THE GUARDIAN
Microsoft Corp. has made an aggressive bid to buy struggling Internet behemoth Yahoo Inc. for $44.6 billion, in hopes that the combined forces would create a formidable competitor to industry leader Google Inc.
The surprising offer, announced today, leaves the decision in the hands of Yahoo's board, which responded that it would promptly evaluate the proposal "in the context of Yahoo's strategic plans and pursue the best course of action to maximize long-term value for shareholders."
If the acquisition is approved by Yahoo, it likely will be reviewed by federal regulators. Today, the U.S. Justice Department told the Associated Press it would be interested in scrutinizing the deal on antitrust grounds. That Google is so dominant in online advertising probably helps Microsoft, which already is under federal oversight in the wake of an anti-trust settlement six years ago.
Google declined to comment on the proposed merger.
In making the unsolicited acquisition offer, and then taking it public, Microsoft is hoping to force Yahoo's hand winning the support of investors as they bemoan a slumping share price. Financially adrift, Yahoo is undergoing a desperate reorganization, and its troubles are reflected in its stock, which was near a four-year low Thursday at $19.18.
Microsoft is offering $31 per share, a 62 percent premium, which Yahoo investors would be able to take in cash or in Microsoft shares.
-------------------------------------
OIL and G
ASShell recorded the biggest annual profits in British corporate history yesterday at $27.6bn (£14bn) c
ausing a storm of protest from trade union leaders and green groups who said the "obscene" profits came at the expense of motorists, pensioners and the environment and suggested it should be met with a windfall tax.(Definition: A tax levied by governments against certain industries when economic conditions allow those industries to experience above-average profits. Windfall taxes are primarily levied on the companies in the targeted industry that have benefited the most from the economic windfall, most often commodity-based businesses.
As with all tax initiatives instituted by governments, there is always a divide between those who are for and those who are against the tax. The benefits of a windfall tax include proceeds being directly used by governments to bolster funding for social programs. However, those against windfall taxes claim that they reduce companies' initiatives to seek out profits. They also believe that profits should be reinvested to promote innovation that will in turn benefit society as a whole.
Windfall taxes will always be a contentious issue debated between the shareholders of profitable companies and the rest of society. This issue came to a head in 2005, when oil and gas companies, such as Exxon Mobil who reported profits of US$36 billion for the year, experienced unusually large profits due to rising energy prices).
Back to the story: The world's second largest quoted oil company (Shell) said it had no intention of cutting back on its operations, saying it needed to increase production to meet rising demand and unveiling controversial plans to start oil operations in Iraq (See here "Shell Plans in Iraq")
In American Profits history however it was not Shell that recorded record profit. (Oh good I thought I was going to get all negative toward Oil 
companies; Who was it? Microsoft? Wal-Mart? Ebay?) It was the oil giant Exxon Mobil, with a dismal 40.6 Billion dollar profit year. See story here.
What is the argument here again for why they charge so much (I know its cheap here compared to other countries, but other countries aren't built with as much as a necessity for travel like our urban/suburban realities) but make so much actual profit. Is the profit above costs to run the oil wells and stuff? Please if you know more about this, chime in. (Josh--any thoughts if you are reading?)
5 comments:
Other than big corporations being involved, is there a relation between the 2 articles? One seems like a smart business move that has the potential to create healthy competition in what is becoming (or already is) a monopoly in the Internet industry (although I realize MS already has a monopoly of their own in the software industry). The other looks more like corporate greed at its finest.
timmy g,
no connection just thought both were interesting;
and was blown away by the amount of money one company actually has to throw at something;
I wonder what most countries are "worth" in comparison? Hard to compare on so many levels but interesting that companies have tens of billions to spend.
True. It is nice to see things like the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation as well (world's biggest charity, funded by the 2 richest people in the world, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet) and the (Product) Red campaign that Bono, Bill Gates and Michael Dell have developed. At least there is some hope that some of those billions are going to better use than private jets and mansions and Internet domination.
yeah I think initiatives like this are important. To set the standard for others to give toward such causes. You can't take it with you anyway; or as Mark Johnson says
"Hearses don't pull UHaul's"
Only since you asked, Mark...
Where to begin? Since profits is mentioned so much, will someone please tell me where they're going? Bank accounts in Switzerland? Private jets? Well, maybe for the big wigs, but that's another story for another time (PS - I'm happy they make that much, gives me something to look forward to :) The vast majority of those billions in profit go right back to shareholders - that's me and you - so the only thing a windfall tax does is take money away from shareholders. Genius, isn't it? Politicians take more of our money and people actually thank them for it.
The rest of the profits goes back into the business, helping to create more wealth. Which, by the way, leads to more R&D, more jobs, and lower prices. So exactly why are we against such huge profits? These oil companies are just about the only companies with the resources to fund all your precious green technologies, and they do to the tune of billions.
And finally, time for a quiz - which corporation was Al Gore's biggest supporter during his effort with Kyoto in the late 90s? Answer: ENRON - the energy company that everyone loves to use as a casepoint in greed. So which is it? Are they evil, greedy bastards or the savior of the planet. You pick.
Post a Comment