1) Buy a small amount of Yahoo

2) Shout alot

3) ???????

4) Profit!!!!!!!

buy small amount of yahoo for $30 a share (don't know real share price currently)

replace the broad and get microsoft to buy shares at $33.50 a share make 3.50 a share. thats proable why he set that figure figured best profit to while keeping microsoft interested

Somebody who acquires stock for the purpose of resale is not a share holder but a share trader. Companies should better protect themselves from traders and speculators. For example, the company statues and bylaws could be drafted such that shares only become voting shares when they have been held for a minimum amount of time, say 6, 9 or even 12 months. This will not entirely keep the speculators away, but at least it forces speculators to remain passive. Speculators should never be allowed to get actively involved. It's the worst form of conflict of interest when a speculator gets to manipulate things.

"Apart from getting rid of Yang and the other directors he seems short on actual strategic plans for the company."

The more Mr Icahn bullies his way into the spotlight, the more he looks like as welcome as a dose of the clap/a syphilitic sore. With some friends, who needs enemies?

Had to chuckle to myself about the loony toon above who reckons boards should draft company statutes such that shares are only given voting rights after 6, 9 or 12 months. What planet does this nugget come from? There are a few angles to come from on this, the first is that this type of scheme would be completely and wholly unmanageable. Under the effects of short selling, multiply listed fungible shares and the like, it would be next to impossible to track who had voting rights and who didn't. Also, what would qualify you for the time period? If I hold 1 million shares then receive another 100,000 in a stock split or rights issue, do my new 100,000 have voting rights or not?

The second point is that the value of shares would change once they accrued voting rights, so there would be a business for becoming a voting proxy. Basically holding shares for long enough to gain voting rights then selling on the rights to all price moves in the shares as well as the voting rights, but holding the shares themselves so that you retain the voting rights.

Finally, this proxy battle is exactly what Yahoo needs. Yahoo's board were negligent in rejecting the move from Microsoft since it massively overvalued both Yahoo's current value and its future potential value. Regardless of what happens here, Yahoo isn't going to achieve the sort of value Microsoft gave it, so the best thing for the shareholders (who own the company when all said and done) would have been to sell it to Microsoft. The only reason Yahoo didn't sell was because the board didn't like Microsoft - that's no good reason for a financial decision.

By the way as a final point, a 4% stake in a company is not small by any stretch of the imagination. Especially a company the size of Yahoo with a market cap over $36 billion.

Wow. I hope you didn't spend too much time typing up your drivel. Anyone who owns a share is a share holder. What they decide to do with it (hold it or sell it) is irrelevant. If the owner of the share(s) wants to sell, you can't stop him as, by definition the share owner is a part owner of the company.

What you're suggesting is like saying that I shouldn't be able to sell a car I bought until I have driven it for 6,9, or 12 months. It's purchased property and you can do anything you want with it.

Part of the problem has been described above. Share (stake)holders with different investment goals. Some want to 'ride the wave to the top' and get off; while others want to 'ride the wave into shore'. IMHO, Icahn, is one of the former: MAXIMUM profit, NOW!!!

With his loud mouth, he is going to scream as loud as he can, and try to get his way. What will be interesting, will be the outcome of the stockholders meeting. If the stockholders turn him and his slate of directors DOWN, expect Icahn to ultimately sell. It will be too humiliating for him.

It will depend on how the individual stockholders view the long term prospects of Yahoo, and whether or not, they will get a better deal in the future.

There are actually companies who issue non-voting shares. Google has issued shares which had a tenth of voting power of the original stock (the one owned by the founders). Many possibilities exist. For instance, preferred stock usually have no votes.