/>
X
Business

Is Yahoo's! board brain dead?

What on earth was the Yahoo! board thinking that it could reject Microsoft's bid at $31 a share and come out the other side looking credible?
Written by Dennis Howlett, Contributor

What on earth was the Yahoo! board thinking that it could reject Microsoft's bid at $31 a share and come out the other side looking credible? OK - so there are egos involved here but at the end of the day investors rule. As Dave Taylor said:

Mashable writer Paul Glazowski also misses the point: "Is it greed that's being exercised today? I would say no. At least not entirely, anyway. I would instead presume this move to be a tactical maneuver employed by the board to disabuse Microsoft of the notion that it will have an easy acquisition." I agree that this is a tactical move by the all-too-invisible Yahoo board, but here's what few people seem to be realizing:

It doesn't matter if the Board approves the offer from Microsoft because it's a hostile offer.

Microsoft is unlikely to jack up the ante to the reported $40 per share asking price reported as being an acceptable figure by Brier Duddly. Which equates to the outlandish $56bn as posited by our own Garrett Rodgers. Unless of course Microsoft has become fiscally brain damaged. Given it's cadre of some 800 lawyers, that seems highly unlikely.

Seeing the massive exposure of this proposed takeover, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer has plenty to consider. Including Plan B and a possible Microsoft breakup. Or worse still, the prospect of going down in history as the man who wrecked Microsoft for the sake of demonstrating to the world that he really isn't the world's richest employee. Whatever happens, the ride is far from over.

But be warned. Today's announcement makes Mike Krigsman's earlier assertion of enterprise confusion and concern all the more credible. Stakes this high should sound warning bells for any decision taker. Don't be surprised if Microsoft announces a stalling of business software license sales in its next quarter's financial analyst call.

Editorial standards