I don’t believe that there is anything Yahoo could do at this point to further destroy their business that would surprise me.
At 1:35 pm EST yesterday we posted that we believed Yahoo would announce a search marketing deal with Google, essentially ending their negotiations with Microsoft and, pending government approval, sealing Google’s monopoly position in search marketing. Twenty-five minutes later a massive sell off of Yahoo stock began – the company lost billions in market valuation over the course of the next hour as the market made it’s bets on the news.
At 3 pm EST Yahoo announced that all talks with Microsoft were formally off, and the stock fell further. It eventually climbed back a little, but by the end of the trading day, $3.6 billion had been removed from the pockets of Yahoo stockholders. Well after trading ended, Yahoo confirmed our original report that they’d signed a deal with Google to hand over much of their search marketing business.
The deal terms announced with Google appear to be fairly innocent – a non-exclusive arrangement that let’s Yahoo take Google’s ads if and when they choose to, and put them alongside their own ads, and/or other third party ads. But the truth is that this will cause even more advertisers to flee Yahoo’s platform. Which will drive auction-determined ad rates down. Which will drive Yahoo to take more Google ads. Which will…
It’s a vicious cycle and they will have no choice, as a public company, but to rely more and more on Google as time goes on.
Our sources inside Yahoo had interesting things to say about the general state of things at the office today as Yahoo’s stock price fall apart. “Unclear what’s happening” said one vice president. “Fucking train wreck, total chaos” was the less eloquent observation of a more junior employee.
When I accused Yahoo of playing the crazy card in their negotiations with Microsoft, I never thought these people were actually insane. Handing Google a monopoly in search marketing was just a ploy, I thought. A way to get Microsoft to bid a little higher than $31 per share.
But it turns out I was wrong. Yahoo’s hatred of Microsoft runs so deep that they were actually, in the end, willing to destroy the future of their company just to keep it independent for a short while longer. They’ve ignored the wishes of their shareholders, employees and many now former key employees in killing that deal. And apart from Google, CEO Jerry Yang, President Sue Decker and possibly Tim O’Reilly, I don’t believe there is anyone in the world that is happy with what has happened.
As much as everyone still has lingering doubts about Microsoft after their hardball monopolistic practices of the nineties, it’s clear that they, along with Yahoo, were the only force counterbalancing the massive presence of Google in search marketing.
Without them, Google would continue to keep the lion’s share of search marketing dollars to themselves, and distribute next to nothing to third party publishers. But Microsoft and Yahoo were both willing to fight for some of those deals, at least pushing Google’s profits down a little. Now, with Yahoo taken out of the game, it’s unclear that Microsoft can fight Google on its own. How long will they pour profits from Windows and Office into trying to compete in search?
The delicate power balance among the big players was disrupted today in a big way, and the consequences will be felt over the coming months and years. We needed a competitive market in search to ensure the health of the Internet. Now, it’s nearly impossible to see how that can happen.
It took me about five minutes of watching Yahoo’s top two executives talk last month to realize that they had no fight left in them. The fact that they simply gave up wouldn’t matter so much if the only people hurt by their actions were their employees and stockholders. But that just isn’t the case, and now we all have to deal with the fallout.
@24
Great idea, except I don’t like Curry.
There’s something about the engineering personality that makes running companies go wrong. They (engineers) are really bad at accepting feedback and Yahoo ignores input from their audience. I’ll be glad to see some of Yahoo’s bad products hit the dustbin–in particular: Small Business Marketing.
“Massive desctruction of shareholder value…” ?
I call Drama Queen on this.
As @28 said. The stock was at $19 in February. So depending on how you look at it, they’ve actually created tremendous shareholder value since then: +30% versus +5% for the Nasdaq over the same time.
(even if all that was solely due to the rumour mill rather than performance).
you’re the one that bought the Y! stock mike. don’t blame others.
This tells that Wall Street is Las Vegas of the east! It is meant for high-stakes gamblers! Using the daily gyrations of Wall Street to plan for long-term financial security is like shooting the rapids!
Mike,
I think you are leaving out some of Yahoo’s key assets:
#1 position in Mail
#2 position in search
#2 (or #1) in page views
A great amount of talent _despite_ the recent losses; only a few major companies in the Valley could argue they have more
It’s becoming passe for Valley folks to claim Yahoo is screwed. However, just as in startups, desperation can be an asset. In February, Techcrunch discussed the potential of Yahoo dramatically opening up APIs – search, mail, advertising, as well as small properties like jobs, personals, answers.
Exposing the data behind these services more and letting users improve them could enlist thousands more sharp developers than currently for free, quickly. Google doesn’t need to take such risks, the position of the incumbent. Yahoo has resources to ride such a strategy out.
“Massive destruction of shareholder value”?
“Bankrupt stockholders”?
Umm, the stock dropped like 10%. That’s not unusual for for a tech stock to do. AAPL dropped 10% between Wednesday and this morning because Steve Jobs looked thin on stage. But it’s starting to recover, as YHOO will. YHOO is still well above where it was before this whole Microsoft thing started.
You didn’t have any money in Yahoo yourself, did you? Because, ummm, that might be a useful disclosure of financial interest for the casual reader, y’know?
what will happen to y! share holders finally ?
Mike, why is it Yahoo!’s responsibility to ensure a competitive market for search? I’m not saying I agree with Jerry’s recent decisions, but conceptually, I’d argue that competition is the market’s burden, not Yahoo!’s. Should Amazon throw more resources into auctions so that eBay has some competition, or is Amazon better off cutting it’s looses in the auctions vertical and focusing elsewhere (web services, etc)? As an advertiser, I fear a Google monopoly in search. However, as a Yahoo! shareholder, I want Jerry to do what’s best for his company even if that results in a Google monopoly. That said, I agree that Yahoo! has made some fatal errors, but not for the specific reason you outline here.
Sheryl Twain said;
“To Yahoo engineers, money is not everything, the code is. This the likes of Icahn cannot comprehend.”
Huh?
Darlin, the stock is publicly traded and the stock market demands a decent return on investment. It’s the responsibility of the Board and management to see that mission is carried out.
Coders just do as they are told and are easily replaced. Cold reality but no one cares that Yahoo! and Microsoft coders like their late’s flavored differently.
Icahn tried to knock sense into you guys, now you will have to be happy with your stock dwindling to the mid teens.
Yahoo burns down the house
@ MikeM
Mike. You don’t have a clue about software. Have you ever written software? No. Coders are definitely not “easily replaced”. As a matter of fact, they are very difficult to replace, and the best coders are nearly impossible to hire.
As for Yahoo being a public company, then if Icahn wants to control Yahoo, he can always buy a controlling interest, can’t he. In the meantime, it looks like the Board of Directors gets to decide what to do. All of you speculative junkies are out of luck. Yahoo is a long term winner. I don’t own any stock.
Stockholders schmockholders. If I lose my Yahoo Mail address someone will pay.
Terry Semel started the downfall and yang is just giving the finishing touches
IMHO the MS deal was the best for shareholders and employees. The only reason MS was interested in yahoo was because it is a web company and they would not have made the blunder of firing the key people at yahoo ( I think they must have learned a bit or too about web companies with their purchase of hotmail and how they screwed up I don’t think they would repeat that mistake again) they needed the yahoo web DNA to revive their web efforts.
Well If I was a share holder of yahoo I would definitely be going after the board for this mess the slight fall in share prices now is just the trailer in the coming months there will be a release of the full movie with huge erosion of shareholder value coming soon to the stock ticker closest to you.
The other thing that this mess has triggered is people ready to move away their online presence from yahoo to others since this company is showing no future.
Remember 0 users = 0 shareholder value
my sympathies with both employees and shareholders of yahoo if their management continues in their path they need all the sympathy they can get
Michael – you are 100% right on about this. It is so short-sighted it’s scary. I think financials and stock prices had something to do with it (which ironically this hurt at least in the immediate), but I just don’t see how this can be good for Y! long term. Microsoft potentially could have made much more sense as would have doing nothing along either lines.
Comment #1 – Jerry Yang is smoking crack.
Comment #2 – The health of the internet weather the power is balanced or not is completely fine. (This comment in response to below)
“We needed a competitive market in search to ensure the health of the Internet”
The thing with the internet is that anybody can start up a company and have a chance at getting huge. There is virtually no barrier to entry, which significantly decreases risk. The internet is only growing and expanding. As more countries become developed, we will see a significant rise in internet competition from international players. The quote above is completely ridiculous. The internet is a beast in itself and will not fall victim to a Google search advertising monopoly. Check out the news below…
http://www.read...ex.php?rta=blog
I feel so relaxed after leaving yahoo as life is much better outside, somehow they don’t want to listen to anyone and top (3-4) as the one making all calls. All smart employees are leaving or will be leaving over the period of time.
I’ve been reading most of the news concerning what has happened with Yahoo over the last year, and while I perfectly know that corporations have an obligation to stockholders, I feel that specifically THAT mentality is poison and evil.
A company should do what is best for the company, and hold to their values. In the world we live in, it seems the hyenas are calling for blood if everybody doesn’t have a price that they can sell themselves at.
Integrity and purpose seems secondary to doing what makes the most money.
I, for one, salue Yahoo! While I used very few of their products, everything that has happened has earned them my respect as a company of individuals with good moral values.
And screw Microsoft for destroying Yahoo! by suggesting a price. If I suggested to Mike that I’d buy him for $500, I’d expect him to decline me, and he’d be right to do so. What I wouldn’t expect is everyone calling for Mike’s head for doing so.
I think Mike has sided himself clearly rather than being objective viewer… So called “Google Monopoly” is totally an Exaggeration, whoever say this should go back to you Economics class and learn what “Monopoly” means.
Let’s compare the switching cost for end users:
Switching from Windows to Mac OS?
Switching from MS Office to ??? (any worth-mention subtitue?) ???
Switching from Google search to Alta-Vista? Live Search? Yahoo!????
Google Monopoly?
I fail to see how Yahoo traded their future.
Their ad platform has been underperforming by a huge percentage to Google’s and they haven’t been able to fix this difference since 2003 and it was finally time to pull the plug.
Now they can use a superior ad platform product to monetize their 500 million uniques which should be a win-win.
When the ads are more relevant, people will see the whole Yahoo product in better light, pushing eyeball numbers up, which leads to more revenue.
This is a good move by Yahoo. No, a *fantastic* move.
why then Yahoo needs to maintain its own search platform (save money and resources) and outsource fully to Google.
I for one am quite pleased Microsoft didn’t buy Yahoo. There’s more to the internet than the advertisement market Michael, and while the buyout might have been good for that market (for a while), that doesn’t mean it would have been good for dozens of open source projects, web projects, competition in mail, foto storage and so on. And I care more about those things than about some advertisers having to pay a bit more for their ads temporarily.
I would agree with all posts that mention not merging with MSFT was not a bad thing. Michael — your reasoning is VERY short-term focused. If I’m Yahoo and I think the only way to grow is to remain independent (which I think is true), then no way I sell to a company that will kill my soul. They may be having a few tough years now, but the only way to get out of this is to run lean, get back to their roots in innovation, and leverage the power of their mail/messenger platform.
The fallout of MSFT was only bad for a few greedy shareholders.
“I don’t believe there is anyone in the world that is happy with what has happened.”
Just my two cents, but I think the Free Software and Open Source communities might be a little relieved that Microsoft will have to focus more attention and money on fighting Google and partners than on fighting FLOSS-oriented enterprises. Microsoft may have lost some of their stranglehold on the consumer desktop due to the Google upset over the last decade, but that hasn’t stopped them from seeding mayhem wherever possible.
Small comfort, I’m sure, and not necessarily germaine to the core focus of the Crunch networks, but personally I would prefer to see the presumptive monopolies in question suing each other rather than suing the rest of us.
“I don’t believe there is anyone in the world that is happy with what has happened.”
You’re right. I’m not happy, I’m ecstatic. The last thing we needed was Microsoft in charge of Yahoo. You say that “Yahoo’s hatred of Microsoft runs so deep that they were actually, in the end, willing to destroy the future of their company just to keep it independent for a short while longer” … well if they had accepted Microsoft’s offer, that would have completely destroyed the future of their company *much* more quickly.
It’s a bump in the road, and Yahoo will get over it. Like a spoiled child who always gets their way, Microsoft needs to be told “no” once in awhile and I applaud Yahoo for doing it.
MA has finally gone over board in prognosticating the demise of Yahoo and linking that to perceived great harm that will be done to the search market. Michael, search doesn’t define the totality of online businesses that Yahoo is engaged in, beyond that search is so commodity right now that any of the big players in the space will be around for a long, long time by just maintaining their business. Sure this won’t make the investors happy (flat growth curves and all in search) as has been shown by all this gnashing of teeth by Icahn and others who don’t give a hoot about Yahoo they just want more upside before selling of their shares.
The fact you never once mention your interest in Yahoo as a *consumer* who uses its products and constantly harp on “the investors, the investors” …you know what F the investors. Consumers who use Yahoo products like myself like the way things are going, they like the bevvy of new products that have been released and Google is not doing anything to cut into that pie, they only compete in a few areas. True search is a big one but as long as Yahoo can offer an alternative to Google and MS the search market is better for those placing ads. If Yahoo went and got Jonah’d by Microsoft there would only be two big dogs, not three and less competition means a worse environment for ad buyers not a better one. With this deal Yahoo has indeed cozied up with the competition but they are going to get money for doing so and as long as their ad revenue strategy is better than Googles *long term* they will succeed in providing a cost effective ad sales platform that may stave off and even out perform googles’. Also better to cozy up with the competition than be *eaten by it* wholesale. Long term that is the vision Yang has for Yahoo, not a short term payday for investors and the eventual absorption of Yahoo and all its products into the Microsoft blackhole (which is for sure what was going to happen, no way it would have stayed a distinct entity with all that open source and java technology behind its products and services, Microsoft is like the Borg…assimilation is all that matters)
So what was the choice for Yahoo’s future? Be consumed and absorbed by Microsoft making ONLY the investors the winners OR ride the rocky road of innovation to happier users AND hopefully better share value over a longer term as an *independent* Yahoo. If you care about the company and the consumers and the longevity of the company over fattening the wallets of the investors the choice is rather obvious. I think the choice made by Yang and co. although contrary to what the investors want is an honorable one from the consumer perspective, Yahoo is NOT one of the many poorly designed start ups that seek fast deployment of poor ideas to sell to ignorant venture capitalists and ride for a fast exit…it’s been around for over 10 years and wants to continue being around for its costumers sake…that is something to respect in a companies leadership not bemoan in my view…but then I always feel the consumer comes first and success later, but not everyone (especially the faceless “investors”) is on that bandwagon.
I am just curious, this may be disclosed some where on the site but I haven’t seen it, do you own any Yahoo stock?
“Yahoo’s hatred of Microsoft runs so deep…”
Forgive me, but Yahoo did not do this because they “hate” Microsoft. The did this to exist. They did this to avoid being bought out from under themselves, and dissolved into nothingness.
Any business person who does not protect his business from being bought out from under him is a fool. Any stockholder who buys a company merely for financial reasons, and not because they believe in the company, is a fool as well.
“Mike, you’re thinking from only one point of view (money, money, money) – you forgot that there are 3 important stakeholder (employee, endusers and share holders) – you’re only thinking about shareholders and not other 2 – may be you have no clue how loyal the endusers and employees are to yahoo – shareholders are the least loyal people and why the hell jerry should worry about them anyway … he better be loyal to the people who are more loyal to him …”
LOL, the employees AREN’T loyal to Yahoo. Yahoo is bleeding and they know it. Anybody else see the plane over 101/280 the other day pulling the Yahoo jobs banner? LOL.
XBox native Flickr mode without XBMC… RIP.
google is better than them and getting better daily at search and search/contextual advertising…This saves them billions of wasted r&d and gains tons of revenue…Interesting perspective on the monopoly but I believe better google than ms…
Michael, in life, the money is not ALL !! Microsoft is an hugly company and nobody want to join them! It’s just the reality! It’s not because you have a lot of money that you can purchase what you want. Steve Baller is a JOKE ! And Yahoo had no desire to make a deal with him !
Yahoo needs to launch a massive campaign to re-establish its lost brand equity and at the same time also pay a few dollars to our friend Arrington [at least a few more than what Microsoft gives] to stop him from corrupting the minds of many of us who flock this blog.
Isn’t there a single person in this learned community of bloggers who can create something which is comparable to techcrunch but is free from the biased PR they do for Microsoft?
@105: #2 in search is not saying much.
Harry “poor, poor Panema” Wang
Mike add me to that list of Jerry, Sue, and Tim
I’ve been rooting for this outcome since Microsoft first started their effort to acquire Yahoo! It’s worth noting that at today’s closing price, Yahoo! stock is trading about where it was a year ago and above where it was at the start of the year.
The Microsoft hostile move backfired on Microsoft and pushed Yahoo! closer to Google. Yahoo! finally woke up and did what they should have done years ago, cede search monetization to Google who simply does it better and will always do this era of search better than anyone else.
Now Yahoo! will do what it needs to do. Clean house, get lean, get out of businesses it shouldn’t be in. Focus on what it’s good at. And start making money and growing again.
They may need new leadership to do that. But selling this asset to Microsoft just because they had the wrong leadership and probably still have the wrong leadership is a mistake.
Imagine what the right CEO could do with Yahoo!
Yahoo is worth almost as much as it was 6 months ago before the MS deal was rumored.
http://finance....ource=undefined
YHOO was recently overpriced during the MS bid. It’s now back to normal.
Really, Michael, you must be under the payroll at Microsoft. True, the deal with Google is getting Google way too close to a monopoly, but Microsoft was the worst thing that could have happened to Yahoo. That fact was never debatable.
@joelazurus is right. youre saying yahoo should turn down an extra $800M, that goes right to their bottom line, to preserve competition in search – competition that isn’t really there to begin with. google dominates search advertising because of the size of their audience, ie their query volume. more queries brings more advertisers, and that brings more competition. without more query volume, yahoo can never effectively be the counterbalance to google that you desire or suggest. at least with this deal, they can (presumably) apply that $800M to increasing that audience.
also, yahoo is already big enough, with 20% of the market in queries (in the US at least), to secure the top advertisers. what they’ll never get with 20% is the tail. that’s the current difference between them and google. so, until they can compete for those advertisers, the smart move for yahoo is to take the money.
so not sure this has been properly thought through by TC.
the real question is whether they can do something with the money to improve their standing on the audience side.
Yahoo will stick around. Wall Street (& everyone) will simply figure incompetence into their projections.
What a waste. Why don’t these guys revolultionize the movie industry?
please michael, let someone else of the team write about yahoo!. we all know your opinion. maybe someone else can write less biased. then articles would be more interesting again.
yahoo! did the best for the company and the users, not for shortsighted shareholders. in my opinion companies should think of their clients first, then of shareholders.
In the short term (three months at most),
selling out to Microsoft might have ’saved’ Yahoo and Yahoo’s value to its current stockholders (shareholders, employees, users)
but
in the long term,
it would have destroyed value of both Yahoo and Microsoft.
1) Yahoo, with all its flaws, is an innovative company. Microsoft hardly ever created anything innovative. All of its cash cows were created by others, copied by Microsoft and then commoditized. By its very non-innovative nature, Microsoft can not embrace Yahoo and make something better out of it or together with it.
2) Yahoo is a pure web company. On the contrary, all of Microsoft’s money makers are offline products. Nothing Microsoft tried on the web is successful. Why would something better come out by acquiring Yahoo? Microsoft would have made it as mediocre as msn and live search, and eventually would have killed it all together.
3) Most mega mergers (and not mega ones) do not work out. 1 + 1 often results in less than 2.
So, where does this leave Yahoo?
The move with Google will not save Yahoo, but it gives Yahoo a temporary relief.
The only thing that may save Yahoo is a visionary leader who understands how to develop technology (in response to the comment that one needs to know how to write code to understand what Yahoo is) and who has will power to turn things around. Whether there is such a person, and whether Yahoo had not lost its momentum is yet to be seen.
In the short term, Google is a winner anyway you look at the situation.
It is not all over for Yahoo just yet, but it has been weakened to continue any serious fights.
This comment comes from someone who advertises using: MSN Adcenter, Yahoo Search Marketing and Google Adwords. I am not a shareholder in any of the companies in question. Here is my take:
1. Regardless of search volume share, I will continue to use all three advertising platforms. Google offers volume and “ok” roi, MSN offers “ok” volume and good roi, and Yahoo falls in between.
2. Microsoft ONLY entered the search field because they could see the money it was generating. They did not innovate, they copied. That’s fine, but don’t assume that they are innovative when it comes to online properties. They are only competent with their offline ventures (and some would even argue that).
3. Google is KING when it comes to search. I don’t see that changing any time soon. Thank goodness they are good at what they do. Their advertising platform is VERY user friendly. Both Adcenter (MSN) and Yahoo Search Marketing platforms are cumbersome and not user friendly AT ALL.
That’s fine, search is not MSN’s or Yahoo’s core compentencies.
MSN should stick to their offline products, they cannot compete properly in search. All the while they are in it, I admit I will use them, because as an advertiser I can still derive decent roi from it.
Yahoo should stick to what it’s best at…Web generated content and community based web apps. Again, while they employ search ads in their mix, I will continue to use it so long as roi is decent.
Google should stick with search. It’s what made them “powerful” in the beginning…
What I’m saying here is that with Google, MSN and Yahoo you are comparing Oranges to Apples to Lemons. Each one should stick with what they are good at.
And, I agree, you should not be so biased in your review of the current situation regarding these said companies, Michael. Your bias reeks, to be honest, and is a HUGE turn off.
It’s sooo simple, it’s elementary, my dear Watson:
Mikrosoft is a baaaddddieee. Google is noble. So is Yahoo. Alliance of good guys vs a BAD guy. What’s wrong with this? Not everything is in money and stocks!
I completely disagree with the other Marc on this thread. Arrington is right on target with this post and nailed the important points dead on. I also agree with notion that Yahoo is being relegated to ‘just another publisher’ status. The problem is that they are generally piss poor publishers. They have a few good properties in Finance and Flickr. Beyond that they have nothing that is being done BETTER and CHEAPER somewhere else. Some of the recent revamps in the past year have been big disappointments. The best things they are offering now are the likes of ‘Shine’. There are dozens of boutique sites in that niche that trounce them in that market.
The value of their content will become increasingly marginalized until they are swallowed by a stodgy old world media company and be relegated to stepchild status not unlike their dimwitted, special-ed, short-bus riding peer AOL.
If I was a stockholder I’d be pissed. If I were an employee I’d be hanging at the bar and sending out resumes.
Mike, youre making a mountain out of a mole-hill. Yahoo stock dropping $2-3 is not a big deal. Sure on paper it’s a couple billion but it’s not the end of the world for thm.
Time will tell whether this partnership gives them breathing room and extra runway to execute in a way that will increase shareholder value.
@Unbelievable – Microsoft was in search well before there was money in it back in the ’90s. Google didn’t innovate as far as a business model in search. That model was already in use when they copied it and had to pay a settlement for stealing it from goto.com. “They did not innovate, they copied. That’s fine, but don’t assume that they are innovative when it comes to online properties.” Just about every other statement in your comment is flawed. I won’t bother retorting.
yahoo has no future. innovative killing corporate culture is completely entrenched and unfortunately it does not have a viable cash cow product like microsoft or oracle to justify over 40 billion valuation in long run. Outsourcing core business is incredibly stupid. It has survived by acquisitions for long time. Soon it will run out of $. Yang: remember excite. that is your future.
If a deal with microsoft was done, whether the merger was successful or unsuccessful yahoo would have been history.This is the best possible move yahoo could have done in shorter term, In longer term it becomes (take help from google to defeat google
Am surprised that many people put Yahoo and Google in the same basket when clearly their business aren’t quite the same. Yahoo is a huge portal with loads of stuff to offer to an average internet user compared to Google. Granted, search is one of the primary things on the Internet for users, but it’s not the biggest drive on the internet. Yahoo is a portal, a portal that offers much more than Google offers in terms of a total internet user experience.
With Yahoo and Google teaming up, it’s only a bright future for rather than otherwise. A Yahoo and Microsoft deal could be equally good or better, but the company internal culture clashes which itself is a poison pill for a future success.
Good job Jerry!
Thank you techcrunchreader for posting the board members and their other affiliations. With the exception of Joshi (HP) and maybe Activision, it’s pretty clear why the inmates are running the asylum. What are these people doing running the world’s #1 (by traffic, not quality) website?
Besides providing me with a good list of other companies to bet against, I’m very curious how such a poor board came to run this organization. When were they elected and by whose nomination? Compare this to Google’s board or even the boards of many series B startups.
Not to put to fine a point on it, but how in the world did TWO of the nine board members at Yahoo! come from Northwest airlines. AN AIRLINE!?!? Northwest?!?
I would say that Yahoo! has not a single brand name, high-quality, technology luminary on their board. Ironically, Jerry Yang is probably the closest thing that they have to one.
And so goes the executives, the management, the employees and the company’s stock….a fish sticks from the head down.