Forum Moderators: open
[news.cnet.com...]
Yang to Step Down After Microsoft, Google Deals Fail [bloomberg.com]Nov. 17 (Bloomberg) -- Yahoo! Inc. Chief Executive Officer Jerry Yang will step down, following his failure to negotiate a takeover by Microsoft Corp. and broker an online advertising agreement with Google Inc.
Yahoo is searching for a new CEO, the company said today in a statement. Yang, 40, will continue to serve on the board. He took the top job at the 13-year-old Internet company in June 2007, promising to win back users and advertisers lost to market leader Google.
Who ever takes on the roll of CEO, will clearly have their work cut out. Yahoo is in deep, The choice of new CEO will be the most importaint desicion Yahoo has ever had to face.
Mack.
The choice of new CEO will be the most importaint desicion Yahoo has ever had to face.
Who could that be? Already with Yahoo or not?
P.S.
WW - nice job with spelling check, BTW. Thanks!
I agree that Yang was "too close". His emotional ties seemingly led him down a path of poor decisions. I got the feeling he was rejecting the MS bid just because it was MS -- even though it looked like the correct decision financially at the time.
Jerry didn't seem to do much but neither did the last guy.
About time I'd say. This guy single-handedly shafted shareholders for almost $15 a piece.
Shareholders had the opportunity to sell their shares when it hit $30 back in February... but greed had them holding out for a buy-out by Microsoft.
So shareholders cannot complain. They missed the boat. As did the rest of America as the stock market tanked since then.
I think most of us would be hard pressed to find a handful of US companies whose stocks are doing well right now.
If shareholders did not agree with how Yahoo was being run during the Microhoo talks, they should have sold their shares. If they stuck around, then they were either being greedy, or they believe in Yahoo.
[edited by: moTi at 3:07 pm (utc) on Nov. 18, 2008]
but greed had them
I haven't owned any shares of Yahoo! for years so my response to the comment "but greed had them" isn't a personal defense but an observation.
When Microsoft came knocking Jerry Yang wasn't telling shareholders to "be irrational", i.e. greedy. He was telling shareholders that there was greater value tied up in the Yahoo brand than Microsoft was offering.
IF investing is a manifestation of greed then everyone is guilty. However, most folks I know who are invested in the stock market aren't motivated by greed. They're motivated by reason, however poorly informed, by the likes of fiduciaries such as Jerry Yang.
When Microsoft came knocking Jerry Yang wasn't telling shareholders to "be irrational", i.e. greedy. He was telling shareholders that there was greater value tied up in the Yahoo brand than Microsoft was offering.
You are correct, and the same may be true today in the long run. Their stock price is really irrelevant. Every company's stock has tanked regardless of performance.
Would we agree that Google is doing very well in this economy and has a healthy business model, dominating its market with growing revenues? Well look at their stock price compared to Yahoo:
link to stock price [finance.yahoo.com]
You can see they have pretty much fallen together equally over the last year. The stock prices across this country are irrelevant to company potential and performance right... it is based on fear and control by the masses of day traders.
So to me, it comes down to branding. And I don't think Yang is wrong about the Yahoo brand over the Microsoft brand. I think Yahoo is a better internet brand, and has more potential than if they were to be swallowed up and eventually 301 redirected to Live.com and MSN.com.
That is from a long term brand perspective. The easy argument that anyone can make is that the investors would have made more money if they sold to Microsoft. This is true, as is the statement that they would have made more money if they sold their stock regardless of the sale to Microsoft before the markets tanked.
So let's say the stock never tanked just like every other stock in the US right now. Let's say it held its value while all other stocks tanked. The investors would not be complaining right now, because they would not have lost their money (potentially).
So it does boil down to greed, money and a ticked off market of investors losing their pants in every investment right now... and someone wants to see a head roll for accountability beyond themselves...;-)
[edited by: encyclo at 11:08 am (utc) on Nov. 19, 2008]
[edit reason] fixed side-scroll [/edit]
Its all hyped up, there is actually no reason why Yahoo have to do or change anything but continue doing what their best in the world at - being a portal. I bet Microsoft are laughing at all the #*$! they've caused.
I think Jerry's main problem was he was to attatched. In business you realy need to think with the head, not the heart. Yahoo! was clearly his "baby".
If you look back at the threads when MS was going to by Yahoo, you'll see there were many people saying, "Don't Do It". He wasn't alone at the time and hindsight is crystal clear.
I'm sure he wasn't working independently on the decisions, there were others involved and advising.
Not worried about Yang, he will bounce back in some other form. He succeeded once, he can do it again with another venture.
Let's not forget that while a CEO is appointed by shareholders, shareholders are NOT the only stakeholders in any company.
Shareholders are almost by definition (for a publicly traded company) interested in the _very_ short term and terribly hard to convince to see anything but the dollar value of today's shares.
Other stakeholders (think e.g. employees) are generally in it for a far longer term, as is the CEO him/herself. The users of Yahoo!, society at large around the globe, ... are also stakeholders in Yahoo! and they are in it for an even longer term.
As such I think it's a pity he has to go as it seems he was reasonably good at protecting interests of other stakeholders aside of the greedy (by definition) shareholders.
