Microhoo Reality: ICAHN only hurt the online marketplace
I’ve talked many times about the sometimes overwhelming level of arrogance in the online industry, especially in the advertising sector. However that fails in comparison to what I’ve witnessed in the past weeks, I’m talking of course about Carl Icahn’s approach to the present Yahoo! situation.
Ichan has been one of the most successful takeover artists for decades, the mere mention of his name brings shudders to any publicly traded management team. However, the blanket statements he has made regarding how he will “fix” Yahoo! prove his ignorance of the online industry.
I understand completely that his intentions are based solely on the short term goal of raising Yahoo! shareholder value, however if he gets his way, his overflowing naivity will have an extremely negative effect on the online advertising industry as it relates to innovation.
By removing Jerry Yang and selling to Microsoft, as Icahn demands, he is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Let’s not forget the reasons why Yahoo! is in their current predictament (and remember that Jerry Yang did not have control of the company while many of these missteps occurred):
- Being tight with their purse strings and NOT ACQUIRING GOOGLE WHEN THEY HAD THE CHANCE!
- Keeping Terry Semel at the helm for too long
- Trying to become a “Hollywood” enterprise instead of enhancing their search and advertising platform (something Google has never lost sight of)
- Launching an inferior PPC engine: Overture
- Not acquiring Doubleclick, which would have given them a complete and total dominance in the display advertising market and possibly the online video advertising industry if Doubleclick’s Motif reaches ubiquity
These bullets above were the true missteps by Yahoo! Icahn’s view on the severance package, or as he calls it: ‘the poisoned pill’, is simply a way to bring the battle to his playing field. He would be run out of the space if he even attempted to address anything relating to technology, so instead he focused on something he could understand.
Individual’s paradigm in regard to the Microsoft<>Yahoo! situation needs to shift, in a brick and mortar mindset it makes sense that merging Yahoo!’s search platform and Microsoft’s Live search program will result in creating a legitimate competitor to Google. However that mindset is 100% wrong.
What will make Yahoo! or Microsoft a true competitor to Google in regard to search? There is only one way to make that dream a reality: CREATE A BETTER PLATFORM!
1. If Yahoo!’s search queries had the same level of relevancy as Google they would begin re-capturing marketshare.
2. If Overture was even comparable to Adwords, they would increase PPC search revenues.
3. If they were as “open” and user friendly as Google they would be a much more vibrant and successful portal.
4. And the list could go on…
None of this will occur as long as Icahn is calling the shots. His assumptions are both laughable and disturbing, to say the least. If he believes “Eric Schmidt’s“ are readily available, he is naive; if he believes Microsoft will even want a leaderless organization, he is mistaken; and if Ichan believes that he understands the tech industry, he is simply ignorant.
I was a very big fan of the Silicon Alley Insider’s conclusion on Icahn’s involvement:
Carl is running out of bullets. The clear articulation of a plan is good, but we still doubt we will vote for his slate if it comes to that. If Carl takes control and fires Jerry, Microsoft will have no incentive to pay $33+. Carl’s use of a Google search threat as a club is smart, but Yahoo’s already doing that now, and it doesn’t seem to be working. Bottom line, other than “publicly offering the company to Microsoft”–which we feel Yahoo has already done–there’s not much new here.
I’ve pasted the entire letter that Icahn publicly sent below:
Dear Roy:
While you may take issue with the content of my letter, I take issue with your oversight of Yahoo! Again, I stand by my characterization of your “poison pill” severance plan and I find it humorous to see you attempt to defend it.
Roy, it is you who “misrepresents and misstates the details” of the plan. Much like the rhetoric in many well known political campaigns, you keep repeating misstatements in the hopes that by repeating misstatements enough times it will convince your shareholders that these misstatements are valid. For example, you repeated, “the plan was fully disclosed at the time of its adoption and should be no surprise to anyone at this point.” This is simply not true. The egregious magnitude of the dollar amount cost of the plan was never fully disclosed, nor was the email from your compensation advisor calling the plan “nuts.”
While you keep repeating that the severance plan was in the “best interests of shareholders,” you neglect to mention that the financial cost of the plan could be immense. The documents obtained during discovery and released in the shareholder complaint show that Yahoo! estimates the maximum change in control severance expenses to be a staggering $2.4 billion if Microsoft bids $35 per share for Yahoo! You neglected to mention that the true cost to an acquirer may be even higher as the perverse change in control severance incentives may diminish the work effort of Yahoo! employees. In case you do not understand the plan, in addition to the $2.4 billion of severance expenses, I believe the plan will negatively impact employee behavior and degrade the ability of an acquirer to successfully integrate the acquisition. In the event of a change of control, the employee may decide not to work as hard in the hopes of cashing in on a robust severance package that awards up to two years salary and benefits, $15,000 of outplacement expenses, and accelerated vesting of stock options and restricted stock units. To make matters worse, it is not just the acquirer firing the employee that can trigger the severance package but the employee who may decide on his or her own to resign for “good reason” at any point within two years of a change in control. It is quite obvious to me that this plan impacts the price an acquirer would pay. Is it any wonder than an acquirer, once fully comprehending this plan, might not wish to negotiate any further? I again call upon you to honor your fiduciary duty to your shareholders and rescind this “poison pill” severance plan.
You asked, “what exactly would happen to our Company if you and your nominees were to take control of Yahoo!” I will give you my perspective on that.
– First, I would work to have the board replace your “poison pill” severance plan with an acceptable alternative.
– Second, I intend to ask our new board to hire a talented and experienced CEO (attempting to replicate Google’s success with Eric Schmidt) to replace Jerry Yang and return Jerry to his role as “Chief Yahoo.” Indeed, it was much speculated that Jerry would serve in the CEO role temporarily until a permanent CEO was hired after the board asked Terry Semel to resign.
– Third, I intend to ask our new board to inform Microsoft that unless any alternative transaction can insure a $33 or higher stock price (of which I am skeptical) all talks of alternative transactions are over.
– Fourth, I will ask our new board to offer publicly to sell Yahoo! to Microsoft in a friendly and cooperative transaction.
– Fifth, to the extent Microsoft does not want to make a proposal, I will ask our new board do a deal on search with Google, but only if it contains termination provisions that would in no way impede a subsequent acquisition by Microsoft.
Now let me ask you a couple of questions, Roy:
– Why don’t you, now that you have the opportunity, remove the “poison pill” severance plan that I find to be ridiculous and thereby remove a major obstacle to a Microsoft acquisition?
– In my opinion, Microsoft does not believe you will ever sell the entire company on a friendly basis. So why don’t you stop dancing around the subject and publicly offer to sell the company to Microsoft for $34.375 per share and promise to cooperate completely?
– Why are you still giving hope to Microsoft that there is a possible “alternative deal”? As long as there is the possibility of an “alternative deal,” isn’t it obvious that Microsoft will not make a bid for the whole company?
Sincerely yours,
CARL C. ICAHN
