Yahoo! Rejects Microsoft Bid!

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by hob, Feb 9, 2008.

  1. hob macrumors 68020

    hob

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2003
    Location:
    London, UK
    #1
    BBC News 24 just reported that the Yahoo! board has chosen to reject the Microsoft bid, according to "someone familiar with the situation"...!
     
  2. xUKHCx Administrator emeritus

    xUKHCx

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Location:
    The Kop
    #2
    Interesting, I wonder if they have had another offer or just don't want to be taken over.
     
  3. CRAZYBUBBA macrumors 65816

    CRAZYBUBBA

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Location:
    Toronto/Houston
    #3
    Surprising. It was a good offer. I think it's the "don't want to be taken over"
     
  4. samh004 macrumors 68020

    samh004

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Location:
    Australia
    #4
    Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A93 Safari/419.3)

    I can't imagine joining both companies would do much good anyway.

    As another article pointed out, yahoo is only doing well because of recent acqusitions. I think microsoft should start out with some smaller ones if they want new growth.
     
  5. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #5
    They know that Yahoo!, it's brand, and the direction they can develop the company in will be limited to Ballmer's obsession with Google and sales-based mentality that's why. Microsoft wanted Bungie to end up as a Halo franchise development house and nothing more. That says a lot about how they pigeon hole their business units.
     
  6. BoyBach macrumors 68040

    BoyBach

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #6
    I thought it was a proposed 'hostile' takeover? Therefore it doesn't make much difference what the Yahoo! board think about the Microsoft offer.

    Or am I wrong?
     
  7. hob thread starter macrumors 68020

    hob

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2003
    Location:
    London, UK
    #7
    I'd heard hostile takeover, but I have no idea what it means. Presumably the board can have some say...!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takeover#Friendly_and_hostile_takeovers
     
  8. Aniej macrumors 68000

    Aniej

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    #8
    This is a very redacted and brief version without much detail, but a hostile takeover is where the offer was not solicited by the target, here yahoo. The board has a say because they oversee business decisions such as these. They had a fiduciary obligation to preserve the interests of the corporation's value for its shareholders. The added component is that Microsoft can go offer shareholders a high premium over the price they paid for their shares in an effort to get around the board's decision. Presumably in theory, a shareholder who paid let's say $15 will want to sell when they are offered $45. That pretty much sums it up very very very quickly.
     
  9. hob thread starter macrumors 68020

    hob

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2003
    Location:
    London, UK
    #9
    Cheers :)

    There's more here: http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/2/yahoo_to_microsoft___ok__let_s_talk__

    It would seem that the BBC's initial report whilst accurate was not the whole story. This article talks about the rejection being more of a hold up, so they can sort of milk MSFT for a little more... and at the same time making sure they can't be accused of screwing over their shareholders (by not taking the deal).
     
  10. Twilight Elk macrumors regular

    Twilight Elk

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2007
    Location:
    Arizona
    #10
  11. DocStone macrumors regular

    DocStone

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2006
    Location:
    Republic of Texas
  12. Frisco macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2002
    Location:
    Utopia
    #12
    "Just Say No"

    Microsoft is worse than doing drugs!
     
  13. Bosunsfate macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Location:
    Silicon Valley, CA
    #13
    I hope the take over fails. But this sounds like it is just positioning to get a higher bid.

    I don't think Yahoo! has many options here. It's sad to see them go down. And really wish it was some other company, especially one from the Bay Area, that was a likely suitor.
     
  14. Ferali macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2005
    #14
    if this were to go through, how would this affect apple? they have some important ties with yahoo.
     
  15. sam10685 macrumors 68000

    sam10685

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2006
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #15
    Microsoft is a monopoly. I think someone should go to the microsoft bank place and rob it.
     
  16. tothelimit macrumors regular

    tothelimit

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    South Florida
    #16
    'hostile' has to do with what it said at the end of the thread...

    "If this rejection is final, however, Microsoft has the option of taking the matter directly to the shareholders, and bypass the board of directors entirely."

    while the board can reject the offer because they don't want to be any part of Microsoft... in the end, Yahoo! is a publicly traded company and decisions have to be made with the best interests of the shareholders in mind. so if Microsoft is offering $6-7 better per share, they will have no choice.
     
  17. happydude macrumors 65816

    happydude

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Location:
    a gasping dying planet
    #17
    ooh, beat me to it!!!

    call it a fan boy response, but my knee jerk reaction to M$FT not automatically getting everything they want and throw money at just makes me smile. ah, sometimes it's good to be an apple fan boy. but other than that, honestly, i couldn't care less. google is so far ahead in the game, there's no way msft or yahoo can compete, even if they merge and combine forces like some geeked out captain planet to become a bigger giant msft/yahoo bent on taking over the internet search ad revenue. so . . . meh, come as it may, but i'm just glad msft got shut out for now. is that wrong?
     
  18. s.hoz macrumors regular

    s.hoz

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2008
    Location:
    Custer
    #18
    And afterword, we should be able to Pass Go 2x and get $200. If we get thrown in jail, Apple will bail us out with it's "Get of of Windows" Jail Card.


    No, but really. I think Yahoo should have taken the bid. I mean, Microsoft IS a big company, whether we like them or not. But if Yahoo feels that they need to be..."snappy"...then...
     
  19. daveman235 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2007
    Location:
    Buffalo, NY
    #19
    they do ?
     
  20. iCeFuSiOn macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2007
    #20
    Yahoo!: 2. Microsoft: 0.

    This is the second time Microsoft's been beaten down by Yahoo! Good ol' "developers, developers, developers" Ballmer doesn't seem to take no for an answer. Then again, Ray Ozzie isn't the brightest bulb on the ceiling either.
     
  21. Frisco macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2002
    Location:
    Utopia
    #21
    It's not only about Search Engine market share-think advertising, Instant Messaging, etc. If it happens this will be a good move and win for M$.
     
  22. stainlessliquid macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    #22
    People are forgetting about the real enemy here: Google.

    I support Yahoo's decision with whatever they choose but I think it would be best for everyone if MS and Yahoo combined so they can better compete with Google. Google is the monopoly here and they need to be cut down to size so they dont continue to eat everything on the internet until theres nothing left to own. They are completely out of control and somebody has to stop them, even if its MS.

    MS and Yahoo wont be a threat to the internet but they will slow Google down a little bit, the fact that Google is trying to help Yahoo proves that they are scared of losing some market share. If anyone is doing "monopolistic" actions its Google trying to protect their monopoly by interfering with the deal.

    Google is well on its way to owning the internet the same way MS owns computers. That would suck.

    Plus maybe MSN accounts will finally work in Mail.
     
  23. MacTheSpoon macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2006
    #23
    I don't think it'd really be the same; Google, unlike Microsoft, does not use illegal business tactics. They would never act the same as MS, even if they legally achieved a search engine/free email monopoly. I'd never feel as grossed out as I do when I have to use Microsoft products, and I don't see Google using Machiavellian tactics to crush competitors.

    In any case, this whole Yahoo/Microsoft thing is the stuff of high drama. Really something. I hope Microsoft fails.
     
  24. jbernie macrumors 6502a

    jbernie

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #24
    It will be intgeresting to see what happens if MSFT takes the current offer to the shareholders. YHOO stock jumped $10 after the offer from $19 to $29 (in one day of trading).

    YHOO can show some attitude but if MSFT walks away from the bid and the stock returns to the pre bid levels then there will be some very unhappy stockholders who may call for some board members to exit the company.

    A 62% premium on previous day trades was a more than generous offer, generally you see offers around the 20-25% level. The YHOO board will need to be careful with their response, saying no based on current inflated share price is leaving them exposed to a lot of problems.

    MSFT may just be able to pick up enough YHOO shares to cause problems later, say 15% of the stock so they can prevent YHOO going else where for a while.
     
  25. adamcz macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    #25
    Yahoo can't stop Microsoft from buying shares - only the government can stop that if they think it creates a monopoly.

    If Microsoft's offer was both 60% higher than the market price and "grossly undervalued," can somebody explain why the Yahoo board of directors wasn't borrowing billions of dollars to buy back their own shares prior to the MSFT offer? Shouldn't that low price have represented the best possible use of any money they could get their hands on if even the new price is grossly undervalued? Why weren't they taking out second mortgages to buy shares for their personal accounts?
     

Share This Page