shareholders' money, she paid it with her own. The stock in question was no longer the property of the company or the shareholders, it was hers.

I have no idea how much money she has of her own, presumably a lot, but is it likely that she has that much in cash? Why should she sell other assets, probably incurring additional tax costs?

As a Yahoo employee, it doesn't bother me at all that she took the same option I did when my much, much smaller quantity of RSUs vested - taking a smaller number of shares in lieue of withholding, which is the default option offered by the brokerage that manages the plan.

As to front-loading versus back-loading, these apparently were shares compensating her for the AutoDesk options she gave up to come to Yahoo!. It seems reasonable to put them at the front of her employment. She still has lots and lots of shares and options, and it's still hugely to her benefit to hang around and to work to make improve shareholder value, so what's the big deal?

There's no story here, at all...

Five Conclusions on What Carol Bartz Had to Say About Selling Shares

Um - this mechanism for covering witholding is pretty much standard - it's done for you automatically when your RSUs vest, unless you tell the the brokerage not to.

The "decided to let YHOO shareholders pay her tax bil" is just silly - they had already paid her, whether she sold the shares to cover taxes or not. The shares sold to cover the witholding were hers, not the company's not the shareholders'.

If what you really want to say is "This kind of compensation deal is bad/wrong/broken", then say that and complain about the company making such a deal - don't pick on her every time the company carries out an element of her compensation deal.

[Disclaimer - I work for Yahoo!, but have no knowledge about Carol's compensation arrangements other than what I read here.]

Yahoo's New Search Interface? That's Bing to You

Though there are superficial similarities, I don't think they're any greater than the superficial similarities between Yahoo! search and Google search. Yahoo! won't be using any Microsoft search technology for a long time.

Quite a lot of the search experience happens in the front end, layered on top of (and modifying) the algorithmic results. Yahoo! should still be able to differentiate and innovate to offer things that Microsoft can't.

Flickr Shuts Down Forum Discussion on Obama-Joker Image

Um - censorship is when the government limits speech. A publishing company is free to set set its own standards and expose its own preferences. A company that, like Yahoo!, which in this case is providing a forum, rather than publishing its own content, has a right to impose standards and has an OBLIGATION to obey the law in responding to takedown notices. Such notices are not optional.


On Aug 23 09:26 PM Match Man wrote:

> Very disappointed in Flickr for its "censorship". Very disappointed
> for the deception and underhanded dealings that pervade our political
> system. Very disappointed in both Republicans and Democrats, local
> and national, for turning our country into a third rate state. And,
> I'm no right wing wacko!!!!!!!!!!!

Flickr Shuts Down Forum Discussion on Obama-Joker Image

Anybody who thinks there was a news blackout on the Edwards story was not paying attention. This was big-deal news in all the major news channels. Probably bigger than the Sanford story, though there are things about the Sanford story that make it much more troublesome (like *possible* use of public funds).


On Aug 23 05:19 PM Jimbo wrote:

> The double standard is alive and well in the one party press. Note
> the one sided coverage by Associated Press of the Honduran political
> dust up. Every photo and article is sympathetic to one side. Note
> the coverage of disgraced Governor Sanford in South Carolina with
> the news blackout about former Senator Edwards of North Carolina.
> Looks like we have English language versions of Trud, Pravda, Isvetia,
> and The Daily Worker.

Flickr Shuts Down Forum Discussion on Obama-Joker Image

So, does anybody have ANY evidence that Yahoo! ever received a takedown notice for a Bush parody and failed to act on it? The claims of bias are completely unsubstantiated. If you've got evidence of bias, please share it.


On Aug 23 12:50 PM old indie wrote:

> Negative images of Bush = OK
> Negative images of Obama= not OK
> What else is there to say? Media bias in action.
> From old media (e.g. 60 Minutes forging documents to create a negative
> story on Bush) to new media (censorship of negative images of Obama
> based on political opinions of Flickr staff). It is the same.<br/>
>
> What does this have to do with investing? If the trend continues,
> you will NOT be getting investment information deemed 'harmful' to
> Obama.
>
> Wake up young America.

Flickr vs. Free Speech. Where Is Yahoo's Courage to Do the Right Thing?

Aside from the DMCA question, I would have thought the trademark-infringement issues were larger and more obvious than copyright. That logo and red border certainly make it arguable that someone could confuse it for an actual Time product. Does DMCA cover trademark issues, too? And, I don'tthink there's any concept of fair use around trademark.

Companies that, like flickr, host user-generated content, usually act immediately on DMCA takedown requests. They're a third party, not the one accused of copyright infringement. Their freedom to not have to review everything posted is rooted in willingness to abide by takedown orders when requested. If the parodist wants to fight the issue, that's fine, but that's between the artist and the copyright holder.

Flickr vs. Free Speech. Where Is Yahoo's Courage to Do the Right Thing?

If you don't think the DMCA's assumption of validity is good policy, work to get the law changed. They did what the law required. There is a procedure in the law for responding if you think the take-down request is unjustified.

Live with the law or work to get it changed. Don't pick on companies for doing what the law requires.