5 ms·

Yahoo is usually talked about as if it's a joke or a failure. According to a cursory check (ahoy - I'm no finance king so I could be reading this wrong) it's wo

Yahoo is usually talked about as if it's a joke or a failure. According to a cursory check (ahoy - I'm no finance king so I could be reading this wrong) it's worth $19 billion. If I could fail half as well, I'd be pretty happy. Honest question: Am I missing something really obvious? Is Yahoo really falling apart (slowly I guess as the same has been said for the past decade)? Or is it a case of not fulfilling potential?

beatle 15y ago
Yahoo is way under valued. Yahoo was considering selling its stakes in Yahoo Japan and Alibaba Group for $17 billion. Yahoo's current market cap is $19 billion PLUS $2 billion cash. Does that somehow make the value of its U.S. assets negative?
- true_religion 15y ago
  What value that Yahoo chooses to assign to its own divisions is kind of besides the point.
  - dodedo 15y ago
    Those are not divisions, they are shares in entirely separate, publicly traded companies. The valuation is market valuation -- not a number made up by Yahoo.
- kalistoga 15y ago
  The problem is people don't invest in the present but invest solely based on the perception of the company's future.
rdl 15y ago
Yahoo, like a lot of shitty corporations in death spiral, is worth less than the sum of its parts. It's not as if the stock price times shares = market cap is really a great figure, at least over short periods of time, but in the long term, reality tends to converge. Sun was sitting on a cash hoard of billions when Oracle bought it -- plus MySQL, plus some actually valuable technology, plus a lot of great engineers, plus patent portfolio. The assets were probably worth 2-3x the acquisition price! When HP split into HP and Agilent, the printer business alone was valued at more than the entire market cap of the company; the rest of HP was perceived as having negative value. A lot of Yahoo's value is in investments in Asia, investments which are rapidly trying to divorce themselves from Yahoo. Yahoo arguably has a sustainable display ad business, and some destination sites, (although I personally am not into advertising), but to make the turnaround, you'd want to axe the top several tiers of management. The new CEO is a good start; this is a great second step. A rational world with honest and effective boards of directors, coupled with greedy and self interested PE firms of large size probably would have already broken up Yahoo, HP, and RIM. The biggest crime with these companies is the thousands of great engineers stuck there, not accomplishing what they could at more effective organizations.
- fleitz 15y ago
  Death spiral? Please don't get your financial information from techcrunch. I'd suggest checking public market data which suggests that in the last few years has massively increased its profitability Net income for YHOO 2010 1,231.66 m 2009 597.99 m 2008 418.92 m 2007 639.15 m
  - steve8918 15y ago
    This is the danger of relying on a single financial measure to determine the health of a company. That's like only using a person's weight to determine if they're fat or skinny, when it also depends on how tall they are, their gender, the amount of muscle they have, etc. Their net income may have increased, but they did it by selling businesses (Hotjobs and Zimbra) and cutting costs (sales and marketing and product development) dramatically. Their revenues have dropped considerably, and they have had a humungous brain drain. The 2011 estimates for annual revenues are $4.4 billion, down from $6.3 billion in 2010 and from $7.2B in 2008. That's a plunge of 30% YoY. This is what a death spiral is. They achieved profitability by hacking and slashing. At some point, which was likely already passed, you cut to the bone, and you no longer can sustain a viable company, and the pace of decline gets quicker.
    - fleitz 15y ago
      Conversely you could argue that they cut unprofitable fat that while bringing in revenue did not bring in profit. Hotjobs and Zimbra don't strike me as particularly profitable. Also, often times the best outcome for shareholders is to wind down the business and allow them to reinvest the profits, which so far is not an action that YHOO has taken.
fleitz 15y ago
The stock market is an expectations game, it doesn't matter how you do what matters is if you beat expectations. If Groupon manages to lose half as much money as predicted then it will be hailed as a major success despite losing money. If a company consistently outperform expectations then people will also get upset at them. (AAPL) The company can get in big trouble with the market if they make people who usually make money lose money like how the Porsche family short squeezed a number of prominent hedge funds. Note that when hedge funds short the fuck out of a stock with borrowed money on borrowed stock it's not market manipulation, but if a family were not to trade their stock because they have no need to create liquidity for market participants then it's market manipulation. The rule in the finance industry is that if the banks aren't able to profit from your stock price movements then your company is probably doing something illegal according to the securities industry. Unless you are exercising a trading strategy (expectations game) you should generally not give a crap about stock price movements, instead you should look to things like moats, book values, and other things and then check whether the stock price is a reasonably accurate reflection of the value of the company. In this case Yahoo is probably a decent investment which is why many companies are looking to buy the asset.
jleader 15y ago
Yahoo had opportunities to become what Google and/or Facebook are, but didn't. Putting aside the fact that Yahoo's still got more revenue than Facebook, and roughly the same net profit, it's not growing the way Facebook is, and it's only a fraction the size of Google.
ballard 15y ago
Disclaimer: I've interviewed there and turned down a few positions in different departments and I know current/former staff. Anyone in the know knows that Yahoo! pays ridiculous rates (more than Google), but most of its departments can no longer bribe top talent into staying in a shop rife with dysfunction.

beatle 15y ago

Yahoo is way under valued. Yahoo was considering selling its stakes in Yahoo Japan and Alibaba Group for $17 billion. Yahoo's current market cap is $19 billion PLUS $2 billion cash. Does that somehow make the value of its U.S. assets negative?

true_religion 15y ago
What value that Yahoo chooses to assign to its own divisions is kind of besides the point.
- dodedo 15y ago
  Those are not divisions, they are shares in entirely separate, publicly traded companies. The valuation is market valuation -- not a number made up by Yahoo.
kalistoga 15y ago
The problem is people don't invest in the present but invest solely based on the perception of the company's future.

rdl 15y ago

Yahoo, like a lot of shitty corporations in death spiral, is worth less than the sum of its parts. It's not as if the stock price times shares = market cap is really a great figure, at least over short periods of time, but in the long term, reality tends to converge. Sun was sitting on a cash hoard of billions when Oracle bought it -- plus MySQL, plus some actually valuable technology, plus a lot of great engineers, plus patent portfolio. The assets were probably worth 2-3x the acquisition price! When HP split into HP and Agilent, the printer business alone was valued at more than the entire market cap of the company; the rest of HP was perceived as having negative value. A lot of Yahoo's value is in investments in Asia, investments which are rapidly trying to divorce themselves from Yahoo. Yahoo arguably has a sustainable display ad business, and some destination sites, (although I personally am not into advertising), but to make the turnaround, you'd want to axe the top several tiers of management. The new CEO is a good start; this is a great second step. A rational world with honest and effective boards of directors, coupled with greedy and self interested PE firms of large size probably would have already broken up Yahoo, HP, and RIM. The biggest crime with these companies is the thousands of great engineers stuck there, not accomplishing what they could at more effective organizations.

fleitz 15y ago
Death spiral? Please don't get your financial information from techcrunch. I'd suggest checking public market data which suggests that in the last few years has massively increased its profitability Net income for YHOO 2010 1,231.66 m 2009 597.99 m 2008 418.92 m 2007 639.15 m
- steve8918 15y ago
  This is the danger of relying on a single financial measure to determine the health of a company. That's like only using a person's weight to determine if they're fat or skinny, when it also depends on how tall they are, their gender, the amount of muscle they have, etc. Their net income may have increased, but they did it by selling businesses (Hotjobs and Zimbra) and cutting costs (sales and marketing and product development) dramatically. Their revenues have dropped considerably, and they have had a humungous brain drain. The 2011 estimates for annual revenues are $4.4 billion, down from $6.3 billion in 2010 and from $7.2B in 2008. That's a plunge of 30% YoY. This is what a death spiral is. They achieved profitability by hacking and slashing. At some point, which was likely already passed, you cut to the bone, and you no longer can sustain a viable company, and the pace of decline gets quicker.
  - fleitz 15y ago
    Conversely you could argue that they cut unprofitable fat that while bringing in revenue did not bring in profit. Hotjobs and Zimbra don't strike me as particularly profitable. Also, often times the best outcome for shareholders is to wind down the business and allow them to reinvest the profits, which so far is not an action that YHOO has taken.

fleitz 15y ago

The stock market is an expectations game, it doesn't matter how you do what matters is if you beat expectations. If Groupon manages to lose half as much money as predicted then it will be hailed as a major success despite losing money. If a company consistently outperform expectations then people will also get upset at them. (AAPL) The company can get in big trouble with the market if they make people who usually make money lose money like how the Porsche family short squeezed a number of prominent hedge funds. Note that when hedge funds short the fuck out of a stock with borrowed money on borrowed stock it's not market manipulation, but if a family were not to trade their stock because they have no need to create liquidity for market participants then it's market manipulation. The rule in the finance industry is that if the banks aren't able to profit from your stock price movements then your company is probably doing something illegal according to the securities industry. Unless you are exercising a trading strategy (expectations game) you should generally not give a crap about stock price movements, instead you should look to things like moats, book values, and other things and then check whether the stock price is a reasonably accurate reflection of the value of the company. In this case Yahoo is probably a decent investment which is why many companies are looking to buy the asset.

jleader 15y ago

Yahoo had opportunities to become what Google and/or Facebook are, but didn't. Putting aside the fact that Yahoo's still got more revenue than Facebook, and roughly the same net profit, it's not growing the way Facebook is, and it's only a fraction the size of Google.

ballard 15y ago

Disclaimer: I've interviewed there and turned down a few positions in different departments and I know current/former staff. Anyone in the know knows that Yahoo! pays ridiculous rates (more than Google), but most of its departments can no longer bribe top talent into staying in a shop rife with dysfunction.