4 ms·

They will save more than 50 million a year from this. Considering that their yearly income is just 200 million, this is quite a good move financially. Assuming

They will save more than 50 million a year from this. Considering that their yearly income is just 200 million, this is quite a good move financially. Assuming of course, that these workers were excess. But I like Yahoo. Nothing like tough times to help a company get lean, mean and start innovating again.

fallentimes 18y ago
I agree. What the majority of the mainstream media ignores is that they have the most popular sports site (yes, even bigger than espn), most popular mail service, most popular portal, top 3 fantasy sports site, and top 3 finance site. So in short, they have a lot of good going for them. They just need to stop horsing around with bullshit social networks (3 failed tries to date) & the like and focus on what they're good at.
- alecco 18y ago
  Yeah, and in key web technologies like Javascript they are kings.
timtrueman 18y ago
Where exactly did you get these numbers? Unless Yahoos earn an average of $35k a year, $50M is way off. Also net income is over $1B a year. Not disagreeing with your point at all, just curious about the numbers you mention. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=YHOO http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=YHOO
- markessien 18y ago
  Net revenue is over a billion, but what the company actually makes after costs is 50 million a quarter. Was in the linked article. I estimated the annual salary low because I don't know what category of worker would be laid off. Maybe it's just the janitors going.
  - timtrueman 18y ago
    I think you're getting revenue and net income confused. Revenue is over $7B TTM...Net INCOME is over $1B TTM. Sure Q3 was $54M, but at least use TTM or something other than multipling by 4. That's just misleading. Also even the linked article said "[t]he goal was to reduce annual expenses by more than $400 million before the end of the year". Your estimate of saving $50M through layoffs is absurdly off. Even people with no faith in the layoffs ability to reduce operating costs would admit it's going to be the majority of the $400M, i.e. saving at least $200M or roughly $150k per employee (a much more realistic figure if you remember there are costs outside of salary to an employer).
lacker 18y ago
Keep in mind they've hired 1,000 employees over the last year, so this is more like treading water than actually becoming "lean". Also, a better estimate of employee expenses is maybe 150k per, once you include benefits, taxes, et cetera, so this would save around 200 million a year. Yang said the plan is to save around 400 million net so it looks like maybe half of that will come from layoffs.

fallentimes 18y ago

I agree. What the majority of the mainstream media ignores is that they have the most popular sports site (yes, even bigger than espn), most popular mail service, most popular portal, top 3 fantasy sports site, and top 3 finance site. So in short, they have a lot of good going for them. They just need to stop horsing around with bullshit social networks (3 failed tries to date) & the like and focus on what they're good at.

alecco 18y ago
Yeah, and in key web technologies like Javascript they are kings.

timtrueman 18y ago

Where exactly did you get these numbers? Unless Yahoos earn an average of $35k a year, $50M is way off. Also net income is over $1B a year. Not disagreeing with your point at all, just curious about the numbers you mention. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=YHOO http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=YHOO

markessien 18y ago
Net revenue is over a billion, but what the company actually makes after costs is 50 million a quarter. Was in the linked article. I estimated the annual salary low because I don't know what category of worker would be laid off. Maybe it's just the janitors going.
- timtrueman 18y ago
  I think you're getting revenue and net income confused. Revenue is over $7B TTM...Net INCOME is over $1B TTM. Sure Q3 was $54M, but at least use TTM or something other than multipling by 4. That's just misleading. Also even the linked article said "[t]he goal was to reduce annual expenses by more than $400 million before the end of the year". Your estimate of saving $50M through layoffs is absurdly off. Even people with no faith in the layoffs ability to reduce operating costs would admit it's going to be the majority of the $400M, i.e. saving at least $200M or roughly $150k per employee (a much more realistic figure if you remember there are costs outside of salary to an employer).

lacker 18y ago

Keep in mind they've hired 1,000 employees over the last year, so this is more like treading water than actually becoming "lean". Also, a better estimate of employee expenses is maybe 150k per, once you include benefits, taxes, et cetera, so this would save around 200 million a year. Yang said the plan is to save around 400 million net so it looks like maybe half of that will come from layoffs.