Factors like the cost of the burger, or how fresh/tasty it is, become less important.
Also, all-cash doesn't mean what you think it means. The currency used to pay for a company (cash, stock, pork bellies, whatever) is independent of the vesting schedules of the employees/founders acquired. Typically investors receive most stock/cash immediately, while employees receive some up front and the rest over a period of time that is negotiable. 3-4 years is standard. Some deals are front-loaded (more than 50% in the first half) and others are back-loaded (the reverse).
Re: the burger analogy, that also makes sense in the context of there being competition for this deal. But aside from a puff piece in TC which looks placed by sources (aka Tumblr banker Frank Quattrone), there didn't look like much competition in this case.
But nevertheless, thanks for the informative answer.
And as amusing as that might or might not be, there is also a point there.
If it's properly regulated though, you're right that there's no problem with it.
Horse meat's fine, I've had it... but it's unacceptable and potentially dangerous to have it sold as beef.
Yahoo could monkey around and try and pick it up in a "fire sale" in 12 months for $500 mil. But maybe that never happens and they still wake up tomorrow well behind in the youth and mobile demographic. I love that Yahoo, after sooo many years of indecisiveness, is being decisive and bold. Not sure if it'll pay off but these seem to be well thought out calculated risks.
But weren't there other reports that they were going to hit 15M instead? Whoops. If they had 100M revenue, they wouldn't me needing to raise more cash; their burn is far smaller.
If they intend to continue operating it (highly likely) buying while they are still with cash, all of their staff, and vibrant is quite possibly a better outcome than buying a broken company for less even only a few months later.
Disclosure: I am long Yahoo in my personal portfolio and I've led many M&A activities for Rackspace.
Would they really have turned down an offer of $700 million? $800 million? Was $1.1B really the least they'd accept?
I bet they would have accepted significantly less, rumors to the contrary.
But the billion dollar headline has its own value, I guess.
Why didn't Yahoo just let them get desperate and buy them then? With an all-cash deal, it seems they're less interested in the team than the platform so seems they could have picked that up in a few months for significantly less.
What am I missing in this? I hope the answer is not that doing that would create enmity between Yahoo and Tumblr's investors or something like that? That would strike me as a gross violation of their fiduciary duty to their shareholders, no?