Comments on: Yahoo's Jerry Yang on a very hot seat

In the aftermath of Yahoo aligning with Google rather than Microsoft, Jerry Yang is taking a beating. But it's Yahoo's board of directors that should be called to account.

[Remo_Williams]

To Nocera: "Yeah, and it's NOT THE SHAREHOLDERS, DIPSHIT." This "shareholder=owner" premise is wrong, always has been and always will be. Yang works for the customers first, employees second, shareholders third. Period. Shareholders who don't like it should sell, and stop interfering with the company. Let capitalism work its course and stop being second-guessing losers. Yeah, Nocera, you. Loser. Now.

-R

[cyber_earl]

That is a NICE fantasy. However, in the real world when a company DECIDES to go public and GET money for its offering, the order becomes shareholders, customers then emplyees. Sorry. If you want to have customes, employees as the first two, you have to be privately owned. Let's face it, when a company goes belly up, the liquidation courts do not pay -- customers, employees and shareholders.... the poeple who are the shareholders or bond holders get paid first.

[aphoog]

It's capitalism stupid. You borrow my money, then spend it on my terms. Yang cannot bring yahoo stock to $33 in 2 years and that's what msft was paying today....how about remo buying all yahoo stock at $37 and then let yang work for customer, employee and shareholder (in that order)

[The_Decider]

You hit the nail on the head. This is exactly why the US is in decline. Greed rules over growth and common sense.

The only people who lost money betting on the Yahoo-MS merger are total idiots who shouldn't be investing in the first place.

[nbvail]

Bravo! Remo, it is so true. If shareholders need to control all moves by a company they should just start a company and run themselves. Shareholders should be there for the long-term and should buy stock in companies that the believe in, not this short-minded fixation on getting another $ per share. A MS/Yahoo merger would be a disaster for the customers and employees of Yahoo. MS is so over, why attach anything to it. We need more not less competition in America.

[cchenoweth6]

Oh my god, Remo, you've been hurt. Someone has hurt you before, this much is obvious. Who hurt you Remo? Who hurt you? Who hurt you? Who hurt you? Who hurt you?

[bedney42]

Remo -


Sorry, but you're wrong. You're just wrong. The owners of the company are the shareholders... period. In the eyes of the *law* (I mean legal responsibility here), Yang works for them... period. That's why he and the rest of the board are being sued by a number of stockholders for not concluding this deal, as well they should be.


Imagine that you were the investor in a restaurant and you hired a manager to manage the place for you. Now, imagine that the manager decided that your prices were too high and that everything in the place should be 50% off. He decides this independently, without consulting you. According to your logic, that's ok... the customers are deliriously happy and he's working for them right?


Oh, and then he decides that everyone is pay too low and he doubles everyone's pay. He decides this independently, without consulting you. According to your logic, that's ok... the employees are deliriously happy and he's working for them, right?


And, at first, you're ok with this. You're not making nearly as much money as before, and you may grumble, but you're still making some profit and that's ok. Then a new competitor shows up on the block. He provides better service, even though his prices are higher and he pays his employees less.


All of a sudden you start losing a lot of money, because you're product isn't as good but also because you're paying your people way above market rate and you're giving your customer massive discounts. You tell your manager "improve the product", "cut the pay down to what our competitor pays" and "increase our prices to what our competitor charges". But the manager, like a 5-year-old child, says "No! I don't work for you - I work for the customers first and the employees second and I'm doing right by them so go away!". Are you now powerless to stop him?


I know Jerry doesn't like to face reality (obviously), but back in '96 when he took all of these people's money and became obscenely rich, he became nothing but a glorified manager. It is his *legal obligation* to put the owners of the company first. The owners of the company are the shareholders... period.


*That* is capitalism running its course.


Cheers,


- Bill

[The_happy_switcher]

Wow, are you really that ignorant about basic corporate affairs/responsibilities?

[NPGMBR]

Looks like he/she is!

[SilverGhost62]

bedney42, your logic SUCKS. As a shareholder, I back Jerry 100 percent. The shareholder is an INVESTOR, not an owner. This is no different than buying shares off the stock market. As long as Jerry is not squandering the investors money, it's HIS show. I applaud him for telling Billy Bob to stick it where the sun don't shine.

[firepad]

bedney42 is right. The rest of you should educate yourselves. Read "corporate governance" at Wikipedia, particularly the Anglo-American Model section. Pop quiz tomorrow.

[YankeePoodle]

Yang has fiduciary duty towards his share-holders. Yang blew it, and yes the big investors have to vote to move the things in the board meeting. Yang's days are numbered.

[The_Decider]

How did he blow it? Do people really think Yahoo shares would have been worth more after MS destroyed it? Of course not, they are just crying because they held the stock to long and lost a little money. yahoo did what is in the best interest of its long term shareholders, the company, its customers and employees. These short term investors should never, ever be factored into a decision.

[YankeePoodle]

firepad,
bedney42's analogy may be over-simplified but it points towards right direction. NYTimes has nailed it, how Jerry with his massive ego inserted insane poison pills in to HR policy and how childishly he acted. Jerry does not even own 5% of Yahoo! it may be his invention but he auctioned his baby to wall st (and is a billionaire for that reason)and firepad, as much an expert you are on corporate governance, I think for an average observer through out the deal talks Yahoo did not act in good faith esp. towards Microsoft or its own shareholders.

[aphoog]

SilverGhost62 is either yang using a pseudonym or has decided to blow his money away..... are you really a yahoo shareholder ? maybe you are and then maybe you are crazy.... @bedney42's example is right on the money....

[PacificGatePost]

YAHOO?S SHAREHOLDERS LOSE ON MORE THAN ONE FRONT

Great to see that cool heads have finally prevailed at Microsoft. Nevertheless, it was a seriously missed opportunity by Yahoo shareholders.

http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/05/yahoos-board-and-its-shareholders.html

They should have been more vocal. Now it's too late. Their board did not serve them well.

[The_Decider]

But it was not a missed opportunity for Yahoo. Yang made the right decisions for everyone but shortsighted greedy short term investors.

[YankeePoodle]

what explains the insane HR policy changes in Yahoo!, if it is all about money. It is obvious Yahoo negotiated the whole deal with bad-faith, some how wanted to torpedo Microsoft from acquiring, if acquired make it too expensive for microsoft to positively integrate Yahoo!

[Sumatra-Bosch]

Gerry Yang is great. He took Wall Street's money and now he is giving them all the finger, including that twisted freak, Carl Icahn. I love all the raving about Yang's responsibilities in satisfying the needs of the investing billionaires, those poor defenseless victims. Hey, no one forced them to invest in a cheezy search engine\ISP, an enterprise that was almost outdated at the time it was founded. Take their money, Mr. Yang! Light cigars with it! Laugh at them! And, yeah, give them the finger! And tell Ballmer to go back to Duncan Hines and fix the brownie mix. It still tastes like it's flavored with brown crayons.

[partytildawn-20159620461052270]

Part of the problem is that there is no such thing as a "shareholder" any more as most people imagine it. Stock in these companies is owned by faceless non-entities such as investment funds, pension funds, etc. Their only desire is to make money regardless of whether or not the source of the money is ethical or good for the economy. Unethical, heartless, faceless funds now own companies around the nation, and their desire to make a profit ethics-be-damned is destroying America.

[The_Decider]

Exactly!!!!

[rjdohnert]

First, Yahoo missed a big oppurtunity. With MS backing, Yahoo would have been back on the winning seat and in the thoughts and minds of people who may not have been aware Yahoo does everything it does. Big mistake by Yang and Yahoo's board. Yang screwed up when he let personal feelings get ahead of the business and this just shows what little he knows of running a business and in my opinion, as a Yahoo stockholder, how unfit and inadequate he is to hold the top position. Theres more to running a business than "feeding Bills wallet" and I for one am glad that a majority of the posters here are do not run any company I own stock in. For those of you that think Microsoft is "through" or that Microsoft is on its way out, I will say this: Shut up, get your head out of the ground look around and drink in reality.

[The_Decider]

MS is a non-starter in the web markets, that is the reality. They have nothing internally that will change it, which is why they tried to buy Yahoo. There is nothing of value MS could have done for Yahoo. MS wanted Yahoo so they could climb out of the search cellar. MS is the small company trying to buy out the bigger company, they choked on it.

[godofmj]

It always amazes me how many people proclaim to love the market economy and yet do not know s*** about how it works. The investors ARE the owners of a company. Not its employees, not its customers. The CEO is an EMPLOYEE and he is supposed to create value for his shareholders. That's his primary responsibilities. His so-called responsibilities to the customers is based on that premise - make customer happy, make them want to pay more, and owners become richer. Of course, the CEO is meant to have a certain amount of autonomy is making decisions - Yang is paid a lot to make management decisions on behalf of the shareholders. However, when the course of action is blatantly wrong (like rejecting a very generous MS bid without presenting a hint of an alternative plan), he is basically not fulfilling his duty to shareholders and they have every right to protest.

[The_Decider]

Yahoo is worth more today than it was 6 months ago. Yahoo has no areas of growth. Granted, none of that would have been possible without the idiocy of Ballmer. MS was the catalyst to growth. If MS had succeeded, many of the Yahoo shareholders would ahve lost money since MS stock has been stagnant for 8 years or so. Yahoo employees would have left in droves leaving MS with some lower end employees and a lot of source code for systems that they have no understanding.

The business people are ruining the tech world. They have no concept of what works in tech and why. These are the idiots crying about the failed buyout when if it had succeeded they would have been crying harder.

[humanssssss]

And sir, u think u know? Apparently, if more than 50% of shareholders disagree with Yang, they can simply replace him as CEO. Imagine that?!?! Only small vocal shareholders are complaining and hasn't reached more than 50% to take the board.

And know what, if shareholders who are dissatisfy, they can sell their shares in the OPEN MARKET. And know what else? If Microsoft wants to buy Yahoo, they can buy more than 50% of the shares in the open market. And know what Yahoo is a public company. There's nothing stopping anybody to buy up another company in the open market if it's public. And know what, the reason why Microsoft went to Yahoo to make that offer is because if Microsoft buys the shares in the open market, it would be more expensive for them!!!

[NPGMBR]

Wow, The_Decider is trying really hard to make everyone see the world through his/her rose colored glasses. I sugeest that you instead to get educated in business because the things you are saying show your lack of understanding.

[The_Decider]

One correction: Yahoo has NEW areas of growth.

Secondly, why is the hell would I take business classes? They are the least common denominator of college courses. I am a Computer Science MS student. Why would I demean myself and take college courses for retards?

Don't cry because you were not smart enough to sell those Yahoo shares. Short term investors get what they deserve.

[JCPayne]

On the hot seat for what? Because a couple of "I wanna get rich quick" brats couldn't railroad the future of the company so they could score a quick buck????

Yahoo breezed past profit estimates the 2nd quarter of 2008.

[The_Decider]

Yahoo is worth more today than it was 6 months ago. Yahoo has no areas of growth. Granted, none of that would have been possible without the idiocy of Ballmer. MS was the catalyst to growth. If MS had succeeded, many of the Yahoo shareholders would ahve lost money since MS stock has been stagnant for 8 years or so. Yahoo employees would have left in droves leaving MS with some lower end employees and a lot of source code for systems that they have no understanding.

The business people are ruining the tech world. They have no concept of what works in tech and why. These are the idiots crying about the failed buyout when if it had succeeded they would have been crying harder.

[The_Decider]

Whoops, typo: Yahoo has NEW areas of growth

[knappsack]

Hey Remo,
Yang works for the "customers"? when is he going to start??? when I am making money selling short, as a general rule that means that Google has most of the "customers". Yang needs to step up to the plate and do something that makes him look intelligent instead of self serving......then again, why? shareholders, by your account, mean nothing. Jerry might want to buy back the company he started? ROTFL

[Thomas, David]

Muddy, muddy waters. Who's to say, that the decision to NOT go with Microsoft was not in the best interests of the shareholders in the long term?

Sure, there is a financial responsibility, but the make short-sighted decision, in which you see Yahoo breaking up, and speeding to an early end (as Yahoo) only gets shareholders money now. When the dust clears, in a short-term "now" decision, there is usually nothing left.