A while back, I suggested that Yahoo, the beleaguered technology colossus, should close up shop in Silicon Valley and move all its operations to Southern California. (It already has an office in Santa Monica.) Now CNN's Juilanne Pepitone reports that something along those lines might be in play. Could Disney buy Yahoo? Here's the lowdown:
While Disney hasn't thrown its name into the ring, one analyst thinks it and its big-media rivals should consider a Yahoo buyout.
"The big guys -- Apple, Google -- aren't interested. And either way, it would make more sense for a traditional media company to buy Yahoo," says James Dobson, stock analyst at The Benchmark Group.
That's because traditional media companies are struggling with how to monetize their online presence. They're still working through the transition from old to new media, and they face stiff competition from upstart online publications.
Well, since Lloyd Blankfein became CEO, anyway, and the financial crisis began to seriously mess with the legendary investment bank's magical, mystical fortunes.
This e-book on Goldman Sachs from Reuters BreakingViews just landed in my in-box. It's free and it's a quick and extremely informative read, a collection of five years' worth of columns.
Very good stuff on Goldman culture, Goldman envy, Goldman hating, Goldman compensation (not as much money as you might think), and the big changes that the firm has faced since the financial crisis.
This is from Anthony Currie's introduction:
The articles selected for this book chronicle Goldman’s bumpy ride underBlankfein over the last ?ve years from virtually untouchable to basicallyunremarkable. It might even be a candidate for a breakup. Of course, Goldman has been here before. The question is not just whether Goldmancan rise again, but whether in the face of a new regulatory regime it can do sowithout a change to its corporate structure – and perhaps its management.
Obama can't win: "Of course, aggressively addressing capital requirements and restructuring zombie banks three years ago would have turned Wall Street against Obama—but Wall Street's now against Obama anyway. Meanwhile, blaming Wall Street for its contribution to the country's problems—and actually backing up the talk with action—would have won over the rest of the business community and Main Street." (Business Insider)
The problem of "old loans" versus "new loans" and how it relates to willingness to work. To earn money. And to spend it all paying off the old loans: "A significant fraction of households and businesses are typically so burdened with the debts they accumulated during the housing surge that they have little incentive to produce and work, because their creditors would get most, if not all, of the fruits of their labor." (NYT)
Eric Richardson / blogdowntown
Those participating in Occupy Los Angeles march toward City Hall.
Yesterday, I blogged about what the "We are the 99%" Occupy Wall Street and Occupy LA protesters are all about. In the interest of fairness, I now want to explore the other side. I wouldn't call them the opposition. But if the 99 percent are angry that increases in income and wages have disproportionately gone to the top 1%, what do the 1% have to say in their defense?
Rich Kalgaard provided a basically textbook point of view in Forbes back in 2007, more than year before that…well, you know, that little problem with the global financial system:
[M]oneygrubbing--a.k.a. the search for profit--has its purpose. Money (profit) is a tool. It is capital. Without capital there is no capitalism. Innovation starves. Prosperity weakens. Societies stagnate. God-given gifts wither. This is especially true for humanity's wonderfully zany outliers: artists, inventors, entrepreneurs. They need capitalism more than anyone.
Money is good, therefore, because capitalism is good. It delivers the goods, literally, and better--broadly and individually--than does any other system.
It looks as if Los Angeles Lakers superstar Kobe Bryant may endure the NBA lockout by heading for Italy. As has been widely reported, Kobe initially demanded Vitrus Bologna, an Italian team, pay him $15 million for a full season, after the team had offered $6.7 million.
Now it's looking like "more than $3 million" is the number, for just 10 games. To keep the math simple, that obviously works out to $300,000 per game. On his current contract with the Lakers, Kobe gets $25,244,000 per season, which comes to $307,853 per game (I'm basing this on an 82-game regular season and not counting in playoff games or the championship).
That's money he won't collect if the lockout isn't resolved. So understandably he's investigating other opportunities, and the Vitrus Bologna deal will only cost him a paltry eight grand per game. Plus, he gets to return to Italy, where he says he learned to play ball the right way, according to an interview he gave to an Italian newspaper: