Recent Blog Posts
-
The Times' Rorshach Geithner Story
Apr 27 20099:04am EDT -
Sinking Animal Spirits
Apr 27 20098:04am EDT -
Counter-cyclical Urban Policy
Apr 26 200910:04am EDT -
Be Your Own Counterfeiter
Apr 26 20099:04am EDT -
Being Tim Geithner
Apr 25 200912:04pm EDT -
Notes From a Press Conference Naif
Apr 25 20099:04am EDT -
What Good is the News?
Apr 25 20098:04am EDT -
Stressful Enough
Apr 24 20092:04pm EDT -
Not Regretting the Pound
Apr 24 20091:04pm EDT -
Introducing the New Ford Squeeze
Apr 24 20099:04am EDT -
Non-Economic Questions of the Day
Apr 24 20099:04am EDT -
The Stress Test Blind Alley
Apr 24 20098:04am EDT -
Happy Hour
Apr 23 20099:04pm EDT -
Recovery Without Rebalancing
Apr 23 20096:04pm EDT -
The Shape of Your Recession
Apr 23 20095:04pm EDT
Links
- Felix Salmon

- DealBreaker

- Ryan Avent: The Bellows

- The Epicurean Dealmaker

- Chris Anderson

- Ultimi Barbarorum

- MarketBeat

- Michelle Leder

- John Quiggin

- The Panelist

- Andrew Leonard

- Streetsblog

- Brad Setser

- Michael Mandel

- Financial Crookery

- Kash Mansori

- Dean Baker

- Calculated Risk

- Free Exchange

- Curbed

- Lance Knobel

- Econospeak

- Carbon Tax Center

- Overcoming Bias

- Mark Thoma

- Naked Capitalism

- Alphaville

- Barry Ritholtz

- Alexander Campbell

- The Bayesian Heresy

- Brad DeLong

- DealBook

- Greg Mankiw

- Deal Journal

- FP Passport

- Carl Bialik

- Marginal Revolution

- A Fistful of Euros

- Dan Gross

Why Yahoo Shouldn't Buy Back Its Own Stock
Bill Miller is kicking himself this morning. The second-largest shareholder in Yahoo, he wanted $35 to sell out to Microsoft, and so he held on to his shares rather than hand them over to arbitrageurs at $29 or so. But now that Microsoft has picked up its ball and gone home, Miller has decided that if Ballmer isn't going to start buying Yahoo shares shares then maybe Yang should. He spoke to the NYT's Miguel Helft:
Mr. Miller appeared to be applying some pressure of his own, saying that he expected Yahoo to use a good portion of its approximately $2.3 billion in cash to buy back shares.
"It would be almost incoherent not to do so," Mr. Miller said. "You can't maintain that $33 undervalues your company, have your stock trade below that, and not buy back stock." Analysts say that Yahoo's shares, which closed at $28.67 on Friday, are likely to drop below $25 and perhaps as low as $20 on Monday.
I don't see the logic here. If Yahoo does start buying back its own stock, it will do so in the low $20s, where Miller seems to have shown that he has no interest in selling: he could have sold in the very high $20s at any point in the last few months, and passed up that opportunity.
As a major shareholder in Yahoo, Miller presumably has faith in the company's long-term value: if he wanted a quick exit, he had ample opportunity to take it. So why does he think that the best use for Yahoo's cash is to dole it out to shareholders who do want a quick exit?
Bill Miller, in case you've forgotten, runs something called the Legg Mason Value Trust, and does not run something called the Legg Mason Financial Engineering and Capital Structure Arbitrage Trust. Companies create lasting shareholder value by running a good business, not by running down their cash by shelling it out to exiting merger arbs.
Miller's had a tough time of late: his legendary streak of beating the S&P 500 has been broken for a while, and he's clearly under pressure to perform. If his fund was doing very well, I doubt he'd be talking like this. But it's not, and so he's reduced to asking Yahoo to artificially support the YHOO stock price in the secondary market.
It's not the job of company management to make determinations as to the proper level of the stock price. That's the job of the company board. There are sometimes good reasons for companies to buy back their stock: if there's a big options plan, for instance, a buyback operation stops it from being dilutive. But the worst possible reason to embark upon a buyback plan is because a major shareholder has egg on his face.






