Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Drama at Yahoo!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Drama at Yahoo!

    From C|Net:

    Pull up a seat and get out the popcorn. High noon came and went with Yahoo refusing the demand by activist shareholder Dan Loeb and his investment company, Third Point, to fire CEO Scott Thompson.

    Third Point has just responded with a demand that the company turn over books and records related to Thompson and the board's vetting process.

    In a statement issued after Yahoo ignored the deadline, Third Point indicated it plans to scour Yahoo's internal records for evidence that it will no doubt use to press its escalating proxy fight for seats on the company's board of directors. The latest filing stems from the disclosure last week that Thompson had lied about having a degree in computer science. His undergraduate degree is in accounting.
    Alleging "wrongdoing, mismanagement and corporate governance failures" connected toYahoo's appointment of Thompson as CEO in January, Third Point says that it wants the documents in order to examine the following:

    • [*=left]To investigate wrongdoing or possible mismanagement by Yahoo's management or any members or committees of its board of directors in connection with the hiring of Scott Thompson as the CEO and his appointment to the board
      [*=left]To investigate wrongdoing or possible mismanagement by Yahoo's management or any members or committees of its board in connection with the appointment of Peter Liguori, John Hayes, Thomas McInerney, Maynard Webb Jr. and Fred Amoroso to the Yahoo board rather than the nominees proposed by Third Point;

    • [*=left]To investigate wrongdoing or possible mismanagement by Yahoo's management or any members or committees of its board in connection with the statements by Yahoo on the afternoon of May 3 that the false filings about Thompson's educational background were "inadvertent."

    • [*=left]To determine whether Thompson, Patti Hart, Liguori, Hayes, Webb, Amoroso, and McInerney are suitable to serve as directors of Yahoo;

    • [*=left]To facilitate communications with other stockholders concerning the matters identified in paragraphs 1 through 4 above, in connection with a proxy contest to replace the current board of directors with nominees proposed by Third Point.


    Third Point also said that the board would best serve the interests of shareholders by accepting responsibility "for this latest debacle" and "provide answers promptly."

    We believe that this internal investigation by this Board must not be conducted behind a veil of secrecy and shareholders deserve total transparency.

    We've contacted Yahoo for comment and will update the post when we hear back.

    But Third Point has seized upon Thompson's fib to raise more questions about the competence of Yahoo's board. It was Third Point that first pointed out the discrepancy in Thompson's record. After receiving Yahoo's acknowledgement of what the company said was an "inadvertent" error, ThirdPoint expressed frustration in its letter about the subsequent sequence of events.

    No other information has been provided by Yahoo as to how it reached that conclusion, or whether the alleged inadvertence was by Yahoo!, Mr. Thompson or some other unidentified third person. Later on May 3, Yahoo! amended its earlier "inadvertence" response, disclosing that it was commencing an investigation into the matter and would disclose the results to shareholders. No explanation was provided as to why Yahoo had decided to commence an investigation after its failed attempt to placate shareholders with its "inadvertent" error explanation.Yahoo has not explained how its Search Committee could hire a CEO without doing a rudimentary check on the applicant's credentials - a check that would have quickly revealed that Mr. Thompson did not have a computer science degree, as disclosed in the public filings which Mr. Thompson had endorsed for years.

    Similarly, Yahoo has not explained how the Nominating Committee could recommend Mr. Thompson to the Board without doing a basic check which would have revealed that Mr. Thompson did not possess the "computer science" degree that he was representing to shareholders he possessed. This is extremely disturbing given the Nominating Committee's belief that "the minimum qualifications for service as a director of the Company are that a nominee possesses. . . an impeccable reputation of integrity and competence in his or her personal and professional activities." ... Since the revelation that Mr. Thompson does not possess a computer science degree, leading corporate governance experts have made it crystal clear that the consequences of such blatant wrongdoing should be very severe.


    Third Point also zeroed in on board member Patti Hart, who led the search committee that picked Thompson. It said Hart exaggerated her own academic background, pointing to Yahoo's 10-K which says she holds a "bachelor's degree in marketing and economics" from Illinois State University. It says that Hart's degree is in Business Administration.
    So we're supposed to trust the books of a company that is headed by a man who won't even tell the truth about his resume and a board that tries to cover it up?

    It's shocking just how pervasive this stuff seems to be.

  • #2
    Re: Drama at Yahoo!

    The one thing that no one seems to get From New International onwards is this:-

    NO ONE OWNS THE F*CKING INTERNET !
    NO ONE CAN RENT SEEK ON IT!
    SOME 7 YEAR KID IN HIS/HER BED ROOM CAN COME UP WITH A KILLER SITE OR "APP"
    TODAYS "COOL" SITE CAN BE HISTORY BY TOMORROW

    I would never invest in any internet site, because a couple of kids could kill you investment over nite
    Mike

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Drama at Yahoo!

      Originally posted by Mega
      I would never invest in any internet site, because a couple of kids could kill you investment over nite
      It can be true, but isn't necessarily true.

      I've just spent 3 weeks dealing with cyber-squatters. Clearly their investments in domains names are paying off.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Drama at Yahoo!

        Originally posted by c1ue View Post
        It can be true, but isn't necessarily true.

        I've just spent 3 weeks dealing with cyber-squatters. Clearly their investments in domains names are paying off.
        would be interested to hear what their tactics are (by PM if broadcasting... uhhh.. i mean... 'netcasting' isnt desireable) in attempting to monetize their investment (in paying the DNS reg fees until they can sell em)

        but i guess the real (or latest) 'net drama' is just getting underway:
        http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...205359660.html

        and still trying to figger out how a startup with barely any revenue (beyond the EBITDA BS #) or even a revenue model can be touted (by GS et al) to be worth upwards of 100 billion - thats Billion with a B

        sounds like the 2nd coming of AOL, IMHO - and we know how that one worked out...
        but hey - i'm too skeptical for my own good (most of the time)

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Drama at Yahoo!

          Originally posted by lektrode View Post
          would be interested to hear what their tactics are...
          Slightly off topic...Should Google be prevented from profiting from cybersquatting?

          http://ip-brands.com/blog/2009/02/sh...ybersquatting/

          Somedays I mistype goofle.com and get through to the domain with info about who owns it. Other days it's down or blocked.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Drama at Yahoo!

            Originally posted by lektrode View Post
            and still trying to figger out how a startup with barely any revenue (beyond the EBITDA BS #) or even a revenue model can be touted (by GS et al) to be worth upwards of 100 billion - thats Billion with a B
            Facebook already has fairly substantial revenue and profits and there's a good chance they can increase both quite a bit considering the unbelievable types of information Facebook's users reveal about themselves to the company. That said, I suspect that most post-IPO shareholders are going to lose money; the $100 billion market cap is nosebleed sky-high.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Drama at Yahoo!

              Originally posted by Milton Kuo View Post
              Facebook already has fairly substantial revenue and profits and there's a good chance they can increase both quite a bit considering the unbelievable types of information Facebook's users reveal about themselves to the company. That said, I suspect that most post-IPO shareholders are going to lose money; the $100 billion market cap is nosebleed sky-high.
              I think in the short to medium term Facebook investors at 100 billion could bleed a bit.

              But I recall the first time as an insider at Amazon WAY back in the late 90's when we hit 40 billion, some of us thought THAT was an insanely high valuation...and it was for the revenue/earnings(lack of) or any other measure of eyeballs/network.

              But fast forward to today and Amazon is sitting pretty at $100 billion....although I reckon it's overvalued again.......but entering at 40B then and exiting now at 100B would be an OK return of circa 8% during a highly insane period.

              Of course, buying Amazon post 9/11 or early 2009 would have resulted in a 40x or 5x bagger respectively.

              Google is sitting at $200 billion at the moment.......I think Facebook has the real potential to match Google's current valuation someday.

              But I would have to agree that Facebook at $100B is crazy high...especially if we're going to enter a dark patch down the track. And the example and period behind us is quite possibly far from the best compared to the period in front of us.

              I'm hoping for an equity bottom feeding opportunity over the next few years...If Facebook were to fall into the $50-70 billion range, or less, I'd look pretty closely at it....could turn into a long term nominal 4-6x bagger.

              Although I have NO plans to touch any equities for the foreseeable future......just sitting and waiting.

              I think I'd rather buy more gold on a reasonable dip than equities on an even bigger dip at this stage.

              I do regret not being more aggressive in early 2009.....the price of most stuff(and many companies) didn't go to zero.......I'm going to optimistically assume the same will happen again....because I'm thinking if a lot of stuff(and companies) DO go to zero it's because we've started another proper war.

              Forgetting about Facebook's likely valuation for a moment........if you combine a period ahead likely to include some quite high financial volatility with Peak Cheap Oil, I could imagine Facebook's massive network of personal connections and raw/unrefined potential yet to be exploited represents a potentially very lucrative Peak Cheap Oil equity investment...at the right price of course.

              How are we going to communicate and interact globally for work and play in a Peak Cheap Oil world?

              One big thing that could negatively affect Facebook in such an environment is even with considerable success and growth, how are we going to pay for it?

              Just me rambling....but I recall us talking about how we were going to move from just one warehouse selling books into a whole bunch of infinite possibilities....some of which have been successfully executed on and some that we didn't even fathom back in 96-97.....I can only imagine what the team at Facebook envisage for their company in 5-10-15 years time but some of it is easy to imagine....assuming they are not disrupted themselves by emerging technology or new competition.

              Just my 0.02c cents.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Drama at Yahoo!

                Originally posted by lakedaemonian View Post
                I think in the short to medium term Facebook investors at 100 billion could bleed a bit.

                But I recall the first time as an insider at Amazon WAY back in the late 90's when we hit 40 billion, some of us thought THAT was an insanely high valuation...and it was for the revenue/earnings(lack of) or any other measure of eyeballs/network.

                But fast forward to today and Amazon is sitting pretty at $100 billion....although I reckon it's overvalued again.......but entering at 40B then and exiting now at 100B would be an OK return of circa 8% during a highly insane period.
                It was pretty obvious that Amazon's stock price got way ahead of itself during the tech stock bubble. [Despite recognizing a stock market bubble during that time, however, I still managed to get massacred on various stocks although I did avoid Amazon stock. ] However, Bezos sure did use that overinflated stock money smartly. When I read about Amazon building those warehouses to make its distribution network more efficient, I was pretty certain that that was going to be a cornerstone to Amazon's success and a tremendous barrier to entry for competitors.

                At a $100 billion market cap today with a frightfully high P/E ratio, I think Amazon stock is again ripe for a substantial correction. Take away all the central bank easy money programs and I can easily see Amazon crashing hard.

                Originally posted by lakedaemonian View Post
                I do regret not being more aggressive in early 2009.....the price of most stuff(and many companies) didn't go to zero.......I'm going to optimistically assume the same will happen again....because I'm thinking if a lot of stuff(and companies) DO go to zero it's because we've started another proper war.
                I think a lot of iTulipers gnashed/are gnashing their teeth over not aggressively buying stocks in early 2009. It's difficult to believe that a crash as deep and widespread as the 2008 crash, where every asset fell except U.S. dollars and Japanese yen, will occur again in our lifetimes. The last comparable crash in U.S. history was the 1929 crash. I think it's beyond even Bernanke's "talents" to trigger another 80-year event in less than 10 years.

                Originally posted by lakedaemonian View Post
                How are we going to communicate and interact globally for work and play in a Peak Cheap Oil world?
                I would be very surprised if it were through Facebook.

                Originally posted by lakedaemonian View Post
                One big thing that could negatively affect Facebook in such an environment is even with considerable success and growth, how are we going to pay for it?
                What I don't see right now is an anchor to the physical world that will serve as a high-cost barrier to entry for Facebook's potential competitors. Facebook is relying entirely on the network effects of its world's largest user base as a barrier to entry. The closest analog I see is eBay, where I don't believe there is a privacy issue.

                For Facebook to grow into its market cap, it's going to have to sell a lot of advertising that leverages the tremendous amount of information they have on their users. Facebook will not only know what a user likes, it will also know what a user's friends like. To the best of my knowledge, no advertising platform has ever had that kind of information so readily available. Will this turn Facebook's users away from the platform to a competitor or away from social media altogether? One idea I've had that may one day be a serious competitor to Facebook is an idea involving private clouds that are controlled by individuals.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Drama at Yahoo!

                  Originally posted by Milton Kuo View Post
                  It was pretty obvious that Amazon's stock price got way ahead of itself during the tech stock bubble. [Despite recognizing a stock market bubble during that time, however, I still managed to get massacred on various stocks although I did avoid Amazon stock. ] However, Bezos sure did use that overinflated stock money smartly. When I read about Amazon building those warehouses to make its distribution network more efficient, I was pretty certain that that was going to be a cornerstone to Amazon's success and a tremendous barrier to entry for competitors.

                  At a $100 billion market cap today with a frightfully high P/E ratio, I think Amazon stock is again ripe for a substantial correction. Take away all the central bank easy money programs and I can easily see Amazon crashing hard.



                  I think a lot of iTulipers gnashed/are gnashing their teeth over not aggressively buying stocks in early 2009. It's difficult to believe that a crash as deep and widespread as the 2008 crash, where every asset fell except U.S. dollars and Japanese yen, will occur again in our lifetimes. The last comparable crash in U.S. history was the 1929 crash. I think it's beyond even Bernanke's "talents" to trigger another 80-year event in less than 10 years.



                  I would be very surprised if it were through Facebook.



                  What I don't see right now is an anchor to the physical world that will serve as a high-cost barrier to entry for Facebook's potential competitors. Facebook is relying entirely on the network effects of its world's largest user base as a barrier to entry. The closest analog I see is eBay, where I don't believe there is a privacy issue.

                  For Facebook to grow into its market cap, it's going to have to sell a lot of advertising that leverages the tremendous amount of information they have on their users. Facebook will not only know what a user likes, it will also know what a user's friends like. To the best of my knowledge, no advertising platform has ever had that kind of information so readily available. Will this turn Facebook's users away from the platform to a competitor or away from social media altogether? One idea I've had that may one day be a serious competitor to Facebook is an idea involving private clouds that are controlled by individuals.
                  Personally, I like the idea of private clouds with maybe a public skeletal/central nervous system to keep it all together connected in a common format.

                  I'm confident Facebook will be able to monetize the rich data it's use voluntarily share......but I can't help but think if we will see an internet version of the video game crash of 1983. -

                  On the topic of Amazon....a couple anecdotes worth sharing....I was involved in the distribution buildout from just the Seattle Distribution Center through the first 2.5 million sq. ft.

                  There was SO MUCH MONEY WASTED it was insane.......but the old adage of "you can have it good, cheap, quick...pick any one" was very much true.

                  Also, Amazon's long-term debt(since retired) was denominated in Euros.......a deal done right about when the US Dollar peaked....it went backwards costing a bit of money as a recall.....but that was all happening around the time I departed.

                  I still think Amazon has a lot of potential......but agree completely.....current valuation is scary!

                  I'm quite interested to see how Amazon maneuvers thru a Peak Cheap Oil world.

                  There's still a lot of cubic air/void space being delivered all around the world.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Drama at Yahoo!

                    Originally posted by lakedaemonian View Post
                    Just me rambling....
                    hey - this is why we're here - ramble on sir.
                    (altho apologies to dc for getting us off the yahoo track)

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X