5 ms·

I'd be interested to learn about his views and opinions on Yahoo during these past 15+ years. From the various things I've read about him, he seems like he was

I'd be interested to learn about his views and opinions on Yahoo during these past 15+ years. From the various things I've read about him, he seems like he was just a nerd at heart who wasn't interested in the entire business side of Yahoo, and when Yahoo started exploding, he had that "Allen/Woz" mentality of missing the "good old days". I heard about the stories (fair or not) of him spending more time on the golf course than the board room. I also have to think back a few years to when he said "No" to Microsoft's offer for acquisition, a very foolish move looking back. I guess what I'm really saying is I'd like to read his biography when it comes out.

beatle 15y ago
Here's a good title for his biography The Rise and Fall of Jerry Yang How he built a great company and then orchestrated one of the greatest destruction of value in the history of business
- MattGrommes 15y ago
  Facts? I've heard more bad things about the Board of Yahoo than I've heard about his decisions personally.
- phillmv 15y ago
  That's a little hyperbolic. Also, what about the AOL-TimeWarner people?
gcb 15y ago
<quote>when he said "No" to Microsoft's offer for acquisition, a very foolish move looking back.</quote> name companies acquired by Microsoft when microsoft already had competing products, which ended up well for both parties. honest question. I have to believe there are a couple. and i'd like to know about.
- bluedevil2k 15y ago
  His job was to do what was best for shareholders, not his employees and definitely not himself. Tough to argue that turning down $33 for the current $15.50 was best for shareholders.
  - xxpor 15y ago
    >His job was to do what was best for shareholders Says who?
    - BrandonMTurner 15y ago
      The law mostly. Otherwise ownership of companies would be mostly pointless, similar to that of gambling (in that your fate would be mostly random, more so then it currently is). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_directors#Duties http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_directors#Duties
      - dodedo 15y ago
        Your statement about the law is for the most part not true. There's a much more in-depth discussion of this at this older HN posting: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3227980 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3227980 I agree with you that yahoo should have sold to microsoft, by the way. But the legal duty to maximize value bit is just not accurate.
    - bluedevil2k 15y ago
      The corporate charter.
    - shingen 15y ago
      Says the fact that he was on the board of directors of the corporation (emphasis on the fact that it's a public corporation consisting of shareholders). Legally, in his role, his responsibility was to the shareholders first.
      - freejack 15y ago
- 3am 15y ago
  I think that was said from a shareholder/owner perspective. Microsoft's offer was for more than double Yahoo's current price per share, and that was 4 years ago.
  - robotresearcher 15y ago
    A CEO has fiduciary responsibility for the property of the shareholders. A CEO can have other perspectives if he or she wishes, but the shareholder perspective better be high on the list.
    - 3am 15y ago
      Technically, a CEO doesn't have fiduciary duties. The board of directors does, and the CEO runs the company/reports to the board. I know what you mean, of course.
      - robotresearcher 15y ago
        Interesting, thanks for the correction. Do you know if this varies by jurisdiction, or is it pretty much universal?
        3am 15y ago
        Sorry, I don't know. I think that's the case for all public companies in the US, at least (I don't know if it applies to limited parterships, private corporations, s-corporations, etc). I searched to confirm CEOs were not necessarily fiduciaries before I posted, and I did see that officers could be fiduciaries (eg, for internally managed pension funds - though it didn't have to be the CEO).
        3am 15y ago
        You know what, beatle is right, I'm wrong. Not sure when or how I developed the misconception, but I'm sorry for speaking outside my area of expertise and blowing it.
      - beatle 15y ago
- gcb 15y ago
  i love how this question became a parallel discussion about the CEO responsability to the board, but NO ONE addrese
- gcb 15y ago
  i love how this question became a parallel discussion about the CEO responsibility to the board, but NOBODY addressed the main point. if no one can mention how a deal with MS does not KILL the company, how can they defend that a deal was the best? CEO et al job is to maximize value for the company. not to serve shareholders that want to make a quick buck turning around shares.

beatle 15y ago

Here's a good title for his biography The Rise and Fall of Jerry Yang How he built a great company and then orchestrated one of the greatest destruction of value in the history of business

MattGrommes 15y ago
Facts? I've heard more bad things about the Board of Yahoo than I've heard about his decisions personally.
phillmv 15y ago
That's a little hyperbolic. Also, what about the AOL-TimeWarner people?

gcb 15y ago

<quote>when he said "No" to Microsoft's offer for acquisition, a very foolish move looking back.</quote> name companies acquired by Microsoft when microsoft already had competing products, which ended up well for both parties. honest question. I have to believe there are a couple. and i'd like to know about.

bluedevil2k 15y ago
His job was to do what was best for shareholders, not his employees and definitely not himself. Tough to argue that turning down $33 for the current $15.50 was best for shareholders.
- xxpor 15y ago
  >His job was to do what was best for shareholders Says who?
  - BrandonMTurner 15y ago
    The law mostly. Otherwise ownership of companies would be mostly pointless, similar to that of gambling (in that your fate would be mostly random, more so then it currently is). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_directors#Duties http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_directors#Duties
    - dodedo 15y ago
      Your statement about the law is for the most part not true. There's a much more in-depth discussion of this at this older HN posting: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3227980 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3227980 I agree with you that yahoo should have sold to microsoft, by the way. But the legal duty to maximize value bit is just not accurate.
  - bluedevil2k 15y ago
    The corporate charter.
  - shingen 15y ago
    Says the fact that he was on the board of directors of the corporation (emphasis on the fact that it's a public corporation consisting of shareholders). Legally, in his role, his responsibility was to the shareholders first.
    - freejack 15y ago
3am 15y ago
I think that was said from a shareholder/owner perspective. Microsoft's offer was for more than double Yahoo's current price per share, and that was 4 years ago.
- robotresearcher 15y ago
  A CEO has fiduciary responsibility for the property of the shareholders. A CEO can have other perspectives if he or she wishes, but the shareholder perspective better be high on the list.
  - 3am 15y ago
    Technically, a CEO doesn't have fiduciary duties. The board of directors does, and the CEO runs the company/reports to the board. I know what you mean, of course.
    - robotresearcher 15y ago
      Interesting, thanks for the correction. Do you know if this varies by jurisdiction, or is it pretty much universal?
      - 3am 15y ago
        Sorry, I don't know. I think that's the case for all public companies in the US, at least (I don't know if it applies to limited parterships, private corporations, s-corporations, etc). I searched to confirm CEOs were not necessarily fiduciaries before I posted, and I did see that officers could be fiduciaries (eg, for internally managed pension funds - though it didn't have to be the CEO).
      - 3am 15y ago
        You know what, beatle is right, I'm wrong. Not sure when or how I developed the misconception, but I'm sorry for speaking outside my area of expertise and blowing it.
    - beatle 15y ago
gcb 15y ago
i love how this question became a parallel discussion about the CEO responsability to the board, but NO ONE addrese
gcb 15y ago
i love how this question became a parallel discussion about the CEO responsibility to the board, but NOBODY addressed the main point. if no one can mention how a deal with MS does not KILL the company, how can they defend that a deal was the best? CEO et al job is to maximize value for the company. not to serve shareholders that want to make a quick buck turning around shares.