Analysts say Yahoo is not as good as a retreat: facing excessive analysis

Introduction: John C. Dvorak, MarketWatch columnist Devorac, believes that given the sheer complexity and disorder of Yahoo's business, it may be time for private equity investors to experiment with integration, and the potential for privatization will have a subtle impact on Yahoo's share price.　　The following is the full text of Devorac's comments: Perhaps the ideal future for Yahoo is privatization, so that their day-to-day operations do not have to be YHOO in public, away from the barrage of criticism, and perhaps their only remaining bit of creativity is likely to play out.　　For listed companies, this is actually a very common obsession, is too much analysis, is not willing to face the situation. A number of reports have claimed that Yahoo could be swallowed a little by a private-equity union. The report mentions TPG Capital, KKR, and some other companies are also interested in the idea.　　It is worth mentioning China's Alibaba (Weibo), which is likely to view Yahoo as a potential beachhead for their entry into the US market. But what can Yahoo offer the acquirer? The point is that, if done properly, the total value of the company's split will be significantly higher than their current overall value.　　I think that's where their charm lies. Yahoo has made a lot of acquisitions, but none of them has really done enough integration.　　They buy this or that kind of assets, and then either throw them outright or leave them to fend for themselves, never really thinking about what they're doing. Perhaps the best example was a deal they had completed during the dotcom bubble. At that time, they bought broadcast.com in the form of shares, trading on a scale of 5.7 billion dollars--and it turned out that the deal was simply a money-taking.　　Many of the company's acquisitions have never been integrated until today, and never brought a penny benefit to the company. Yahoo has also developed a large number of products, but most of them are very bad marketing.　　Even Yahoo Mail, in fact, does not really give full play to energy. As a then, we are in the business map of Yahoo will naturally see the left a group of the right piece of the situation.　　In social networking, Yahoo was a pioneer, but never gained the prestige to deserve it, and often unexpectedly killed the community. Finally, there is part of the content in their business.　　Yahoo has all sorts of pretty good content sites, but they can't combine all of them to provide a newspaper, or that kind of integrated news site. Looking far away, Yahoo's messy and shocking.　　If there is one website in the world that can set up disorder, it is not Yahoo. This is, of course, a goldmine in a structured mind. I am sure that in this privatization game, XuMany senior players have this depth of thinking. Of course, everything is easier said than done, and it looks as if there is some kind of curse on the head of Sonny, California.　　How many years, how many people, who have no way to a real constructive restructuring of Yahoo-otherwise, such as this article column will not have to be one after another to be born. Perhaps, because the interior of Yahoo is so complex and so disorderly, dysfunction serious, want to restructure is wishful thinking, so even to the private companies to care, may not be able to do, or even worse.　　However, all the evidence suggests that there are indeed people who are trying to make such an effort.　　This means that the stocks they circulate in the market may start to build, and in the end, the stock price will be greatly pulled up.　　The danger is that when potential buyers accumulate stocks at 1.1, they suddenly feel that this is not a good idea on the eve of an offer for the rest of the stock, so that all the stocks they hold are thrown back into the market, so that anyone can think of a slump. What's going to happen? (Zi Jin)