About the financial comparison of Microsoft, Google and Yahoo! (chapter one and a half - answers)

    So, the previous article caused a certain number of comments. I am very glad that among the commentators there are almost all adequate people.

    Many thanks to those who expressed their gratitude. It is she, your very gratitude that gives me strength to write further. Well, I would like to answer certain comments separately.



    Epichild
    When buying a public Internet company, you need to consider all assets, not just finances. And the assets on the Internet are primarily brand awareness and the number of users of the services provided. And the fact that Yachu is not good at making money on this is their personal problem. Microsoft so wants to buy a yacht not at all because of these 3% of revenue.


    EpiChild, you are absolutely right. Note that in the article I am not talking about how justified the price that Microsoft offers. I just analyzed the income and expenses of three market players. I will say more, in the second part we will just see how much it would cost to buy Yahoo!

    And such things that you are talking about, unfortunately, can not be estimated financially, therefore, “brand awareness” and “number of users” are too shaky indicators. For example, what happened recently with Kazaa suggests that brand fame is very easy to lose, and any joke with a name server can cut any number of users to the root.

    Apathetic
    You draw conclusions from the wrong assumptions.
    Your mistake is that you are considering Microsoft as a whole, and it should be - only its MSN. I mean, you do not need to compare the financial indicators of the general and the private.
    If we consider the situation from this point of view, then the author of the picture is not so wrong at all. Because google is really “bigger” than MSN and especially yahoo.


    Sorry, but there is no company like MSN. There is Microsoft Corporation, which made a proposal to Yahoo! The fact that one company is engaged at the same time and the sale of software here does not make any difference, since no one has ever bothered Yahoo! do something else besides your services.

    enlarge_your_brainis
    Gross profit! Ah ha ha ha ha!
    Gross income and not profit. There is income - this lope dough has come. There is an expense - how much dough is gone. There is profit - income minus expense. If the profit is negative, it is a decrease. Or losses.
    Well and yes, dude - you alone in 15 minutes using the Internet certainly turned out to be smarter than a cloud of Microsoft analysts for an nth period of time :-).


    You, of course, are just fine. If for you there are such simple categories as income and expense, and only - I envy you. And besides, perhaps several thousand more people envy, for whom the concept of “Gross Profit” still exists.

    ident
    not without journalistic stuff, of course, but

    you forgot a very solid article about the synergistic effect of the merger: Microsoft is successfully working on current / operating costs, having bought a yacht, it can easily get rid of these crazy 83%

    and even more, a single company the total share of operating costs can be reduced below 50%, since it is really possible to get rid of duplicate personnel (sales, etc.)

    and the Microsoft financial department estimates the purchased company precisely by revenue, and not by net profit


    fakeyou
    I support. MS does not buy Yahoo because of revenue of $ 6bn, but joins assets, both tangible and non-tangible (this, as I understand it, is of the greatest value to MS, i.e. goodwill + software development / certificates / patents, etc. .P.). Therefore, do not forget about the possible synergistic effect of the merger. And with the optimization of costs, I think MS will somehow figure it out, albeit with the same dismissals, or getting rid of non-core assets ...


    Razb0ynik
    I apologize, but the article is completely useless. The author is right in saying: “I don’t understand at all ...”
    This cannot be considered in this way! This is how to say: “Take a car without wheels and wheels, none of this can drive. Well, if only the wheels can roll downhill. So we’ll attach the wheels to the car and now we’ll get crap, which also doesn’t go, well, God forbid, it’ll also roll downhill. ”
    I would like to remind you of the concept of synergy and the fact that 1 + 1 can equal not 2, but 3.4 or even more. The net profit of the company after the merger of the two companies is equal to their sum, only if they operate in completely different areas that do not overlap and then not always. Thanks to synergy, even 0 + 0 can equal 100! If anyone is interested, I can give you some simple illustrative example.


    I agree with you about the synergistic effect, but not entirely. Believe me, back in the 60s, Volvo tried to do almost everything in a row. Her managers ran around and talked about an unprecedented synergistic effect and about the diversification of costs, until they finally guessed to sit down and analyze.

    The synergistic effect is difficult to evaluate, it has practically no measurable nature, and therefore for financial analysis it can exist only as a kind of idiom. It will be unknown whether he will bet on him is dangerous.

    Of course, that a single company can lower the share of current costs, I think it will definitely lower it, but the question is - in the name of what? In the name of how many dollars in revenue plus?

    And specially for RazB0YniK: if you find my article completely useless, do not read. I do not force! :)

    azazel
    the data cited by the author is very informative, and it is clear that the role of the "big fish" should belong to Microsoft, but if you look to the future and introduce a correction factor that would reflect the much more promising Google, the fish should be at least the same size. After all, the Internet is spreading wider and wider, and thereby the influence of Google is increasing (the basis of its business is just on Internet solutions), and Google has already encroached on the corporate segment by offering them its online applications as a replacement for Office ... in general, respect to the author, we are waiting for a summary perspective analysis


    Ghm, I'm afraid to disappoint you, but I'm still a man :) But it's okay.

    I’ll tell you that I am very opposed to any correction factors for prospects. Those who lost enough money during the collapse of the dotcoms will be able to tell you about this.

    There is an adequate measure of prospects - net profit for the year. I consider it to be the most convenient, since it speaks very clearly about the quality of work.

    Again, I do not want to impose my point of view, it was only my opinion.

    flag_of_labour
    I still think that the rebukes against Yahi are unfair. The fact that their profit / expense ratio is not as impressive as that of others does not mean that money is spent on Ferrari for top management. Just managing the company is not as effective as in Google or MS.


    And I'm not saying that their money is being spent on Ferrari. I just want to say that repeating the same distribution of expenses for two years in a row does not mean a one-time “inefficiency”, but about politics as a whole. Believe me, there are no coincidences in the business world, the wrong game is now between Yahoo !, shareholders and Microsoft.

    hanabi
    Dear author.
    They do not like MS here and everything connected with it. gatesophobia.
    Verified by experience. Although advertising servers vindosovyh for the loot hang.
    Do not try to be objective.
    Here everyone knows what is good on the Internet and what is bad.
    Which browser is the best and which one is shit.
    Which webdanol is correct and, in general, what is webdanol.
    To whom it is possible to speak out in a free society, habras, and to whom the removal of the article is also ban.
    Which company is the most, and which actually is none, regardless of real income.
    It is clear to everyone that MS is the largest player.
    What is the main activity for Google and Yahu, then for the MS division.
    Only some are silent about this, while others are trying to make others not talk about it (well, they’ll probably kill my karma).
    It would be better if you praised Google for the growth of income there, for the care of users and the picture you said that it is just super and painted incorrectly only in the sense that the Google fish is too small, why AOL is not inside Google.
    Then then the price would not have been for you


    Believe me, hanabi, I write my articles in order to share experience. I want people to not just read something about Yahoo!, Google and Microsoft, but to know where the data comes from, how to analyze it and how to share important and less important things.

    And from myself I can say that I will put a plus in your karma with pleasure.

    prostoalex
    The author, I wonder, is aware that expenses are also acquisitions of a company? And such high figures from Yahu are not sandwiches for employees, but purchases of Zimbra, Blue Lithium, etc.?


    Dear prostoalex! You, I think, understand that current expenses include the article “Research”, therefore the research conducted by Yahoo! through independent research and the purchase of those rights that she may need are reflected there. A complete answer to your question will be in the second part, when we move on to the analysis of assets, we’ll see there - what is interesting about Yahoo!

    And in no way payments for the purchased rights / enterprises fall into the column "Costs of sales and management" can not, believe me. There are only marketing, PR and management expenses. Point.

    Thanks again to everyone who expressed their opinion. I will be glad to continue the discussion, but for now I will continue to work on the second chapter.

    With love,
    maniaque

    Also popular now: