All Things Digital

Skip to main content.

BoomTown

The Yahoo Rumor Mill–The Broken Clock Will Be Right at Some Time

[UPDATED: I added a stronger first sentence to leave no doubt about there is no Microsoft-Yahoo deal at the present time and to be clear I am not backing off on my weekend post on the topic.]

Let me be crystal clear: Yahoo and Microsoft are not currently secretly at work on a pricey new search partnership and a piece this weekend in the Times of London that said they were is inaccurate.

It’s natural for the idea to be brought up, since they have talked about such a deal many months ago and have indicated publicly and recently that they should again in the future, so smart betting is correct in guessing that they probably will do some sort of search deal in the months ahead.

But this was put out as a supposedly reported piece, and it was wrong. There is no deal at this time, according to my sources and reporting, which has been pretty accurate overall on Yahoo.

Still, various unsubstantiated rumors pop up weekly about deals between the pair, which are about as convoluted as a mash-up of “Richard III” and “Macbeth,” with some “Three’s Company” thrown in for comic relief.

The core problem is, of course, that for the past year or so with regard to Yahoo (YHOO), truth has indeed been stranger than fiction.

Consider:

A founder takes over after a stumble from a Hollywood mogul, whereupon the sweet-natured Silicon Valley icon also fumbles. But, before he can right himself, what ho!–a dastardly midnight takeover attack by a giant invader from the rainy North.

Then another attack from the greedy East from a sneaky raider named Carl. And, next, a possible rescue from a powerful do-no-evil neighbor that turns into more of a do-some-harm result.

And, all along, more stumbles and bumbles, as the stock slides and employees flee like rats from a sinking ship. The founder founders, while all kinds of plots of usurping unravel around him.

He is, ultimately, banish’d (well, sort of).

You might think all this real-world plot would satisfy even a fan in need of a serious fix, after “Heroes” ran off the rails in its second season.

But no, the false rumors–all wrapped cleverly in some obviously logical suppositions–that have swirled around Yahoo have been breathtaking in both the level of stock manipulation clearly involved and their ability to be swirled around the Internet quickly enough for some vulture to make a killing on an endless willingness to believe anything.

Such was the case this weekend, with yet another story–this time in the Times of London–about Microsoft (MSFT) and Yahoo being involved in yet another hook-up.

Similar previous such reports have turned out to be bogus, but did always give the much beleaguered stock a short-lived bump upwards.

This time out, the Times told about a very complex search deal in detail, worth $20 billion, which was–of course!–imminent.

And–as an added plus, since Yahoo’s other story thread is a new CEO search too–the story also involved a pair of well-known Internet execs–Ross Levinsohn and Jon Miller–taking over as the new managers of the company.

The problem was that top sources at both companies rushed to deny it.

There were also serious insider trading issues for a major investor and board member, Carl Icahn, if it were true. He just loaded up on Yahoo shares a week ago.

And, oh yes, one of the co-CEOs-in-waiting, Levinsohn, told me he was not contacted by the Times (and neither was Miller, as far as he could tell) about his becoming leader of Yahoo.

Thus, he called the tale–on the record, mind you–”total fiction.”

Well, not total fiction, actually, because–as in all things–there has always been a grain of truth to the idea of some kind of deal for Microsoft to buy or monetize Yahoo’s search assets eventually taking place.

And who whispered that juicy nugget to me? Well, actually, both companies have said so loud and publicly many times recently to the whole world. Outgoing Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang did in an onstage interview in early November, as did Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer in another appearance.

And this week, Icahn said it again in an interview with Barron’s:

“I’ve said this before: Yahoo! should make a deal with Microsoft as far as selling its search capability…Microsoft has said publicly that they are not interested in buying the whole company, and I believe them. But they are interested in doing a deal on search, and we should pursue that.”

That’s pretty clear, I would say, on potential direction. And, it probably means both sides are surely getting there ducks in order to imagine such a deal, which does not take a lot of brain cells to surmise.

The Yahoo leadership that has resisted such a deal is on its way out, although there still remains significant resistance to it by some board members, which Icahn also said was true in that Barron’s interview.

But I would guess that the new CEO will be hired partly on the basis of being able to make nice with Microsoft.

And rather than get caught up in internal Yahoo corporate machinations, as it did to bad results in its earlier takeover attempt, one would assume Microsoft is patiently waiting to do a deal with a more willing team and board, if it can.

After all, it no longer has Google (GOOG) to compete with now that the search giant’s deal with Yahoo collapsed, due to much deserved regulatory scrutiny.

If Yahoo wants a search deal, it has no other real choices save Microsoft (except not to do a deal, of course).

But that kind of simple logic–as in, these corporate deals are more messy and slow than stealthy and well thought out–still seems to escape some.

One grassy-knoll type, in fact, expressed that proof-absent sentiment perfectly in this post about the Times story, which I underscore was not speculative, but represented as actual reporting:

“What we don’t know out of all of this is what’s truth or fiction, despite the latest denials.

Companies and governments like to deny all kinds of things before a deal is magically struck, taking everyone by ’surprise’ yet again thanks to all the denials.”

Yes, it makes perfect sense! All these people and companies, all of whom don’t particularly like each other–including two principals who said they have heard nothing of the deal, despite the fact that they were to be co-CEOs of the resulting company–are all involved in a coordinated plot of deception that rivals anything Jason Bourne could unravel.

But let’s get a dose of reality, shall we? Just because some think there should be a deal between Microsoft and Yahoo and they both publicly indicate there could be, it simply does not count as actionable news, until it actually happens or there is a well-reported story that it is about to.

You can certainly prepare for such a thing and work it into your future stock price formulas, but these rumor eruptions are useless to anyone who cares about being an informed investor.

And if a deal between Microsoft and Yahoo is struck, that does not make the false rumors correct either.

If that was the case, score one for stock manipulators, who are no doubt behind a lot of this stuff.

My second vote for leak candidates goes to under-employed bankers, because–as one smart Internet exec noted to me yesterday–”there are more deal-doers than deals these days.”

Ain’t that the real and confirmed truth, forever and always?

Comments

  1. I don’t get this. You made it pretty clear over the weekend that in your opinion, based on your own contacts, that the Times piece was wrong, wrong, wrong. Now another lengthy article that seems to be simply trying to rub their nose in the fact that you again, in your opinion, using your contacts, want to say they’re wrong, wrong, wrong. I got that the first time.

    But when you say, “Similar previous such reports have turned out to be bogus,” that doesn’t seem to be correct. I’m pretty sure we’ve had leaks of talks both ahead of the first and second rounds in 2007. Plus, we had leaks of how the particular deals were changing during some of those rounds. I even think you were reporting some of them. They weren’t bogus.

    So yeah, when that blog you quoted said “What we don’t know out of all of this is what’s truth or fiction, despite the latest denials,” too right. I’m pretty sure we’ve had execs from both sides deny things that actually happened. We’ve had rumors turn out to be fact. We’ve had rumor turn out to be completely off the mark.

    I think the vast majority of what you’ve reported, both from named and whispered sources, has been correct. I don’t actually have a scorecard to keep track — you certainly would know better if some exec has mislead you from time to time or not have been in the loop. But the point is, I don’t jump all over a report from The Times wondering if I should believe it because they haven’t shown a track record of being correct. You have. Mike Arrington has, as well. Your record speaks for you, and that’s what I think your readers use to judge whether they want to believe if the latest rumor might indeed be true.

    As for this:

    “These rumor eruptions are useless to anyone who cares about being an informed investor.”

    None of this year-long saga has to do with investors being informed. If they were, they wouldn’t have pulled the rug out from under themselves by selling off Yahoo stock. Second largest search player; leading web property; huge brand recognition, and Microsoft comes along and makes people think Yahoo is the one in trouble? Microsoft which has been playing at search for over 10 years (it has been that long) and only in the past 5 years has seriously stepped up (and gotten nowhere). And it’s Yahoo that’s the weakling?

    Spare me the informed investors.

    Posted by Danny Sullivan at December 2nd, 2008 at 8:51 am
  2. Over the weekend you had Levinsohn speaking for Yahoo and Microsoft in your “Total Fiction” headline. Monday you had Levinsohn speaking for Miller. I can’t wait to see what Levinsohn has to say about Tuesday’s WSJ rumor. When do you expect Levinsohn to call you?

    Posted by Jeff Stevens at December 2nd, 2008 at 10:35 am
  3. kara, you spend waaaaaaaaaay too much time on yahoo. it’s not that big a deal whatever it does.

    get a new story!

    Posted by Sam Harrison at December 2nd, 2008 at 7:02 pm
  4. It was delightful to see Bill and Steve sharing a stage and reminiscing about their stuff, but I was surprised that Bill (gadgets) and Steve (widgets) didn’t settle the debate about the original inventor of the widget.

    One can never have too many widgets. Somebody codes something you never even dreamed of wanting – suddenly everybody

    lig tv izle
    bedava ligtv izle
    garibim
    deyimler
    şiir türleriçetchatsohbet needs a whole bunch of widgets because they don’t impinge too much on the screen/template real estate.

    Posted by erdem ela at April 17th, 2009 at 10:48 pm

Add a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment. Sign up here or log in below.

Comments posted on this site must be signed with your full, real name. Please see our Comments policy for details.

Latest BoomTown Videos

More Videos »

About Kara

Kara Swisher started covering digital issues for The Wall Street Journal's San Francisco bureau in 1997 and also wrote the BoomTown column about the sector. With Walt Mossberg, she co-produces and co-hosts D: All Things Digital, a major high-tech and media conference. Read more »

Ethics Statement

Here is a statement of my ethics and coverage policies. It is more than most of you want to know, but, in the age of suspicion of the media, I am laying it all out.

Read more »