Email This to a Friend
Is Yahoo! Manipulating Bloggers?
Is Microsoft's bid for Yahoo! really still on, or were bloggers roped into a stock gambit? (For more tech buzz, check out Edgelings — PJM's new Xpress blog!)
Just when we were starting to feel sorry for Yahoo! (sorta), especially now that Henry Blodget has declared it ripe for a leveraged buyout (we wouldn’t wish those LBO vultures on our worst enemy) suddenly it looks like Yahoo! might be manipulating bloggers for a little “pump and dump” of its own.
In case you haven’t been tracking this long, strange story closely, here’s a summary:
Early this year Microsoft, wanting to expand its Web search business to make it more competitive with market leader Google, made a friendly play for the third big player in the business, the ailing Yahoo! Yahoo! rebuffed the offer — leading Microsoft, on Feb. 1, to make an unsolicited $45 billion bid (in cash and stock) for the company, or about $33 per share.
Yahoo!, even as it cast about for better offers, turned down Microsoft’s bid, saying that it was insufficient — a statement that stunned a lot of shareholders and provoked a couple lawsuits.
This dance continued for several months. During this time, the value of Microsoft’s stock fell, reducing the value of its Yahoo! bit to about $42 billion. Meanwhile, industry leader Google took advantage of the moment to publicly suggest that (hint, hint SEC) such a merger might hurt the Internet.
On April 7, Yahoo! managed to say two things on the same day: that it was still open to a Microsoft offer, and that it wanted more than even the original offer. It was about this time that uber-financier Carl Icahn stepped into the game in the name of disgruntled shareholders, started buying up Yahoo! stock, and began talking about putting his own confederates on the board of directors.
On May 3, having made one last try to buy Yahoo! — this time for an additional $5 billion (bringing the offer back up to $33 per share) — Microsoft announced it was walking away from the deal. It was reported at the time that Yahoo! had demanded $37 per share. Yahoo!’s stock, then at less than $29 per share, went into free-fall, hitting $23 per share and costing the company $6 billion in capitalization. At this point, Icahn went public with his complaints about the senior management of Yahoo!, while Silicon Valley bloggers began deathwatches on co-founder/chairman Jerry Yang’s tenure at the top of the company.
On June 12, after even more secret meetings, Yahoo! announced that all negotiations with Microsoft (for the purchase of all or part of Yahoo!) were now over. To soften that blow, Yahoo! also announced that day that it had entered into a deal with Google for non-exclusive shared search advertising. This news was met with mixed reactions: it meant hundreds of millions in new revenues for Yahoo!, but it also gave Google even more apparent control over the search business. Calls for anti-trust investigation quickly ensued.
Meanwhile, in a show of lost faith with the boardroom’s decisions, as many as fifty senior Yahoo! managers have left the company since the beginning of the year — a classic sign of a Silicon Valley company in extremis.
That brings us up to the present. One can appreciate that Yahoo!’s stock is pretty volatile these days — and its shareholders mighty touchy. After all, just over a month ago, the company’s stock was being valued by Yahoo! itself at $37 per share — and had a buyer at $33. On Monday it was down to $20.60 — just a buck-fifty above where it was back in February when Microsoft first made the bid — and the company’s upcoming quarterly financials weren’t likely to make things any better.
And then a stunning piece of news hit the wires. Michael Arrington, the respected head of the TechCrunch blog (and one of Time Magazine’s 2008 “most influential people in the world”), ran an item on his site saying that a number of insiders at Yahoo! had whispered to him that Yahoo! was once again secretly meeting with Microsoft. The Internet lit up with the story.
Not surprisingly, Yahoo!’s stock price suddenly spiked 11 percent at the news, reaching $23.71. Soon other sites were saying the same thing, all of them using unnamed sources. But within the hour, CNBC reported that the news was false, and the stock settled back to $21.80, thus erasing most of the momentary gains. Meanwhile, neither company was available for comment.
So, now, six months into this bizarre mating dance between Microsoft and Yahoo!, with Google on the sidelines trying to seduce Yahoo! (if only to create more chaos and wreck the deal) the story seems to have taken yet one more bizarre turn. Did Yahoo! executives yesterday conspire to lie to lie to Arrington about resurrected negotiations with Microsoft in order to pump the stock price? Or have negotiations really begun again?
If it is the latter scenario, then Yahoo!’s management had better come away with as good a deal as before — or face a very big shareholders’ lawsuit.
And if it’s the former, and Arrington got jobbed, then for the sake of his reputation and to call out criminal behavior on the part of Yahoo!, it is time for him to name his sources and let the SEC take it from there.
Michael S. Malone is one of the nation's best-known technology writers. He has covered Silicon Valley and high-tech for more than 25 years.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
8 Comments
1. CKsting:Good article and glad to see some tech blogging on the site.
Big question here, being a stockholder at 22.20: Who else could buy these guys? Google would not be allowed given the search and display monopoly.
I hate to say it, but Icahn may have been dead on with this one.
Jun 26, 2008 - 1:09 pm 2. Jaded:Sounds to me like some pretty shady dealing going on. I hope the SEC takes a look at this and either finds nothing happened or that Yahoo was attempting to manipulate the market!
Jun 26, 2008 - 6:44 pm 3. The Snob:Even at $25/share it would ~$30B deal and there are not that many companies (MSFT is one of the few) that have that kind of cash on hand. And cash matters, since the bond market is such a train wreck right now, you’d have a hard time financing this sort of deal.
Leaving aside antitrust issues, it would be a hard deal even for Google. They have $12B cash on hand to MSFT’s $24B. They would have to issue a lot of shares which would have a dilutive effect, not to mention the chaos that integrating those companies would entail. I’d classify it as high-risk.
Of course, there’s always the skeery overseas buyers, who always come in on a cheap-dollar shopping spree. The Japanese bought up half of Hollywood’s studios and Manhattan’s real estate in the 80s. If YHOO shareholders are lucky, it’s been long enough for the EMEA shoppers to forget how that worked out.
Jun 26, 2008 - 7:06 pm 4. AndyJ:Only pople without a mortgage or kids can afford to do the right thing. For a journalist to toss out a source who used him would be the kind of Right Thing that we only see in film noir movies from the early ’50s.
Expecting teh SEC to investigate anything is also an unlikely process. The ssytem is wired and only the True Believer still holds to the concepts of Truth, Justice, Right, Honor, Sacrifice, Honesty…
It gets lonely out here some days… Only when the bad guys get theirs does the wee bit of Schaddenfeude provide compensation… It’s enough. Just wish there was more of it.
Jun 26, 2008 - 7:13 pm 5. DensityDuck:I’d be happy to see Yahoo! go away. I work at Lockheed Martin, which is right next to Yahoo, and if Y! fell over and went FFFWWT it would greatly improve traffic. And considering that we actually build things, space rockets and satellites and nuclear bombs and stuff, Lockheed isn’t going to be going anywhere for a LONG time.
Jun 26, 2008 - 11:30 pm 6. The Webloglearner:What a bad speculation they have had. To dream of higher stock price and to pretend a higher demand, Yahoo! have suffered the consequences of its actions. Anyway, too bad for yahoo. Before google, this search engine really reigned, I remember the old times when it was all yahoo and yahoo only! But google broke all those stuffs and dethroned Yahoo!
On the other hand, if Yahoo stay and continue to strive for the better, it would encourage healthy competition and google is right, it might endanger the internet if Yahoo was successfully acquired by Microsoft.
Meanwhile, I guess it was only a move to put more power to Microsoft before Bill Gates finally retires.
Jun 27, 2008 - 5:58 am 7. Three Piece Suit:As a long-time corporate lawyer, I can assure you that an MBA, $5000 custom-made suit, and executive job at an established company is often the disguise of a consummate criminal. Not always, of course, but often enough.
Jun 28, 2008 - 12:52 pm 8. "I didn't open my browser all weekend" Monday | Michael Gracie:[...] Is Yahoo! manipulating bloggers? Doubtful – such action would create even more of a black purple eye. If anything, it’s more likely a renegade faction within. Then again, blog manipulation (i.e. shutting them down) seems to have found its way into the political process. Quelling discontent, or just one more way of saying blogs are really starting to matter? [...]
Jun 30, 2008 - 10:26 am