Microsoft may or may not have raised its bid for Yahoo

By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published May 1, 2008, 12:00 PM

There may, in the end, be a gap of at least four dollars per share between what Microsoft thinks it might possibly, perhaps, be willing to pay, and what Yahoo's shareholders definitely would like to see. Suddenly Redmond is looking soft.

During the founding days of America, one way for its first citizens to communicate indirectly with prospective business partners, while at the same time influencing the public markets, was by taking out notices in newspapers. These earliest editions were often tacked to public posts.

Today, the modern equivalent of a big pine log with metal tacks all through it in the middle of the town square, is The Wall Street Journal. Late yesterday, its online service apparently briefly posted -- presumably on behalf of Microsoft -- that the company was willing to raise its bid for Yahoo from $31 per share to at least $33, perhaps as high as $35. Immediately, blogs whose principal sources include WSJ Online reported that Microsoft was raising its bid.

Presently, that little bid-raising announcement appears to have been taken down, or at least pasted over with a notice that was much fuzzier, saying Microsoft "this week indicated a willingness to raise its bid to as much as $33 per Yahoo share," citing "people with knowledge of the situation" as its source.

This morning, The New York Times appears to have corroborated that version of the story with at least one source, who the Times said requested anonymity due to not actually having been authorized to reveal the information.

But apparently that willingness, if it does exist "among" Microsoft's board, doesn't appear to have permeated it entirely. The current version of the story, which now relies almost completely on controlled leaks through nationwide press sources, is that Microsoft's board emerged from its meeting yesterday afternoon without a resolution on raising its bid.

So as it stands now, the WSJ story aside, the official line from Microsoft is that the original bid stands, at an adjusted value since February of just over $29 per share, down from $31. Multiple press sources including the WSJ are saying major Yahoo shareholders (without indicating whether they are also board members) would prefer a bid raised to the level of $35 - 37 per share, in order to signal what its CEO Jerry Yang has characterized as a full valuation of the company. Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer indicated as early as his initial February 1 public bid that his company isn't interested in Yahoo's complete assets, just its employees and shareholders.

An earlier version of the WSJ story cited by at least one blog earlier yesterday, but since revised at least twice, had said that Bear Stearns CEO Alan Schwartz was personally involved in lobbying efforts for Yahoo shareholders on Microsoft's behalf.

You may recall that Bear Stearns is the financial firm that succumbed to the credit crisis last March, and that had to be rescued through a JP Morgan buyout for a shockingly small fraction of what it was worth. Still, even at fire sale prices, the US Federal Reserve bank reportedly granted JP Morgan $30 billion in credit to effectuate that takeover, in what a former Fed director called on Tuesday, "the worst policy mistake in a generation." That quote appeared in an interview in, ironically enough, The Wall Street Journal.

The New York Times has been Yahoo's medium of choice for issuing responses to Microsoft; and so far, no such response has been seen there, despite its publication of a story on the matter this morning.

Comments

View comments by with a score of at least

"Microsoft may or may not have raised its bid for Yahoo..."

This just in!

Armageddon will ensue tomorrow, or not.

Score: 0

|

He has a pointless story quota.

He also has an obscure quota: "Today, the modern equivalent of a big pine log with metal tacks all through it in the middle of the town square ..."

These quotas are both very high.

All complaining aside is it too much to ask that next to the story's title on the homepage is "By [Author]"?

Score: 0

|

PDC 2009: What have we learned this week?

There was the freebie that no one will forget, the heebie-jeebies courtesy of Scott Guthrie, and a teensy bit clearer picture of how this cloud thingie should work.

Live report: Will Google Chrome OS change Linux?

The mysteries of just what Chrome OS is, and how much of an operating system it truly is, may be resolved today.

PDC 2009: Microsoft cares about Web browser performance

The effort to give users of the world's dominant Web browser the impression of quality, is a personal one for the man who leads that battle.

Nokia re-affirms its commitment to Symbian, sort of

Maemo won't necessarily be replacing Symbian in the Nokia N-Series, but that's definitely a place where it will be found.

E-book readers will be in short supply this holiday season

E-readers are hot this year, and a lot of compelling new products have been released, but are there enough electrophoretic displays to go around?

Sony looks to finally open a single storefront for downloads

Sony has had many different download portals for movies, music, e-books, and games, and now it's looking to make a single shop for all of it.

Tuning out the tablet: Time to give the endless speculation a rest

Wide Angle Zoom: Wishing and hoping and thinking and praying....won't put an iTablet on the market.

Five improvements for IT managers in 2010

If businesses are to improve their efficiency for next year, they need to stop and reassess the basic tenets of their job.

AOL's spinoff from Time Warner to shed 2,500 jobs

As AOL moves toward become an independent company again, it will cut nearly a third of its workforce.

Gartner: SMS-based money transfer will be bigger than mobile browsing, search

Gartner issues its predictions for the 10 things our phones will be doing in 2012.

Don't forget to upgrade to Firefox 3.6 beta 3 today

Mozilla has released the latest beta its Firefox 3.6 browser software, just over one week after beta 2.