Adam Lashinsky's dispatches on finance from the West Coast
Type Size  -  +
February 13, 2008, 7:50 am

Think Microsoft-Yahoo won’t happen? Think again

By Adam Lashinsky, Senior Editor at Large

My friend, the Newsweek columnist Daniel Gross, posted an entertaining and informative column this week on Slate about what he sees happening next in the Microsoft-Yahoo merger. Like everything Dan writes, this column is worth reading, partly because it’s delightful and also because he does a great job of explaining how these catfights typically work. I agree with everything he wrote — except his conclusion.

To boil down his wonderful words, Dan believes that because Yahoo’s (YHOO) stock price hovers around $29.50, where it’s been more or less since Microsoft (MSFT) offered on Feb. 1 to buy the company for $31 a share, Wall Street is signaling its belief the deal will collapse. He reasons that if investors believed a higher bid was coming, the stock would trade higher. The fact that no private-equity or sovereign-wealth firm has materialized to bid for Yahoo is further proof that no one wants it and that Microsoft won’t fight.

I beg to differ, and not just because I wrote in the current issue of Fortune that a Microsoft acquisition of Yahoo is inevitable. First, Yahoo’s stock price is held back in part because Microsoft’s stock price is down, and half its offer is in stock. Second, if the market really believed that Yahoo will succeed in telling Microsoft to buzz off, the stock wouldn’t be at $29 and change. It would have plunged back toward $19, the sorry level to which it had fallen just before Microsoft dropped its bomb.

Yes, Yahoo traded for $31 not so very long ago. But that was before investors realized how little was going on inside the company, that CEO Jerry Yang was taking his sweet time to clean house, that Yahoo continued to poorly articulate its growth strategy and, perhaps most importantly, that the company faces “headwinds” in its core business, online display ads. Those realities haven’t changed since Microsoft offered to buy the company.

As for another bidder materializing, the fact that nobody — not a phone company, not another media company and certainly not a private-equity shop — has stepped forward tells you something about how the world outside Redmond, Wash., and Sunnyvale, Calif., views Yahoo’s valuation. A financial buyer simply can’t make the numbers work; Only Microsoft can.

But can’t Yahoo simply say no? Sure it can. But if Wall Street really believes no means no, you’ll see a stock drop and lawsuits fly. “We do not believe that Yahoo’s board will be able to turn down a mid-$30s bid without another offer in hand,” RBC Capital Markets analyst Jordan Rohan wrote to clients this week. “Yahoo management has already exhausted the patience of its largest, longest-suffering shareholders and Microsoft’s offer allows them to save some face.” Rohan then reports something I haven’t seen elsewhere: “Microsoft held several meetings last week with some of Yahoo’s largest shareholders. Ultimately, since there is only one class of stock, if those shareholders band together behind the likely-future-revised Microsoft bid, the deal will eventually get done.”Already, that’s beginning to happen. T. Rowe Price and Legg Mason, two large Yahoo shareholders, have gone public with their support for the Microsoft offer.

What this means is that it’s likely wrong to interpret Microsoft’s lack of a higher bid so far as an unwillingness to raise its offer. Instead, think of Microsoft’s behavior as a pause, an opportunity to make Yahoo sweat — or at least get an earful from its own shareholders. Of course Microsoft will raise. But only after Yahoo has the time to consider the meaning of Microsoft not raising.

A few more things to consider, at least for readers not caught up in the mind-messing media games that get played by all sides in this circus. The Wall Street Journalis reporting in Wednesday’s editions that Google (GOOG) is no longer overly interested in pursuing a revenue-sharing deal with Yahoo for search ads. It sources are “people familiar with the matter.” I haven’t checked, but I’m guessing that the Journal, citing “people familiar with the matter,” first broke the news that Google was interested in pursuing a revenue-sharing deal with Yahoo for search ads. Gold star for anyone who can guess where that information started and ended.

Similarly, the conventional wisdom for why Microsoft won’t actually mount a hostile takeover bid, a term of art that is different from the public “bear hug” it currently is pursuing, is that it would scare away Yahoo’s best people. What’s odd about that is that the conventional wisdom up until earlier this month was that most folks you’d want to retain at Yahoo already had left. Conventional wisdom’s a funny thing.

A final thought, and not a happy one for Microsoft, but even less so for Yahoo. Yahoo undoubtedly will draw this process out for a bit. Who knows, they may even force Microsoft to mount a proxy fight, though I doubt it. But let’s say it’s three months before Yahoo acquiesces and another nine months before U.S. and European regulators approve a Yahoo acquisition. Google likely will complete its long delayed DoubleClick purchase this spring. Under this scenario, it would then have a year’s headstart against MSN-Yahoo, which will be the mother of all integration challenges. Neither Yahoo nor Microsoft and the ad businesses it acquired when it bought aQuantive last year will stand still, of course. But talk about distractions.

Also, I meant the comment below the my other one. The article was superb.

Posted By Bob, NY, NY. : February 13, 2008 10:24 pm

What a moron. AMD processors are the biggest piece of junk since floppy disks.
Horrible performance, design, and management. Example: AMD buys ATI, putting themself in debt. Wow, what a smart move! At least Microsoft has the cash to buy Yahoo! outright. Even the combined power of Microsoft and HP couldn’t beat Dell. Also, in case you didn’t notice, Dell phased out sales of AMD-equipped computers from their online store, citing POOR sales and a lack of satisfaction from customers, though they plan to sell AMD machines in Wal-Mart, where buyers do not care if they get a piece of junk.

Also, news flash: The Xbox 360 is the BEST SELLING console of the Seventh Generation. They also managed to sell 8.1 MILLION copies of ONE video game in three months. I think their hardware division is just fine.

Posted By Bob, NY, NY. : February 13, 2008 10:20 pm

It seems to me that Microsoft is very allegric to any low profit operations. Microsoft think it must make at least 80% profit or forget it.. IBM, HP, Sun run both software and hardware operations. Microsoft is just straight software and it is MSFT own undoing. Oh, sorry, MSFT has a video game console which is a , well, hardware… cough, cough… MSFT has to understand that it has to soak up lower margin operations in order to grow. Maybe MSFT can buy HP.???? It would make sense to me and it will finish Dell off. I detest Dell for not using AMD chips until recently..

Posted By Gumby, SF, CA : February 13, 2008 11:35 am

.

the Microsoft strategists doesn’t seem so smart…

Yahoo was a quickly falling value company before the Microsoft bid, so, the best way to buy Yahoo, WAS to wait just a few months to see its price go down to half the current value (or less)

that’s STILL the right strategy for Microsoft: just claim you want to recede from this bid, so, Yahoo value falls quickly, then, wait a year or so to buy Yahoo (or, maybe, Yahoo+AOL) for cents…

————————————–
http://www.NewSpaceAgency.com/

.

Posted By Gaetano Marano – Italy : February 13, 2008 9:04 am

I thought about the “best people leaving” argument surrounding a hostile bid. I came to the conclusion that Microsoft doesn’t necessarily want Yahoo’s best people; it’s got plenty of its own. Instead, Microsoft wants the search and ad businesses, which are not necessarily brainpower-related.

Posted By Curmudgeon, Nashua NH : February 13, 2008 8:34 am

Excellent article. I absolutely agree with the hard facts that the stock trades as if the buyout would still happen.
Something that makes me wonder however is the fact that if you look over at AOL these days it looks like they had prepared for a merger for some time, basically adjusting all of their content so that the integration of Yahoo! content would be very easy. Why two companies that are on the down slope would be trying to get together is not quite clear, because neither property would change their downward fall but only buy time.
A company that is growing would certainly benefit from Yahoo!’s or AOL’s content and userbase, but a company that is on the downturn would not really benefit. This is the main reason why no other buyers are showing up.
An acquisition by Microsoft makes perfect sense. The client base, the reach and the content are all much more valuable to Microsoft than anybody else. Microsoft is buying reach and time in order to successfully fight Google.

With everything remaining unchanged, I believe the deal will happen, unless there is already some agreement in place already that AOL would indeed merge with Yahoo!

Investors should be selling this stock as soon as possible. If Yahoo! Microsoft won’t happen, the stock will drop back to $19 and with an announcement of an AOL merger I see the stock dropping another $5, simply because of dilution and the fact that the multiples will change. On the upside I see a deal going through at $31 not more like everyone is claiming. That makes an upside of less than 10% from here vs. a downside of around 50% from current level. Chances for either one to happen are about 50/50, who knows, but I would not gamble. My bet would be to buy MSFT and possibly some AOL.

Posted By Peter Suhayda, Ravensburg, Germany : February 13, 2008 8:29 am

I was hoping someone would point out the impending doom for Yahoo! that is DoubleClick. Having even 6 months (migration effort, billing data, etc…) will get GOOG in prime position to get an even bigger leap on either MSN or Yahoo!.

Posted By Keith, Mansfield, MA : February 13, 2008 8:22 am
CNNMoney.com Comment Policy: CNNMoney.com encourages you to add a comment to this discussion. You may not post any unlawful, threatening, libelous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic or other material that would violate the law. Please note that CNNMoney.com may edit comments for clarity or to keep out questionable or off-topic material. All comments should be relevant to the post and remain respectful of other authors and commenters. By submitting your comment, you hereby give CNNMoney.com the right, but not the obligation, to post, air, edit, exhibit, telecast, cablecast, webcast, re-use, publish, reproduce, use, license, print, distribute or otherwise use your comment(s) and accompanying personal identifying information via all forms of media now known or hereafter devised, worldwide, in perpetuity. CNNMoney.com Privacy Statement.
Adam LashinskyWall Street watchers think of capital markets and financial players out west as being on the "other" coast. That's not how it's viewed in the Pacific time zone. From the venture capitalists of Sand Hill Road to the bond kingpins of Orange County to the corporate finance department at a certain software company in Redmond, Wash., there's plenty going on "out there." Adam Lashinsky should know. A native of Chicago, he has covered West Coast finance for a decade, with an emphasis on money matters in Silicon Valley. If it involves money and it's happening west of the Mississippi, look for it in Go West.
* : Time reflects local markets trading time.† - Intraday data delayed 15 minutes for Nasdaq, and 20 minutes for other exchanges.• Disclaimer
Powered by WordPress.com VIP.