Update: I added WFR and TTWO to my portfolio. Next potential stops: PNY or ADI. I would love to add some CY, but the price is still too high for my value-minded tastes.
Based on the WSJ's recent Saturday article, Garmin (GRMN) might be a more volatile stock than I expected. I was particularly unhappy with my assumption Garmin owned its own satellite service. Apparently, Nokia, a competitor, provides satellite images to Garmin. I will sell earlier than I expected.
"And if an epitaph be my story, I'd have a short one ready for my own: I had a lover's quarrel with the world." -- Robert Frost
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Funny: How to Raise Snobs
This is a funny post by Nathan DeGraaf. Warning, not safe for work (NSFW) and contains coarse language. Also, do not read if you have no sense of humor.
http://www.pointsincase.com/blogs/nathan-degraaf/if-i-had-kid-i-would-raise-judgmental-snob
I love this paragraph on raising his kids to be part of the power elite:
When they reach their teens, then we'll start talking about the best ways to bribe elected officials and cops. But until then, they'll just have to learn to lie, cheat and steal. And if you don't think those are valuable American traits, well then explain our government. Hell, they stole 300 billion of your dollars to bail out their banking buddies and you didn't even flinch. If that's the way the game is to be played, I want my children on the winning side, the stealing side.
By comparison, Bear Stearns' bailout (30 billion or so) looks cheap compared to Fannie and Freddie.
http://www.pointsincase.com/blogs/nathan-degraaf/if-i-had-kid-i-would-raise-judgmental-snob
I love this paragraph on raising his kids to be part of the power elite:
When they reach their teens, then we'll start talking about the best ways to bribe elected officials and cops. But until then, they'll just have to learn to lie, cheat and steal. And if you don't think those are valuable American traits, well then explain our government. Hell, they stole 300 billion of your dollars to bail out their banking buddies and you didn't even flinch. If that's the way the game is to be played, I want my children on the winning side, the stealing side.
By comparison, Bear Stearns' bailout (30 billion or so) looks cheap compared to Fannie and Freddie.
Jeff Yeager and the Ultimate Cheapskate
I dislike Suze Orman. I think Alexis Glick is an airhead. In fact, I believe most financial commentary is worthless in terms of assisting someone with the day-to-day saving of money. Once in a while, however, a great book comes out that can actually convince people to handle money wisely--Jeff Yeager's book, The Ultimate Cheapskate's Road Map to True Riches, is my pick of the lot. Jeff is funny, humble, and entertaining--a great combination, especially when it comes to a dry topic like saving. His website is below:
http://www.ultimatecheapskate.com/index.cgi
I strongly recommend his book. Here is one sample of Mr. Yeager's writing:
http://www.stretcher.com/stories/04/04aug23c.cfm
http://www.ultimatecheapskate.com/index.cgi
I strongly recommend his book. Here is one sample of Mr. Yeager's writing:
http://www.stretcher.com/stories/04/04aug23c.cfm
Jamba Juice, Revisited
I own some Jamba Juice (JMBA) shares and averaged down, recently at 97 cents. My cost basis isn't high enough to make me worried, but I wonder if JMBA at under a dollar a share is worth a look. The company releases earnings on August 21, 2008, and for the past month, has been pulling out all the stops in getting traffic into its stores. It simplified its menu design, introduced brand-new breakfast items like granola poppers, and introduced a lower-priced orange refresher with the entertaining repartee, "Where's the Fruit?"
Here's the case for Jamba:
First, Jamba's stock price is below its book value.
Second, traffic has increased as a result of the marketing blitz. I have personally noticed traffic increase in its stores, at least in the Bay Area.
Third, competition is sparse. Starbucks' new drinks taste terrible. BusinessWeek's David Kiley agrees with me--he said one drink had a "chemical taste."
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/brandnewday/archives/2008/07/starbucks_vivan.html
The better competition is from Jack-in-the-Box's smoothies, which actually taste good but probably have no nutritional value (too much sugar).
Fourth, the prices for oranges has decreased. Jamba spends a lot of money of strawberries and oranges. With the recent good weather, Jamba's costs should decrease.
Fifth, most of us in California have had a very hot summer. Hot weather helps Jamba's business for obvious reasons.
The case against Jamba:
1. Service is slow. No matter how many songs their workers sing in the stores, Starbucks makes a drink faster. I see lines all the time at Jamba. This means traffic has increased, but their service model needs to be changed to improve efficiency. There is no reason people should be waiting 6 minutes or more for a drink. Also, I never get a receipt at Jamba unless I ask for one. This means customers and employees have no record of what they ordered, making some fraud inevitable. I saw someone recently tell an employee he ordered a pretzel. No one had any records. She had to give it to him. That situation also slowed down service for other people.
2. Jamba continues to be lackluster in finding good locations. A frozen yogurt place just opened up in downtown San Jose next to a new Popeye's. Both places probably got money from the city's redevelopment department. Why didn't Jamba get one of those locations? I am willing to bet Jamba doesn't even know a Redevelopment Agency exists in San Jose. This is Jamba's main problem--in food services, location is everything because if consumers can't easily get to you, they will just go across the street to someone else.
3. Jamba may be losing money on its orange refresher. To compete with Starbucks, Jamba introduced a new drink costing $2.95. If someone only orders that drink, Jamba may not benefit from all the increased traffic. (From what I saw, however, people were ordering many different drinks.)
4. Management continues to be non-responsive. I sent a detailed letter to Jamba's management several months ago after their annual meeting. I did not receive even an acknowledgment they received it. I understand that Jamba cannot respond to every inquiry, but a postcard confirming receipt of detailed letters might be a good idea.
5. Jamba has not used the futures market to lock in fruit prices. With orange prices being relatively low right now, Jamba is foolish not to consider using orange futures.
6. As far as I know, Jamba's warrants haven't expired yet. Explore previous Jamba posts for more on this issue.
7. If Jamba's stock price stays below a dollar for a certain period of time, it may be pink-listed or taken off the NASDAQ. That would make its shares harder to trade.
What's my conclusion? Skip the Vegas trip and put your play money on Jamba--if earnings disappoint on August 21, 2008, only then will I give up on Jamba.
Note: the Wall Street Journal's Richard Gibson had an excellent article on Jamba (April 2008):
http://www.smsmallbiz.com/profiles/Jamba_Rebound_Faces_Hurdles.html
Here's the case for Jamba:
First, Jamba's stock price is below its book value.
Second, traffic has increased as a result of the marketing blitz. I have personally noticed traffic increase in its stores, at least in the Bay Area.
Third, competition is sparse. Starbucks' new drinks taste terrible. BusinessWeek's David Kiley agrees with me--he said one drink had a "chemical taste."
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/brandnewday/archives/2008/07/starbucks_vivan.html
The better competition is from Jack-in-the-Box's smoothies, which actually taste good but probably have no nutritional value (too much sugar).
Fourth, the prices for oranges has decreased. Jamba spends a lot of money of strawberries and oranges. With the recent good weather, Jamba's costs should decrease.
Fifth, most of us in California have had a very hot summer. Hot weather helps Jamba's business for obvious reasons.
The case against Jamba:
1. Service is slow. No matter how many songs their workers sing in the stores, Starbucks makes a drink faster. I see lines all the time at Jamba. This means traffic has increased, but their service model needs to be changed to improve efficiency. There is no reason people should be waiting 6 minutes or more for a drink. Also, I never get a receipt at Jamba unless I ask for one. This means customers and employees have no record of what they ordered, making some fraud inevitable. I saw someone recently tell an employee he ordered a pretzel. No one had any records. She had to give it to him. That situation also slowed down service for other people.
2. Jamba continues to be lackluster in finding good locations. A frozen yogurt place just opened up in downtown San Jose next to a new Popeye's. Both places probably got money from the city's redevelopment department. Why didn't Jamba get one of those locations? I am willing to bet Jamba doesn't even know a Redevelopment Agency exists in San Jose. This is Jamba's main problem--in food services, location is everything because if consumers can't easily get to you, they will just go across the street to someone else.
3. Jamba may be losing money on its orange refresher. To compete with Starbucks, Jamba introduced a new drink costing $2.95. If someone only orders that drink, Jamba may not benefit from all the increased traffic. (From what I saw, however, people were ordering many different drinks.)
4. Management continues to be non-responsive. I sent a detailed letter to Jamba's management several months ago after their annual meeting. I did not receive even an acknowledgment they received it. I understand that Jamba cannot respond to every inquiry, but a postcard confirming receipt of detailed letters might be a good idea.
5. Jamba has not used the futures market to lock in fruit prices. With orange prices being relatively low right now, Jamba is foolish not to consider using orange futures.
6. As far as I know, Jamba's warrants haven't expired yet. Explore previous Jamba posts for more on this issue.
7. If Jamba's stock price stays below a dollar for a certain period of time, it may be pink-listed or taken off the NASDAQ. That would make its shares harder to trade.
What's my conclusion? Skip the Vegas trip and put your play money on Jamba--if earnings disappoint on August 21, 2008, only then will I give up on Jamba.
Note: the Wall Street Journal's Richard Gibson had an excellent article on Jamba (April 2008):
http://www.smsmallbiz.com/profiles/Jamba_Rebound_Faces_Hurdles.html
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Electronic Arts Shareholder Meeting, July 31, 2008
Electronic Arts (ERTS) has a history of fun shareholder meetings. Its previous CEO, Larry Probst, seemed to enjoy being in the spotlight and demonstrating new games. In previous years, he had a member of the Board play a new skateboarding game in front of shareholders. ERTS also provides great sweets every year--no real food, but the non-Costco chocolate chip cookies, soda, mini-cheesecakes and Starbucks coffee are more than enough. The cafeteria is a few yards away from the auditorium where the meeting is usually held, and the panini I had was great. Wearing a buttoned shirt and slacks, I was obviously out of place among the jeans and t-shirt employee crowd. A group of employees was playing touch football on the lawn across from the cafeteria.
Mr. Probst was replaced by John Riccitiello in 2007. Mr. Riccitiello brings an East Coast bluntness to ERTS and is more intense than Mr. Probst. ERTS usually has a great video showing new and old games and its different franchises, such as Harry Potter, Spore, and other famous games. This year, the video seemed shorter. It was still a good video, but it's clear Mr. Riccitiello seemed to take the meeting as a more serious matter than a time to show off his company's numerous games. Some people in the audience privately complained no images of the new Batman game were shown. No live demonstration of any new games occurred.
The slides and presentation during the informal part of the meeting seemed to have two themes: cost-cutting through outsourcing, and the Pogo acquisition. ERTS has several top-selling titles, while competitors such as Take Two (TTWO) only have one (Grand Theft Auto). Riccitiello talked about cutting costs by using engineers overseas, and singled out Romania and India as desirable locations. ERTS also has workers in Shanghai and Montreal.
ERTS indicated the mobile segment was the new growth area and it was well-positioned to do well. (Yahoo made a similar point in its annual meeting.)
The Q&A session was brief. Only two people asked questions, including myself. One person asked about an online forum that criticized some ERTS games (I am not sure about the exact website, but the speaker basically asked about how the company responded to online criticism of its games). ERTS mentioned it had no control over the online forums but generally listens to consumer complaints.
I asked about diversity and whether ERTS was concerned about having a 100% Caucasian-looking management while its workers and employees were incredibly diverse. I received a stock answer about the company's commitment to increasing diversity. The officer pointed out there were now three women on the board, which was an improvement. Being in California and a tech company, it seems unusual to have no Asians or Indians on the Board or in upper management.
My second question was about the rumored Take Two (TTWO) acquisition. I asked how ERTS planned on incorporating a controversial game like Grand Theft Auto into its portfolio, which includes games geared to teenagers and children, like Harry Potter, Spore, pogo.com, Simpsons, and Madden football. Riccitiello first declined to answer my question because of ongoing discussions with Take Two. I then asked him to speculate and pretend as if the company might end up buying Take Two. Riccitiello said ERTS had several Mature-rated games (MA rated), and the Godfather games were similar to Grand Theft Auto. He smartly added that ERTS was looking to increase the diversity of its gaming portfolio, a jab back at my criticism of the company's homogeneous management look.
There are a couple of problems with his comments. One, Grand Theft Auto was actually rated "AO," or "Adults-Only," at one point, not Mature. Thailand just banned sales of the game after a Grand-Theft-Auto-related homicide. [Update on 7/6/08: apparently, the Thai government had nothing to do with the ban--a local distributor stopped selling the game.]
Two, no one mentioned risking the ire of conservative-minded consumers. Riccitiello did not seem to take seriously a potential backlash from marketing sex and violence to children. In 2006, the FTC reported, "In 2002 consumers purchased nearly 40 percent of M-rated video games for children younger than 17 years." Also, "69 percent of unaccompanied children aged 13 to 16 years participating in its mystery shopper survey successfully purchased M-rated video games." If ERTS is going to sell many games to children and teenagers, it needs to take its public image seriously. The juggling act of selling games to children and "AO" games to adults is even more difficult because Grand Theft Auto revels in its smashmouth, rebel-without-a-cause persona. If you're a one-trick pony like Take Two, having an in-your-face image is fine; however, when you're a larger company with ties to Hollywood and major media outlets, there are other considerations at stake.
After the meeting, I went to the ERTS company arcade and played some games. I always look forward to my annual John Madden playtime. A new game was there this year, a very realistic EA NASCAR racing game--I had a great time playing it. Some sports items were in the arcade also. I had not noticed these items before. Several autographed items were in clear locked boxes, including an autographed Karl Malone basketball shoe. My favorite was the picture of a young Michael Jordan in a Bulls jersey typing on a 286 desktop computer (with the old floppy drives and tiny green screens). That one was classic--if anyone at EA is reading this, one hit at next year's meeting would be having copies of that picture for shareholders.
As for my thoughts on shares, I bought Take Two shares after the meeting. If ERTS is successful in buying TTWO, then their stock price might take a small hit when the deal is announced. I continue to believe ERTS should have bought TTWO prior to both companies' earnings releases. Back then, TTWO's share price was in the mid-teens and represented a good value. TTWO has since released great earnings, while ERTS released not-so-great earnings. Any stock deal that occurs now will be more dilutive of EA's stock.
ERTS clearly has a strategy of acquisitions to feed its growth. To be fair, it's hard to create a lasting video game franchise, so acquisitions are a good way to grow in the video game business; however, timing is everything when it comes to buy-outs, and ERTS's timing is not ideal. ERTS might want to wait a year or two, when TTWO might miss their numbers, causing a correction in its stock price. When any company bets its future on one franchise, especially one like Grand Theft Auto, it takes a large risk. Meanwhile, ERTS is more diversified and can afford to wait.
I still don't blame EA for its impatience--if EA doesn't buy Take Two, it runs the risk that Microsoft might, especially after the failed Yahoo deal. EA cannot afford to have a competitor like Microsoft get immediate talent and a firmer foothold in the gaming industry because MSFT could potentially limit EA's future X-Box game sales. At the end of the day, EA's impatience may be TTWO's gain.
Update on August 19, 2008: WSJ today reported today that Grand Theft Auto sales were 78% of TTWO's total sales.
Mr. Probst was replaced by John Riccitiello in 2007. Mr. Riccitiello brings an East Coast bluntness to ERTS and is more intense than Mr. Probst. ERTS usually has a great video showing new and old games and its different franchises, such as Harry Potter, Spore, and other famous games. This year, the video seemed shorter. It was still a good video, but it's clear Mr. Riccitiello seemed to take the meeting as a more serious matter than a time to show off his company's numerous games. Some people in the audience privately complained no images of the new Batman game were shown. No live demonstration of any new games occurred.
The slides and presentation during the informal part of the meeting seemed to have two themes: cost-cutting through outsourcing, and the Pogo acquisition. ERTS has several top-selling titles, while competitors such as Take Two (TTWO) only have one (Grand Theft Auto). Riccitiello talked about cutting costs by using engineers overseas, and singled out Romania and India as desirable locations. ERTS also has workers in Shanghai and Montreal.
ERTS indicated the mobile segment was the new growth area and it was well-positioned to do well. (Yahoo made a similar point in its annual meeting.)
The Q&A session was brief. Only two people asked questions, including myself. One person asked about an online forum that criticized some ERTS games (I am not sure about the exact website, but the speaker basically asked about how the company responded to online criticism of its games). ERTS mentioned it had no control over the online forums but generally listens to consumer complaints.
I asked about diversity and whether ERTS was concerned about having a 100% Caucasian-looking management while its workers and employees were incredibly diverse. I received a stock answer about the company's commitment to increasing diversity. The officer pointed out there were now three women on the board, which was an improvement. Being in California and a tech company, it seems unusual to have no Asians or Indians on the Board or in upper management.
My second question was about the rumored Take Two (TTWO) acquisition. I asked how ERTS planned on incorporating a controversial game like Grand Theft Auto into its portfolio, which includes games geared to teenagers and children, like Harry Potter, Spore, pogo.com, Simpsons, and Madden football. Riccitiello first declined to answer my question because of ongoing discussions with Take Two. I then asked him to speculate and pretend as if the company might end up buying Take Two. Riccitiello said ERTS had several Mature-rated games (MA rated), and the Godfather games were similar to Grand Theft Auto. He smartly added that ERTS was looking to increase the diversity of its gaming portfolio, a jab back at my criticism of the company's homogeneous management look.
There are a couple of problems with his comments. One, Grand Theft Auto was actually rated "AO," or "Adults-Only," at one point, not Mature. Thailand just banned sales of the game after a Grand-Theft-Auto-related homicide. [Update on 7/6/08: apparently, the Thai government had nothing to do with the ban--a local distributor stopped selling the game.]
Two, no one mentioned risking the ire of conservative-minded consumers. Riccitiello did not seem to take seriously a potential backlash from marketing sex and violence to children. In 2006, the FTC reported, "In 2002 consumers purchased nearly 40 percent of M-rated video games for children younger than 17 years." Also, "69 percent of unaccompanied children aged 13 to 16 years participating in its mystery shopper survey successfully purchased M-rated video games." If ERTS is going to sell many games to children and teenagers, it needs to take its public image seriously. The juggling act of selling games to children and "AO" games to adults is even more difficult because Grand Theft Auto revels in its smashmouth, rebel-without-a-cause persona. If you're a one-trick pony like Take Two, having an in-your-face image is fine; however, when you're a larger company with ties to Hollywood and major media outlets, there are other considerations at stake.
After the meeting, I went to the ERTS company arcade and played some games. I always look forward to my annual John Madden playtime. A new game was there this year, a very realistic EA NASCAR racing game--I had a great time playing it. Some sports items were in the arcade also. I had not noticed these items before. Several autographed items were in clear locked boxes, including an autographed Karl Malone basketball shoe. My favorite was the picture of a young Michael Jordan in a Bulls jersey typing on a 286 desktop computer (with the old floppy drives and tiny green screens). That one was classic--if anyone at EA is reading this, one hit at next year's meeting would be having copies of that picture for shareholders.
As for my thoughts on shares, I bought Take Two shares after the meeting. If ERTS is successful in buying TTWO, then their stock price might take a small hit when the deal is announced. I continue to believe ERTS should have bought TTWO prior to both companies' earnings releases. Back then, TTWO's share price was in the mid-teens and represented a good value. TTWO has since released great earnings, while ERTS released not-so-great earnings. Any stock deal that occurs now will be more dilutive of EA's stock.
ERTS clearly has a strategy of acquisitions to feed its growth. To be fair, it's hard to create a lasting video game franchise, so acquisitions are a good way to grow in the video game business; however, timing is everything when it comes to buy-outs, and ERTS's timing is not ideal. ERTS might want to wait a year or two, when TTWO might miss their numbers, causing a correction in its stock price. When any company bets its future on one franchise, especially one like Grand Theft Auto, it takes a large risk. Meanwhile, ERTS is more diversified and can afford to wait.
I still don't blame EA for its impatience--if EA doesn't buy Take Two, it runs the risk that Microsoft might, especially after the failed Yahoo deal. EA cannot afford to have a competitor like Microsoft get immediate talent and a firmer foothold in the gaming industry because MSFT could potentially limit EA's future X-Box game sales. At the end of the day, EA's impatience may be TTWO's gain.
Update on August 19, 2008: WSJ today reported today that Grand Theft Auto sales were 78% of TTWO's total sales.
Random Thoughts: Religion
I am with Thomas Jefferson when it comes to religion: "it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." This libertarian strain leads me to get slightly upset when people blame any other religious group for any reason. My friends, knowing I am easily needled, quote Christopher Hitchens (of God is Not Great fame) to me whenever they can. Borrowing from C.S. Lewis' The Problem of Pain, I came up with the following argument, which gently straddles the line between proselytizing and confirming faith as a private matter.
1. If you agree guilt is innate, explain where it comes from? At such a young age, we've all felt guilt. Assuming socialization at that young of an age could not have played a part, where did it come from, if not God or something we cannot understand and therefore name "God"?
2. Agree that humanity is not omnipotent. Okay. Agree that humanity will always be subject to the unknown, which will nevertheless have real effects on a person's life. Okay. If you believe in cause and effect, the unknown that causes effects has to come from somewhere. Religion assigns a name to that unknown and calls it "God." To not believe in God is to reject the concept of the unknown.
One way to escape that conclusion is to say "Yes, at some point, humanity will be able to explain everything or will evolve to be able to explain everything." That is not a humble explanation.
So the atheist must post this scenario: God-believers are wrong and humble, and atheists are not humble but right and can be omnipotent. Therefore, the main difference under an atheist's view between believers and non-believers is believers are predisposed to humility and possibly stupidity. I agreed with this position my friend advocated. I'd rather live in a world where people are humble and wrong than arrogant and right. That division, at the end of the day, seems to be one difference between believers and nonbelievers. Just my two cents from a former atheist (just like C.S. Lewis).
As for calling particular religions harmful, the New York Times's Lindsey O'Rourke reminds us that terrorism crosses all lines. See A27, August 2, 2008, "Blaming Islamic fundamentalism [for female terrorism] is also wrongheaded. More than 85 percent of female suicide terrorists since 1981 committed their attacks on behalf of secular organizations; many grew up in Christian and Hindu families...The founder of Hamas claimed 'A woman martyr is problematic for Muslim society. A man who recruits a woman is breaking Islamic law."' And, "95 percent of female suicide attacks occurred within the context of a military campaign against foreign occupying forces, suggesting that, at a macro level, the main strategic logic is to create or maintain territorial sovereignty for their ethnic group" (e.g. Tamil Tigers--see an overlooked but incredible Indian film called A Peck on the Cheek for more).
Of course, Hamas' anti-Semitic comments contradict the Quran's Sura 2:256: "There shall be no compulsion in religion." Just goes to show you can bring a man to the book, but you can't make him understand it.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Yahoo! Shareholder Meeting, August 1, 2008 (YHOO)
Yahoo held its 2008 shareholder meeting at the posh Fairmont Hotel in downtown San Jose. Security at the meeting was tight--proxy statements were checked prior to providing a wristband required for entry.
Yahoo did not skimp this year on the food--we had coffee, juices, and pastries galore (the croissants were especially tasty). In fact, the hotel put out so much food, most of it was untouched.
Outside of the meeting hall were several kiosks highlighting Yahoo's different areas, such as search, mobile, green (environment) and advertising. The "green" area hasn't received much attention, but it's interesting. Go to http://green.yahoo.com for more information--the Yahoo employee referred to the "gift guide" tab as one convenient way to shop for eco-friendly gifts.
The formal part of the meeting was more interesting than usual, because some ballots had to be re-done after the Yahoo-Icahn agreement invalidated Icahn's slate and gold card proxies. The presenter indicated votes for Icahn "will not be cast."
Several pension funds talked about their proposals. The first proposal--pay for superior performance--fell flat because the delivery was stunted and overly prepared.
The second presenter did better--he was from a NY Pension fund and chastised Yahoo for its political censorship. He said "Yahoo actively participated in these human rights abuses," and should "not engage in proactive censorship." His proposal also appeared to demand more public transparency when Yahoo complies with foreign subpoenas for information.
The third presenter, from Harrington Investments, dealt with human rights also. The presenter said that Yahoo "lacked true morality, which is the morality of obligation," and failed in its fiduciary duties.
Voting results were released after the meeting, and Yahoo prevailed on the shareholder proposals it asked shareholders to reject. Shareholders also elected all of Yahoo board members by overwhelmingly wide margins, except for Roy Bostock and Arthur Kern, both of whom had about 20% of shares withheld in opposition. Mr. Bostock earlier had 34% of the vote withheld in protest, and many shareholders continue to revile him for his involvement in outsized compensation despite Yahoo's lagging share price.
As a result of placating Carl Icahn, Yahoo was able to dissolve shareholder frustration; make its annual meeting into just another regular meeting (much to the chagrin of most media, who appeared from numerous outlets); and focus on remaining independent. My perception was Mr. Bostock is now responsible for the negotiating with Microsoft, while Sue Decker and Jerry Yang are focusing on how to maximize ad and search revenue.
Mr. Roy Bostock, Chairman of Yahoo's Board, gave a presentation after the formal meeting had concluded. I'm sure he intended his speech to be a fiery "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" type, but it fell flat. The more Yahoo talks about Microsoft, the more it sounds like a jilted but still optimistic ex-girlfriend. Bostock said Yahoo was a "victim of misunderstanding." He indicated they had entered into an agreement with Google as part of a strategic plan, but never elaborated on the details of the deal. Bostock indicated, "At no point did this board or management in any way ever resist Microsoft's proposal," making Yahoo sound more and more like a hopeful ex-girlfriend.
The rest of Bostock's speech seemed to focus on blunting a minority shareholder lawsuit by blaming Microsoft for the failed deal. Bostock said Yahoo "proactively" evaluated Microsoft's original and later hybrid proposal and then seemed to get unnecessarily aggressive when he said, "We called the shots." Not exactly the kind of comments that would make Microsoft too happy about a partnership or a deal.
Bostock said the 31 dollar bid was the only express bid, and the express offer "substantially undervalued Yahoo." Bostock then made the typical comments about maximizing shareholder value and then characterized the 33 dollars a share offer as an implicit Microsoft offer rather than a Yahoo counteroffer. Yahoo had a "long-term strategic vision," he said, and it was a "burden to deal with all these offers." It was a stunning statement by a company that basically cost its shareholders a 50%+ premium.
Jerry Yang made the next presentation. His public speaking skills have dramatically improved. He was prepared and polished. He talked about internet opportunity, referring to the projected growth in "incremental internet users" (335 million). 76% of these users would come from Asia, Pacific and emerging markets. Mr. Yang said Yahoo was investing in mobile and emerging markets and had an enviable "collection of assets."
Yahoo receives 3.6 billion visits per month. 3.6 billion visits a month is incredible. An advertiser can hardly ignore Yahoo if it wants broad and international placement of its product or content. Mr. Yang ended by talking about opening up the advertising platform, i.e. making it easier for advertisers to buy ads.
Susan Decker spoke next. She has a firm grasp of Yahoo's diverse businesses. She indicated Yahoo's top 200 advertisers bought 90% of display ads (e.g., the very large ads, especially for movies, on Yahoo's home page). Yahoo was also improving its "sponsored search" advertising process, where advertisers could big for a term like "plasma tv" in an auction.
Ms. Decker then talked about "Buzz," and other social networking tools. She referred specifically to search innovation, "Search Monkey," and other tools to make search engines more user-friendly and integrated. It appears Yahoo is trying to make its platform similar to Facebook so it can continue to be a one-stop shop for users. Sue Decker ended by reading some positive reviews of Yahoo published by various media outlets. Her skill and presence are such that she could pull this off without appearing arrogant.
The CFO was the final speaker. His slides showed "operating cash flow" has been stagnant since 2006, but he indicated the reasons were acquisitions and other growth-driven items. Yahoo has 3.2 billion dollars in cash. Let me repeat that--3.2 billion dollars in cash.
Yahoo also owns stakes in alibaba.com (China), Yahoo Japan, Gmarket (Korea), and TaoBao.com (China). Yahoo estimates these stakes being worth $7.01 per share, not including Alipay.com and TaoBao.com. One source of disconnect: Yahoo kept talking about emerging markets, but its partners are all in developed economies like Japan and Korea, except for possibly China. I don't see any partnerships in India, Eastern Europe, or Turkey, for example.
Paidcontent.org did a good job summarizing the meeting itself and the Q&A session:
http://www.paidcontent.org/entry/419-live-yahoo-annual-meeting-the-meeting-starts/
http://www.paidcontent.org/entry/419-yahoo-annual-meeting-qa-compensation-concerns-china/
The comments under "Fantasy Sports" and "A New Metaphor" referred to my comments at the meeting. I basically said Yahoo--more specifically Roy Bostock--needed to stop talking about the failed Microsoft deal. We get it--it failed. Using more polite language ("bad breakup"), I suggested Bostock stop acting like a spurned ex-girlfriend, and perhaps Microsoft might come back and be more reasonable. No one wants to deal with a bitter ex who keeps ripping you in the press. It's just common sense. I also recommended Bostock stop using the term, "long term strategic plan"--it sounds hollow right now, and if he wants to use it, he should use it when Yahoo's stock price goes above $30 per share.
I praised Jerry Yang for being the founder of the company, reminding everyone that without him, Yahoo would not exist. I said the criticism relating to the Chinese blogger controversy was unfair, because Mr. Yang never intended for the end result to occur. At worst, I said, you could argue he and the company were naive, but not malicious (even though it was Semel who released the information, Yang apologized publicly for it, associating himself with the incident). I continued, saying perhaps a temporary sabbatical would be best for the company, because Mr. Yang is now associated so deeply with the blogger controversy, it's hard to focus on Yahoo's actual business. Unfair or not, he has become a lightning rod for criticism (two of the shareholder proposals dealt with human rights violations), and with Decker already at the helm, perhaps she could take over temporarily as CEO and President. I also praised Yahoo's fantasy sports platform/franchise.
Jerry Yang seemed pleased with my comments, chuckling at the ex-girlfriend analogy, and pointed out he was not the CEO at the time of the blogger incident. He said he had "condemned the Chinese government" for its actions, something I had not read or heard before. Yang's comment against the Chinese government surprisingly did not lead to major publicity.
Decker said the fantasy sports franchise fit with Yahoo's desire to move more into social networking and demonstrated Yahoo's early adoption of social networking.
Bostock made a remark about how he wouldn't compare the Microsoft situation to a "romantic relationship." Despite his attempt to appear strong, Bostock ended up looking clueless every time he strayed from prepared comments. Bostock isn't a natural when it comes to dealing with the public. If he keeps opening his mouth about Microsoft, he'll start to look like Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction soon ("We called the shots" begins to look eerily similar to "Don't you ever pity me, you smug bastard."). If he's trying to play hard to get, he's not doing a good job--and he's certainly not endearing himself to Microsoft or anyone else with his rehashing of the offers and counteroffers. Obviously, there was some miscommunication. A two dollar difference ($31 or $33) doesn't ordinarily derail a deal. Either play nice so everyone can sit together again, or walk away--it's so simple, even a Harvard MBA should be able to get it.
Other questions involved an accusation Yahoo had not sold Yahoo Japan for the highest value. Yang said he recused himself on the Yahoo Japan board at the time of the transaction and sold a stake at the particular price because of tax implications, preferring to get a continuing revenue stream over ten years.
The same shareholder complained about Sue Decker's other board memberships, such as Berkshire Hathaway, Costco, and Intel. Other board members leapt to Sue's defense, saying she was a hard worker and answered emails at 3AM and had a great grasp of the company. Ms. Decker responded politely and added she specifically rejected several invites to join other companies' audit committees to save time for Yahoo.
Bostock rejected a request for him to step down and said director compensation was not high, disputing the numbers the shareholder provided. The shareholder responded that his numbers came from the proxy.
Other shareholders complained not all the directors had shown up and some did not even own stock in the company. Another shareholder complained about the lack of female board members.
Stephen Shankland and Wendy Tanaka wrote accurate summaries of the meeting:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10004577-93.html
http://www.forbes.com/technology/2008/08/01/yahoo-icahn-microsoft-tech-cx_wt_0801yahoo.html
Here is the BBC's take:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7538469.stm/
All in all, Yahoo had a successful day and pulled off a professional event after settling with Carl Icahn earlier. What was projected to be a media circus was just another shareholder meeting. Jerry Yang's image went up dramatically--he looked poised, prepared, and fresh. Meanwhile, Roy Bostock looked tired, bitter, and combative. I added 50 shares of Yahoo, a nominal amount, when I returned to my office. I like the company, but with Bostock around, I'm not sure a deal with Microsoft will get done anytime soon. I was hoping Decker could pull some strings with her colleague Warren Buffett, who would talk to Bill Gates, but now it all seems too complicated. Almost like a messy, bad breakup.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)