Yes, I did write that streaming the annual meeting did not look like an intent to buy yhoo. My December comment also includes his aversion to new tech, along with his attraction to media companies. Your attempt at argument is pathetic, brings no insight to the table.
Well well well, well well well welllll...methinks I should win a large prize for suggesting Yahoo is an ideal situation for Mr Buffett.
Class C will not change market value of the company. It works like a stock split. Say you have one share at $99 at market close pre-split. Next morning when market opens post-split, you will have three shares (1 class A, 2 class C) priced at $33 each. Price of each class may diverge, but there's no reason to: except for voting rights, they will be identical.
Methinks the entire "value added" of the last 3 years has been the aromatic queefs emanating from the CEO's chair. Yahoo! was a case of older executives besotted with a flaxen-haired vixen. They didn't look any deeper than her Google resume and the fawning articles proclaiming her virtues. Now we see her ability to Get Things Done is less than the stellar image portrayed by the lap dog media.
I should add, the uptick today can be for one of several reasons. The market may think YHOO has bottomed out and can only go up, no matter how they wind up the company. There are also some investors who will buy anything to which Warren Buffett's name is attached. Buffett has repeatedly stated he doesn't know tech and will not invest in things he doesn't know, but the thing about YHOO streaming the BH annual meeting might have triggered some Buffett-watchers to think he is considering a play for YHOO. I doubt it.
All it means is the BH meeting will be streamed live. You have to be a BH shareholder to attend the meeting in person, so it's somewhat exclusive (though thousands do attend). The YHOO streaming just means you can watch the meeting, shareholder or not. Might set an interesting precedent to stream other corporations' annual meetings. The main benefit to YHOO might be increased traffic to Yahoo Finance, which is one of their successes in terms of number of users.
It's funny yet so sad, the neutrality activists kicked into high gear to defend FUTURE neutrality for poor Indians who are years away from actually having 'net access under current pricing. With Free Basics, the poor would have immediately had some 'net access, including being able to use social media and messaging at low/no cost. Now they can just sit in the mud and wait, secure in their neutral purity.
If it's not a personal/health issue, then I would guess it's a matter of not being in the MM faction, and not wanting to stay on if in complete opposition to the company's chosen direction. If you can't support the current direction and can't change it, best to bail out immediately. Directors probably don't want to just occupy a chair, especially on a sinking ship.
I don't usually pick on personal traits, but the CFO guy was the Mumbler In Chief. Words and sentences have syllables and boundaries. Use them. You will sound more...awake.
YHOO resembles Berkshire Hathaway when Buffett bought it in the 1960's. It was a going concern, but the market value was less than its assets (including cash). Buffett obviously didn't care to go into the textile industry per se, but simply recognized the disparity between market and book value. He basically bought the company using its own assets. The major obstacle to this is Buffett's oft-stated aversion to buying into an industry he does not understand. But he HAS bought into media (newspapers, Disney, TV). The part of YHOO that needs repair, or a piecemeal sale, is the media (and Internet) part; the rest is a holding company for BABA, Yahoo Japan, etc which Buffett could easily leverage or dispose of in some fashion.