Microsoft: We only wanted to buy Yahoo if quickly

With Yahoo now off having fun with Google, Microsoft is trying to convince its troops that the single life ain't so bad.

In a memo to those in his unit, Windows and Windows Live boss Kevin Johnson said part of the reason Microsoft abandoned its offer to buy Yahoo was that it viewed speed as of the essence if it were to buy the company.

"In a March 10th meeting in Palo Alto, we explained to Yahoo management the importance of reaching an agreement by the end of April in order to have an opportunity to complete the regulatory process by the end of this calendar year," Johnson wrote in the memo, which was seen by CNET News.com. "Because we could not come to an agreement on price by the end of April and given our concerns about Yahoo's business performance, we elected to withdraw our bid and pursue better options for Microsoft."

Once that didn't happen, Johnson said Microsoft moved on to explore another type of deal, details of which have dribbled out over the last day or so. Johnson highlights why he thinks Microsoft's deal was a better one for Yahoo shareholders.

Here's the full text of his e-mail (with exclamation points removed from Yahoo's name):

From: Kevin Johnson

Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 2:20 PM

Subject: Update on our Yahoo discussions

I wanted to take an opportunity to provide my thoughts and perspective on the conclusion of our discussions with Yahoo, and its announcement of a commercial agreement with Google.

As I shared in my mail on May 18 (see attached), we have better options than a full combination with Yahoo at the price it suggested, and we have moved forward on our strategy to grow our online business.

Let me share a little background with you. When we made our original proposal on February 1st to combine with Yahoo, we offered a 62 percent premium that was based on a desire to reach an agreement in short order. The faster we could reach an agreement, the sooner we could begin the regulatory process and create value through this combination.

In a March 10th meeting in Palo Alto, we explained to Yahoo management the importance of reaching an agreement by the end of April in order to have an opportunity to complete the regulatory process by the end of this calendar year. Because we could not come to an agreement on price by the end of April and given our concerns about Yahoo's business performance, we elected to withdraw our bid and pursue better options for Microsoft.

During the last few weeks, we spent a considerable amount of time with Yahoo discussing an alternative proposal around search. Specifically, this search proposal had three components:

• Microsoft would have invested $8 billion in Yahoo at $35/share;

• Microsoft would have purchased Yahoo's search assets for $1 billion, and assumed the operations and R&D expense while returning data back to Yahoo for use in their advertising business; and

• Microsoft and Yahoo would have entered into a long-term search partnership, where Microsoft would have provided favorable economics to Yahoo search, including a three-year guarantee of higher monetization than Yahoo's Panama paid search system currently provides.

This partnership would have created a stronger competitor to Google, providing greater choice and innovation for advertisers, publishers and consumers. This approach could have been implemented quickly and would have simplified the integration process for both parties. It would have also established the basis for a long-term Internet partnership between Yahoo and Microsoft.

We believe this proposal would have created compelling value for Yahoo and its shareholders in at least three ways:

• New Transfer of Cash to Yahoo Shareholders. This proposal would have transferred $9 billion from Microsoft to Yahoo, which could have been used by Yahoo to reward their shareholders.

• A More Profitable Ongoing Business. This proposal would have resulted in higher operating income on an annual basis for Yahoo, with our projections more than doubling Yahoo's operating income in the first year of operation, and increasing it by more than $1 billion above its current operating income level.

• A More Compelling Search Offering. The combination of the search platforms would have unlocked new R&D innovation, eliminated redundant engineering efforts and allowed for greater scale in serving our customers.

Taken together, we believe that our proposal would have created total value for Yahoo's shareholders in excess of $33 per share.

Unfortunately Yahoo has chosen a different course, and yesterday announced an agreement that would start to consolidate over 90 percent of the paid search advertising market in Google's hands. This will make the market far less competitive. There are many experts who suggest that a host of legal and regulatory problems lie ahead for Google and Yahoo.

Regardless of Yahoo's decision, we will continue to move forward on our strategy in online services and advertising.

Since my mail on May 18, we have been making great progress. At our Advance '08 conference, we announced Live Search Cashback and Live Search Farecast, and the initial response to these user experience and business model innovations in search has been very positive. On June 2nd, we also announced a distribution deal with HP, the world's largest PC manufacturer, to install a Live Search-enabled toolbar on all HP consumer PCs planned to ship in the United States and Canada, beginning in January 2009.

We look forward to sharing more milestones and details on our plans as we head to MGX (the company's annual sales conference) and our Financial Analyst Meeting in July.

I remain confident in our assets, plans and people to succeed in building our online business. Thanks again for your commitment and focus.

Regards, Kevin

[t8]

Even if Google had a monopoly, that is far better for everyone than Microsoft being a major player.

Has everyone forgot about the abuses and theft that Microsoft has been convicted of. If they had power on the Internet, then that would make them much worse than they are on the Windows Platform. In the end their greed is stifling innovation on the Windows Platform, so why would anyone want that kind of company as a major player in the Web space?

The Web is a great place today and Google is the biggest Internet company out there. Why give Microsoft the chance to @#$% it all up for everyone?

[JCPayne]

Yahoo's start page has become too crowded and busy like Microsoft's portal... They might as well merge.

[Riquez-001]

"MAC" is a network hardware address.
"Mac" is a model of computer, not an OS. for example, I run both Windows & OS X on my Mac.

[beljam]

And if anyone would know what is bad for competition, it would be Microsoft.

[flippermoon]

Paid search is pretty much a open bidding market per keyword search. Who cares if one company controls the bidding market, much like the Nasdaq stock market exchange. The real money is in good search results which drives higher amounts of searches on your platform, once you fix this the $$ will come. (upgrade the UI in adcenter that will help a lot too MSFT)

I bet you in the agreement just signed goog gets less than 5% of the gross click $$ from click from yahoo searches. Paid search is very different from the OS business.

[The_Decider]

What MS really meant: "In our quest to find competent help and a jump start by buying tech that actually works, we tried to buy out Yahoo. We failed. Don't worry, our quest for relevance in the Internet age continues. We will continue to pay your salaries even though you can't do anything of quality, but that is our fault because few competent programmers want to work here and frankly those of us in management really don't understand this crazy web thing."

[Renegade Knight]

Yahoo, Slow? Is MS is moving faster internally?