On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:20:00 -0800, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>> Let then. They will then be a single company operating under
>> deep debt without much hope over the horizon (more on that
>> in a few moments :-) ).
>
> What debt? Microsoft has no debt [*] whatsoever. Yahoo!'s
> debt is 3/4 billion (already low compared to revenues
> of $6.97B), which compared to the combined company's
> theoretical revenue of about 67 billion is extremely low.
> IBM in particular has a far higher debt percentage ($35.27
> B of debt with yearly revenues of $98.79 B).
>
> Not that I think this is a good idea, mind you. However,
> clearly, debt is not a big issue, unless there's something
> I'm missing, such as amortized goodwill.
Yes, what you're missing is that Roy Schestowitz grabs onto a concept he
knows is false, and keeps saying it. Most people would call that lying,
but apparently Linonut doesn't believe so.
Some analysts have claimed that Microsoft would have to go into debt to buy
Yahoo, Roy re-spins that as Microsoft already being in debt, which he knows
is false, but he keeps saying it anyways because he likes the sound of his
own voice, and.. well.. when you can't say something bad that's true about
Microsoft, say something that's false, that's Roy's motto.
Nevermind the fact that Microsoft could easily sell off other assets to
cover buyout. Nevermind the fact that Microsoft might have a different
deal than half cash. Nevermind the fact that Microsoft could likely pay
off any debt incurred by the purchase in 1 or 2 quarters of profits. Or
any of dozens of other scenarios.
No, Roy has seized on a concept, and like a pitbull won't let it go, even
when provably false.
|
|
