There seems to be a flaw in the article's line of reasoning: * whatever you think Yahoo is, * a 35 percent stake in a separate but similar publicly traded comp

There seems to be a flaw in the article's line of reasoning: * whatever you think Yahoo is, * a 35 percent stake in a separate but similar publicly traded company called Yahoo Japan These two have a similar value, presumably. So setting them to different values in the author's valuation equation doesn't really make sense. If Yahoo! was actually worth less than just the Alibaba stake, that would of course be very significant, since that's not a similar company at all.