MSFT/YHOO DAY 2
After the dust settled on the first trading day post Microsoft withdrawing it's bid for Yahoo!, 279 million shares traded hands, and the stock closed at $24.37. That's a touch under $7 billion dollars worth of Yahoo! at the closing price, and compares to the average trading volume in Yahoo! of about 34 million shares a day.
The topic of course lead Techmeme all day, including this post by Yahoo! co-founder and CEO Jerry Yang on the company's corporate blog. To Yahoo!'s credit, they've kept the comments open on their blog, and most of the hundred comments I went through seemed to reflect some pretty unhappy shareholders.
Many existing Yahoo! shareholders seem to be jumping directly to Anger on the seven stages of grief, whilo folke selling the shares in presumable disgust.
At the same time there seem to be quite a number of folks (and folks at institutions), who're already at the final stage (Acceptance and Hope), amongst the buyers of Yahoo! shares today. Presumably, these shareholders are a patient lot, and likely less concerned with where the stock closed today, which was the subject of a post by Fred Wilson yesterday and today.
Following Fred's lead though, I thought I'd ask the following question here*.
I picked eighteen months because presumably the remaining and new shareholders of Yahoo! have a longer-term horizon for going with Yahoo! in the wake of the Microsoft bid.
Feel free to re-post this quiz on your blog. As Fred points out in his post on "Distributed Polling" today:
"The poll I did yesterday on Yahoo!'s closing price has been taken almost 2,200 times in about a day. How did it get so many takers? By being distributed on many blogs at the same time."
Let's see what the Wisdom of the crowds has to say how well (or not) the folks on the buy-side of today's 279 million shares will do over time.
* There's a typo in option 2 in the poll above. The official original Microsoft bid price should read $31 instead of $32. Editing the Quibblo quiz would erase the existing poll and results, so I'm highlighting the error in this footnote.