In one of the odder things to happen in my journalism career, I was forwarded a flash analyst report by Wall Street’s Macquarie Capital on the news that AllThingsD.com broke yesterday (and foreshadowed before) about the shakeup of Yahoo’s board.

I cover the Silicon Valley Internet giant closely, obviously, and have had a lot of scoops on its machinations over the years. This was simply the latest, and turned out to be on on target (Phew!).

While that is presumably my job as a reporter, it was apparently of “concern” to Macquarie’s analyst.

Said the report:

One final note: it continues to concern us that one particular journalist, Kara Swisher, frequently seems to be privy to such precise information regarding YHOO. On January 9, almost a month prior to the actual release from the company, Kara wrote, “While some departures seem most obvious — longtime board members Vyomesh Joshi, Arthur Kern and Gary Wilson — the really interesting part will be the possible exit of Chairman Roy Bostock.” Yesterday she wrote, “expect a change in the Yahoo board composition, too, as early as this week.” And today at 3:38pm EST, she posted a story that “Yahoo will announce the impending departure of four of its longtime board members, including chairman Roy Bostock. The others headed out the door are Hewlett-Packard exec Vyomesh Joshi, Gary Wilson and Arthur Kern.” While we give much credit to Kara for her ability to obtain this information, we believe it reflects very poorly on YHOO’s ability to maneuver effectively outside the public spotlight.

While I appreciate the fist-bump, it’s unclear why it’s concerning for shareholders — whom these reports are created for — to know this information before Yahoo deigned to release the news or spoonfeeds any other information at investor events. After all, fair, complete and accurate information from anywhere in the tech news media could help them make better investment decisions.

And Yahoo also always operates in the public spotlight, even when it is outside it, as does every tech company. That’s especially true these days, in the vastly changed media environment, in which news moves faster and with more immediate impact.

In fact, I’m concerned that worrywart Wall Street doesn’t grok this — but I’m definitely not surprised, either.

AOL said it earned 23 cents a share for the fourth quarter on revenue of $576.8 million, compared to 60 cents per share on $596 million in the same quarter a year ago.

Wall Street analysts had expected the New York-based Internet company to earn 16 to 17 cents on revenue of $572 million.

While the results are still down significantly from a year ago, AOL’s stock has been rising — gaining more than 25 percent in the quarter — since CEO Tim Armstrong has improved advertising revenue.

That was up 10 percent in the quarter, the third consecutive quarterly increase.

Subscription revenue from its access business continued to fall — down 18 percent — although that was the lowest rate of decline in five years.

AOL also noted that it had encouraging improvements in certain areas of its business:

Video: AOL grew its videos, video views, video ad impressions and revenue at double-digit rates.

Brand Advertising: Project Devil advertisers, impressions and revenue grew at double-digit rates.

Local: Patch grew traffic, advertisers and ad impressions more than 100% year over year.

Traffic: Consumer usage was flat to Q3 2011, as growth in the Huffington Post Media Group sites offset declines at MapQuest and AIM.

But read for yourself — here are all kinds of charts and graphs from AOL:

AOL_Q4_2011_Earnings Release

AOL_Q4_2011_Earnings_Presentation

AOL_Q4_2011_Trending_Schedules

The Barclays analyst has bumped up his sales estimates for the low-end tablet: He now thinks Jeff Bezos sold 5.5 million units last quarter, up from his earlier guess of 4.5 million.

DiClemente figures Amazon will now sell 18.4 million Kindle Fires this year, which would give it nearly half of the non-iPad tablet market.

It’s always important to remember that, unlike Apple, which sells media and apps via iTunes to help support its devices sales, Amazon is approaching this from the opposite direction: It wants people to buy its devices so they’ll be more likely to buy other stuff.

DiClemente takes a stab at this one, too: He figures that by 2014, the Kindle Fire and its descendants will be generating an additional $3.9 billion a year from incremental e-commerce spending, driven by customers who pick up the company’s Prime shipping program along with their tablet.

And he thinks that, during that same year, revenue from tablet content will eclipse tablet revenue, period: He figures devices will generate $3.9 billion, and content will be worth some $5.2 billion.

Back to present tense: Has anyone seen a Kindle Fire in the wild? I haven’t, and my thoroughly unscientific spot check of my pals and peers hasn’t turned one up, either. Of course, I also recall when seeing a Kindle e-reader on the subway — many months after the e-reader’s launch — was enough to warrant a blog post.

A main attraction: the bank’s top-ranked Internet analyst, Mark Mahaney.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

This morning, Yahoo said it had hired PayPal President Scott Thompson as its newest victim, oops, CEO.

(You can read my interview with him too, here.)

AllThingsD.com had reported the pending development last night — which is how we roll here.

Now we will roll into the conference call on the matter, and are hoping that the head of the lucrative eBay payments unit will make an appearance, given that he does not start until next week.

One piece of advice I will extend Thompson: I would refrain from cursing, as previous Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz did on her first outing. (She was fired in September, although not precisely for the cussing she so enjoyed partaking in.)

Here we go!

7:02 am: It’s on, with Thompson present.

Yahoo Chairman Roy Bostock begins, and he is “very excited, very excited.”

I’d be very excited if Thompson talked and not Roy, who has been to this particular Yahoo CEO rodeo a few too many times before.

Bostock is making promises that this time it’s going to be different. Really!

He also notes that the company will continue its “strategic review” — but who knows what that means now.

And he thanks Tim Morse, the interim CEO who is moving back to the CFO job. (Agreed — nice work, Tim!)

7:06 am: Scott Thompson is on and is “just thrilled” to be the new Yahoo CEO.

I like his accent, which seems like he might be from Boston. He does look and sound like Cliff Clavin, the mailman guy at the Beantown bar from the television classic “Cheers.”

Except, given he has been the darkest of dark horses in this CEO race, nobody knew Thompson’s name.

Thompson is saying all the right stuff, about wanting to increase shareholder value and such.

He sounds so hopeful! Urgency! Thoughtfulness! A bright new morning at Yahoo!

I have been to this rodeo before too, but I am still hoping this time it’ll work.

Scott, if you let me down, I might cry, because you sound so nice.

7:09 am Q&A time already.

Congrats from the Wall Street analyst peanut gallery.

Then, it’s right into a question for Bostock, about the progress of the Asian assets deal.

Also, is Thompson too much of a technologist and not a media dude?

Bostock wants to talk about only Scott, but notes that there will be “no slowdown and no delay” in the Asian process. And Thompson will be all onboard when he comes on board, folks.

Bostock sounds tired, but starts to talk about how a “great customer experience” is the key to the advertising business. He notes that Thompson knows how to do this, hence he’ll be fantastic.

“I have every expectation he’ll be out there calling on advertisers,” says Bostock. I would hope so, given that is where Yahoo makes most of its lettuce.

Bostock is saying Yahoo has been “treading water” and now needs to swim fast. Treading water? I wonder who the top honcho at Yahoo has been while the company has been listlessly dangling its legs in the drink?

Roy — that’s who!

7:15 am: Another analyst asks about margins.

Thompson is not having any of it! He is polite when asking for time to get on the job to make proper statements.

But he does focus on the need to build “great, innovative” products. True, but Yahoo has been incredibly unable to do this of late.

Thompson gives no specifics, though. My big idea: I would steal the self-driving car from Google.

7:17 am: A question about what the core of Yahoo is, and about what lessons Thompson is bringing from his experience at PayPal.

Well, he has not met the team — literally. Yahoo’s board consulted almost no one in the top ranks of execs on this appointment.

But Thompson “suspects” there is talent there. Given the recent attrition, he’ll need a big Inspector Clouseau magnifying glass to find it!

From eBay’s PayPal, he says that the key was balancing the customer experience with network effect and, well, blah, blah, blah Internet-speak.

I am still thinking shoplifting the self-driving car is the bestest idea.

7:20 am: A question about Yahoo’s display business versus Google.

Thompson notes it is too early for him to say — though he had better say soon! — but notes that data is key. He is a well-known by-the-numbers guy, and that is clearly where we are going at Yahoo, now that he is the big dog.

Thus:

“The data these Internet businesses create, the ability to use analytical technology to build a better businesses for your customers … I feel certain that wealth of data is going to be exploitable for next generation products, next generation experiences … My instinct says down in that data we’re going to be able to find ways to compete and innovate that the world hasn’t seen yet.”

I am really liking this accent, which is almost lulling. And so polite! Sources tell me that being “collaborative” was a big goal in this hiring.

7:22 am: A question about the identity of Yahoo, and whether it should be public or private.

Thompson harps on the need for innovation, and hopes it will be the future.

“I would not be here if I didn’t think it was possible,” says Thompson.

Bostock takes the public/private question. Yahoo will be public, he declares! Mostly, because it would be too pricey to take private.

“It’s a moot point,” he says.

7:25 am: More questions about what Yahoo is.

Thompson declines to run off the rails on this dicey one, but he says he believes that Yahoo has great assets.

It does. It’s just that it has been crashed many times — by the people who just hired him — right into a wall.

Just sayin’ — a self-driving car would have done a better job.

7:27 am: A brain-drain question, and more on Asia and on mobile.

Bostock butts in again. He said that Thompson will not be distracted by that, and will concentrate on the core business. Hush up, Roy.

Thompson says that he looks forward to meeting the peeps of Yahoo. (’Cuz he has not, as yet!)

He also loves mobile — which Yahoo has largely borked.

7:32 am: A content strategy question. Early days, so Thompson is still keeping his yap shut.

In this, he’s like the anti-Bartz. Is this good? It’s certainly different.

He says again that, “I can’t wait to meet” everyone at Yahoo. Vice versa, because this dude came from left field.

Thompson promises that he will be a “sponge.”

He closes by noting that he is “genuinely excited,” and says he believes in Yahoo.

Indeed, when it comes to Yahoo, you definitely gotta have faith.

We still view GOOG’s acquisition of the football coaching headphone equipment company as highly risky, but given signs that Amazon & Facebook may also enter the Smartphone market, GOOG’s move isn’t unprecedented.

– Citigroup analyst Mark Mahaney, who is upgrading his Google rating to “buy” from “neutral,” despite his lack of enthusiasm for the $12.5 billion Motorola deal. On the bright side, he adds, if regulators approve the purchase next year, it will “still provide GOOG with patent support, & it’s an accretive deal.”

Just last week, it seemed as if the dangerous riptide had finally turned for Demand Media, the social content company whose stock for the quarter bottomed out in mid-October, in the $5-a-share range.

It has now rebounded to close Friday at $7.76, with a market valuation of just over $651 million — still a far cry from a high of over $27 a share in the last year, but well below the target price of upward of $14 from Wall Street analysts.

That’s why there will be plenty of questions for CEO Richard Rosenblatt in a conference call scheduled for after the Santa Monica, Calif.-based Demand reports its third-quarter earnings, following the close of markets this afternoon.

Analysts are expecting Demand to lose four to six cents a share. Revenue is expected to be up.

One issue sure to be on the docket will be the traffic problems at its flagship eHow site, which stymied Demand in the quarter. The situation caused it to release a statement about the issue, “which the Company believes is temporary and was the result of an internal technical issue. The technical issue has recently been remediated.”

Assume you will hear more on that and other topics, including updates on the cost of its content and the continued impact on Demand of search-algorithm changes at Google, as well as how it is faring in attracting more lucrative advertising.

I will be covering the earnings and the analyst call, so tune in later today for answers.

But now we’ll get Reed Hastings’s own report card, when Netflix announces its quarterly earnings this afternoon.

As Citigroup’s Mark Mahaney notes, the key numbers to look for aren’t the Q3 metrics — the company has already preannounced that its subscriber numbers are going to be lower than it initially thought — but its guidance for the rest of the year.

That’s where we’ll be able to see the impact of its many stumbles — the price hike, the broken Starz deal, Qwikster’s New Coke moment — or at least what Netflix thinks the impact will be. If Netflix subscribers are really bailing out — and not just threatening to do so on Hastings’s Facebook page — you should be able to see that reflected in its expectations for the next three months.

Remember that shortly after Netflix dropped its first bomb this summer — a 60 percent price hike for many of its customers — management predicted that it would suffer a subscriber blip in Q3, but would recover by Q4. Let’s see if they’ve hung on to that confidence.

Here are Mahaney’s best guesses for Netflix’s Q3 results and Q4 guidance, along with Wall Street’s estimates (click image to enlarge). I’ll be covering the results live at 4 pm ET.

Tomorrow, after the markets close, Yahoo will announce its third-quarter earnings, perhaps one of its more important reports in recent years.

Wall Street analysts are expecting the Silicon Valley Internet giant to report earnings of 17 cents per share on $1.07 billion in revenues.

But whether or not Yahoo has beat expectations will be less scrutinized than information about the state of Yahoo’s key search and display advertising businesses, as well as other user metrics.

It is at those numbers that a range of players — including major shareholders, possible bidders and media — will be looking to see just how badly the company’s business has fared with all the turmoil of late.

That has included the firing of its CEO Carol Bartz, a massive strategic review that includes the possibility of a sale to a range of mostly private equity buyers, a persistent attrition problem and a worry that the company continues to drift in its product innovation, even as others have surged.

Last week, I reported that Yahoo had finally selected an executive search firm to help it find a new CEO, which many think is a difficult task given the uncertain situation.

A series of worrisome trends across its ad businesses over several recent quarters has some looking at the company for possible purchase with some skepticism.

“What if it is too broken to fix, what if trends to Google’s and Facebook’s premium offerings is too overwhelming?” said one potential bidder for Yahoo. “There are a lot of what-ifs at Yahoo.”

By comparison, Google posted impressive earnings last week.

Yahoo stock closed at $15.70 today, down 1.3 percent.

Note that Mahaney isn’t changing his estimates for these companies’ financial performance — just the way he thinks the market will value them, “primarily to global Macro conditions.”

Still, it’s worth noting some of his specific concerns for some companies that go beyond “the world economy has the circle-the-drain-quality to it.”

AOL: Citi drops its target from $18 to $15 (it’s now trading around $12). “In Q2, we witnessed YHOO, WBMD and AOL report lower Display revenue, which could be signs of increased competition from ad networks and social media for premium ad dollars.”

Demand: Target dropped from $10 to $8, which is about where the stock is trading now. “We view the company’s reliance on Google traffic as still a bit of an overhang. And we believe DMD’s quality content strategy is still something of a work-in-progress.”

Google: Target dropped from $690 to $575, currently trading around $504. “The return on GOOG’s prior investments (Mobile, Display) have been very good, but the return on GOOG’s new investments (Social, Commerce, Local, and now, in a BIG way, Mobile) are still uncertain — and the social investments ARE catch-up defensive; 2) cost structure still not ‘under control’; and 3) increasing regulatory risk.”

But the day — or more accurately, the quarter — has arrived, when consumers spend more on digital games, such as mobile, social and console downloads, than they do on more traditional formats, like console games, according to the NPD Group.

UPDATE: I need to clarify that the category, which includes digital sales, also includes used sales and rentals, so it’s not purely digital sales that are exceeding retail sales, analyst Anita Frazier says. So while digital is absolutely growing, it’s not quite bigger than physical purely on its own.

In the second quarter, NPD estimates that digital revenues totaled $1.74 billion, exceeding the $1.44 billion spent on physical sales. That compares to the first quarter when the split favored physical sales of $2 billion, which topped digital sales of $1.85 billion.

While physical distribution in retail stores and packaged goods may be shifting to digital distribution over broadband connections and wireless airwaves, overall spending seems to be level.

In the second quarter, total videogame sales, including hardware, content and accessories, was estimated at $4.5 billion, which represents an increase of one percent compared to the same period a year earlier.

The NPD Group has not been tracking digital versus retail sales for very long, so it is unclear if this is the first time this has happened, or if the split will be permanent, but generally the trend is that digital revenues are growing while traditional retail sales are falling.

The shift for some incumbent videogame makers has been difficult to stomach.

Many debate the value of shifting from producing a $60 game sold at retail to producing mobile and social games, which frequently rely on a free-to-play model, where users have the option of playing without paying anything.

Others have embraced the concept, believing that the transformation will take place no matter what, or that it will grow the pie of people playing games.

To be sure, the market is just as confused about this period of disruption, leading values to be all over the map.

For example, privately held Zynga, which has filed to raise $1 billion in an IPO, was valued at $14.05 billion in August by a third party, according to a recent filing.

That makes the social games leader more than double the value of publicly held Electronic Arts, which has a market capitalization of $6.8 billion.

Meanwhile, Electronic Arts has been investing heavily in both mobile and social gaming, and, for instance, currently has the second-most popular game on Facebook.

“It is critical that we speak with one voice,” wrote Whitman in an internal email I obtained (below).

Thus, she has appointed longtime HP exec Lynn Anderson (pictured here) to “take on the role of acting Chief Communications Officer reporting directly to me,” according to the memo she sent to senior leaders at the company.

Not sure what “acting” means yet, but Anderson has gotten the job that was once that of former SAP exec Bill Wohl. He was put on “special assignment” late this summer, whatever that means, with his duties being taken up by Global Marketing EVP Marty Homlish.

Now Anderson is taking over, having helped during the Wohl transition. She previously headed up influencer relations for HP’s enterprise business.

And before that, she worked on a variety of marketing jobs for HP Canada. Anderson’s background is wonky, according to her company bio: “Before joining HP in 1983 as a systems engineer, Anderson was a programmer, analyst and operations manager for several IT departments.”

During the initial announcement of her new job running HP, Whitman relied on longtime comms adviser Henry Gomez. Gomez, who worked closely with her when Whitman was CEO of eBay and later on her unsuccessful run for California governor, has a consulting business and presumably did not want to work full time for HP.

Here’s the memo:

To: Senior Leaders
Subject: Acting Chief Communications Officer

As we continue to execute our strategy for HP, communications will be an extremely important function and it is critical that we speak with one voice.

I want to thank Marty Homlish, EVP Global Marketing who stepped in and provided leadership during a critical junction. Going forward, I have asked Lynn Anderson to take on the role of acting Chief Communications Officer reporting directly to me.

Please ensure that Lynn is brought into all communications activities.

Regards,

Meg

While for tax reasons it’s probably more likely that HP will spin the unit out as an independent company — there are no taxes when assets are distributed to shareholders — Sterne Agee analyst Shaw Wu, in a note to clients issued this morning, breaks down the possible suitors should HP opt instead for a sale.

Topping the list is Samsung, which you might have guessed already. Samsung would make sense, Wu argues, given its “large size and global ambitions.” Samsung has been trying to build a PC business since 1997, when it acquired AST Research, but hasn’t gotten anywhere. But it is the world’s biggest manufacturer of DRAM memory chips, used in PCs; and the largest supplier of NAND flash memory, which forms the basis of solid-state drives that are increasingly built into notebook PCs. It’s also a big maker of LCD displays and notebook batteries. All that vertical integration, combined with HP’s consumer PC footprint — it’s the biggest supplier to Best Buy — would make Samsung the worldwide player it has always aspired to be.

Don’t ignore the other players, though. Acer, Lenovo, Sony and even Dell could all conceivably show up with a bid, Wu writes. But it will all come down to HP’s asking price, and what parts of the business are included. Wu pegs HP’s PC business as being worth $8 billion, or about $3.66 per HP share. To calculate that valuation, he assumes a premium of five times profit of $1.6 billion on $40 billion in revenue; a five percent operating margin and a 22 percent tax rate.

One potential issue to watch in a possible Samsung bid: Whether the South Korean giant asks HP to include its webOS software. Samsung is also a huge supplier of smartphones around the world, and would probably like to rely less on Google’s Android than it does now — and would want to own its own operating system. Having decided to kill the webOS hardware business, HP has indicated that it has plans to keep the software alive in some form, though enough cash from Samsung might change HP’s mind.

Wu also argues that the market has gotten too negative on the PC business in general. While it’s true that Apple’s iPad has left a historically significant mark on the PC universe, PCs aren’t dead yet — just ask Intel. Give them iPad-like touchscreens and flash drives for instant-on capability, and the market might rebound, he says. “We believe longer-term tablets and PCs are the same market. Ironically, we view Apple’s MacBook Air as the first generation of these future hybrid PCs.”

Update at 9:38 AM PDT / 12:38 PM EDT: Samsung just issued a brief statement saying it’s not interested in HP’s PC business. Such rumors are “not true,” the company says. Well it’s really not a rumor exactly, but speculation really. Somehow I don’t believe it’s the last word on the subject.

(Image, obviously, is from the sheet music of the number “Who Will Buy?” from the musical “Oliver!” Hear it below.)

After the markets close tomorrow, Demand Media will report its second-quarter earnings.

Wall Street is expecting a solid performance from the Santa Monica, Calif.-based online content maker compared to last year.

The consensus of estimates by analysts is for Demand to lose one cent a share, which is much smaller than the 55 cents a share loss from the same period a year ago. It is also an improvement on a previous loss of five cents a share for this quarter that investors had been predicting.

Nonetheless, the company’s stock hit its all-time low yesterday, after a strong IPO in January. Since the summer, it’s been all downhill, with Demand shares off 50.4 percent since early May.

Since it went public, the stock is off 63.1 percent.

The online restaurant reservations company said today it has appointed Duncan Robertson to the position of CFO. Robertson previously co-founded and served as CFO of SnapStick, a mobile app company. Prior to that, he was CFO of Aricent, a technology services company.

Three months ago, the company surprised Wall Street when its CFO Matthew Roberts was promoted to president and CEO and said Jeff Jordan, the president and CEO, would transition to executive chairman.

Jordan has since taken a job at Andreessen Horowitz, the large Silicon Valley VC firm.

When Jordan’s departure was announced, OpenTable’s stock fell $17 to $96. Today, the company’s stock continued spiraling downward, slipping another 9.5 percent, or $6.51 a share, to stop at $68.90 a share in after-hours trading.

OpenTable reported second-quarter revenues of $34.3 million, a 53 percent increase over the same period a year earlier. It was that figure that narrowly missed analyst expectations of $35.3 million, according to Thomson Reuters.

The company’s quarterly profits totaled $6.3 million, or 26 cents a share, up from $2.6 million or 11 cents a share in the second quarter 2010.

Despite executives playing musical chairs, Citi’s Internet Research Managing Director Mark Mahaney wrote in a note to investors that the company reported an “intrinsically robust” second quarter, and that revenues were only modestly below his estimates, whereas adjusted earnings per share of 33 cents beat expectations.

Other positive results:

• Its base of restaurants increased 27 percent to 15,560 year over year and diners seated totaled 22.2 million, a 47 percent increase in North America.
• Internationally, it saw even stronger growth, with its installed base of restaurants growing by 276 percent and seated diners up 249 percent year over year.

You would think the settlement of a major dispute would goose the stock of a company, but Yahoo’s deal with its Chinese partner Alibaba Group on Friday did exactly the opposite.

Despite the clearing of an obvious overhang to its shares, the stock of the Silicon Valley Internet giant dropped almost three percent Friday to close at $13.10. While the ongoing federal budget wrangling was partly to blame, it was only a very small part with an overall market decline of under one percent.

A tepid reaction to the deal — in which Yahoo, Alibaba and Japan’s SoftBank came to terms over the spinoff of Alibaba’s Alipay payments unit after much wrangling over the move — came quickly from Wall Street analysts.

A report titled “Yahoo Inc: Alipay Agreement: Better than Nothing, But Not That Great,” by J.P. Morgan’s Doug Anmuth, was typical. Pointing to no clarity on an IPO of the Chinese assets of Alibaba and that “prior to the divestiture, Alibaba Group owned 100% of Alipay and all of its income, which is now reduced to 37.5% ownership of Alipay and 49.9% share of the pre-tax income,” he noted that Wall Street “has recently assigned no value to Yahoo!’s share of the asset.”

Well, less than zero, if the stock decline is taken into account, which means Yahoo’s market cap is now just over $17 billion.

According to sources close to the situation, especially since Yahoo’s Asian assets make up more than $9 billion of that valuation, private equity investors and others are pulling out their spreadsheets once again about a possible takeover or privatizing of Yahoo.

Several months ago, for example, former News Corp. exec Peter Chernin had been contemplating a friendly bid with partners such as Providence Equity Partners and others. While there have been rumors recently that he has reengaged in that effort, that is unclear.

Sources also note that Yahoo’s top execs, especially CEO Carol Bartz, and also members of its board, are perplexed that the settlement in China — a positive development — had the opposite effect on the stock.

It’s part of a continuing decline. Yahoo shares are down almost 26 percent in the past three months. Most Web stocks — such as Google, Amazon and Microsoft — are strongly up in that period. The only other obvious laggard is AOL, which is down almost 16 percent in the past three months.

As these companies are wont to do in the middle of the night, Yahoo, SoftBank and the Alibaba Group have reached an agreement in their nasty dispute around the Alipay payments unit, and they are ready to talk about it.

Well, not Alibaba’s CEO Jack Ma (pictured here), Yahoo’s CEO Carol Bartz or SoftBank’s Masa Son, but their functionaries are all set to discuss the deal.

The issue has revolved around the spinning out of Alipay by the Chinese Internet giant Alibaba, without the approval of large stakeholders Yahoo and Japan’s SoftBank, which the pair felt was a big no-no.

Much mishegas followed, but the trio has been hard at work on a settlement, which is here now.

Of course, had the three companies cooperated in the first place as joint owners and board members of Alibaba, this all would have been unnecessary.

5:48 am PT: The call starts without all kinds of regulatory info about what can and cannot be said, before being thrown to Yahoo CFO Tim Morse.

One interesting wrinkle is that SoftBank’s Ron Fisher cannot speak at all, due to some Japanese laws, which are unexplained. But, said Morse, he’s there to show his support.

Go, Ron!

Alibaba’s CFO Joe Tsai is up first to talk about the deal over Alipay, which he stresses does not really make much money now. As he says, it is “marginally profitable.”

Tsai walks through the facts that they have already outlined earlier today, including a variety of payments from Alipay to Alibaba, since — let’s be clear — it used to be part of Alibaba.

But Alibaba said it had to spin it out in order to get critical regulatory approvals from the Chinese government, which caused this mess.

Morse now comes on, noting the whole squabble really had “no direct impact” from a financial point of view on Yahoo or SoftBank at this time related to its Alibaba assets.

Well, shareholders of Yahoo might beg to differ, considering the huge hit the stock has taken due to the fight. Wall Street has long considered Yahoo’s Asian assets its most valuable part.

But Morse is pleased the complex agreement has finally been reached — I am guessing it was not easy to negotiate among three different countries with so much pressure.

5:59 am: Time for Q&A!

The first question is about more deets and also about the possibility of a liquidity event for Alibaba or its various units.

Tsai underscores that there might not be one or there might be one. In other words, the Chinese assets of Yahoo may or may not ever pay off.

The next question is about why Yahoo and SoftBank should have a cap on an asset they used to own 100 percent of. Good point!

Neither Morse or Tsai really answers the question, except for Tsai talking about how certain rules over foreign ownership of payment companies in China means it had to be like this.

“If you own 100 percent of the business that cannot operate, you own 100 percent of zero,” said Tsai.

Translation: That’s China, folks, so suck it up!

The next question is a promissory note, which Tsai says has value, even though it actually does not have value right now. China!

The analysts still are stuck on this fact that, under terms of the agreement, Yahoo will only get 37.5 percent of an IPO or other liquidity event, when it used to be owner of 100 percent of Alipay.

Good point: Will this happen to other Alibaba units, such as its Taobao commerce unit?

China is a good place to be, assures Tsai, which is cold comfort right now.

A lot of swirl around preferential terms in the deal for Alipay with Alibaba’s units, which seem to be the same as before. In other words, nothing has changed, except a lot of stock loss for Yahoo and less technical ownership of Alipay.

The Wall Street analysts on the line continue to be riveted to the idea of a liquidity event for Alipay and other Alibaba units, especially Taobao, and keep asking different versions of this question.

The last question is about more deets of the deal and new business ideas for Alibaba.

Tsai talks about a cloud-based system rolling out, for example.

The questioner moves to, you guessed it, a liquidity event.

“I don’t think we want to get into it at this point,” says Tsai.

Well, we do, but apparently Yahoo shareholders are not going to.

That said, the deal is finally settled, which has already given Yahoo shares a small bump today. And that’s not nothing.

Microsoft had a solid fourth quarter, which is why the conference call with Wall Street analysts should be relatively short and sweet.

Or sweet, at least.

Microsoft reported beat expectations on profits that rose 30 percent, as well as on revenue. Of particular note were its Office, Entertainment and Devices and Servers and Tools units. Even the revenue at its perpetually money-sucking Online Services division was up 17 percent.

(You can see Microsoft’s charts and other data here, if you really want more.)

Here’s a liveblog of the call:

2:31 pm PT: Well, Microsoft investor relations dude-in-chief Bill Koefoed sounds unusually jaunty in his greeting.

And why not? The results are good for Microsoft, even a little giddy, with a lot of impressive numbers and solid launches of several products, from Xbox Kinect to Office 365 to Bing, the very pricey but pretty search service.

Next up is CFO Peter Klein, who also sounds like this particular call is a relief.

He talks about the results a bit, most of which are up.

“In summary, we are pleased,” says Klein about the quarter and the year. He also notes that he is “excited.”

It’s party time in Redmond!

2:38 pm: Peppy Bill is back, going through the numbers. Solid!

Klein then moves onto the future and he remains “excited.”

Now, it is onto Q&A from the analysts.

This is where I zone out a little and start to wonder if a doughnut is a wise choice for an afternoon tasty treat.

That would make me “excited.”

Lots of congrats, which only makes me hungrier. One analyst asks why it was so much stronger than expected.

Klein: The economy has improved, businesses are expanding, peeps love them some cloud.

There is a question about how the troubled Yahoo search partnership is going. Klein promises some improvement by the end of the year.

Still, bummer!

But it is quickly back to happy, with a question about the strength of Xbox and its subscribers.

“It’s fantastic,” says Klein.

Like I said, sweeeeeeet.

Here are the slides Yahoo released about its second quarter earnings, in which revenue was down due to an unexpected drop in growth in its display advertising business, especially in the critical U.S. market.

As you can see on Page 8 of the deck, year-over-year display sales rose only five percent in the quarter, compared to much more significant increases in previous quarters. With declines in all other revenue sectors, this was not a good thing.

The 10 percent decline in the Americas region, which you can see on Page 9, is the culprit, as Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz underlined in the conference call with Wall Street analysts today.

Paging Ross Levinsohn — leader of Yahoo’s Americas region and its ad efforts — stat!

YHOO_Q2_11EarningsPresentation_Final

Yahoo turned in another weak performance in the second quarter, with yet another decline in revenue.

This time it was five percent, compared to last quarter’s six percent. In other words, at least things are looking up as they go down!

While earnings per share rose smartly, Wall Street is still looking for strong sales growth from the Silicon Valley Internet giant, which seems unable to provide it.

Blamed most this time for the revenue fall: Yahoo’s changes in its display sales operations in the key Americas region, reasons for which were largely unspecified in the initial company press release. (You can see the damage in this slide deck from the company here.)

Maybe Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz will explain it all in its upcoming conference call with analysts (or she could try the I-don’t-know approach taken by News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch in PhoneGate hearings in Britain earlier today!).

2 pm PT: It starts with the usual regulatory blah-blah, which I always enjoy.

Bartz gets right into it, opening with the key problems with China’s Alibaba Group, as well as its display and search revenue weaknesses.

The fight with Alibaba is over its Alipay payments unit, which was spun out of the Chinese company without Yahoo’s say-so. Yahoo is a big shareholder.

Bartz says that the company was working on a settlement night and day.

But she quickly gets onto how display did not perform as expected in its key Americas arena. “Obviously, I am not happy,” she said.

Obvi! Neither are shareholders, Carol.

She says it was not about new competitive development. It was not about the economy. It was not about engagement.

So what was it? Changes in its sales leadership and organization, says Bartz, which has included talent walking out the door in droves.

A lot more than Yahoo expected, but no surprise to anyone who has been paying any attention to the brain drain at the company.

Bartz promises a new approach to sales, part of its endless turnaround, which is beginning to feel like a digital version of “Waiting for Godot.”

Search revenue, though, says Bartz, was better than expected.

2:11 pm: CFO Tim Morse is on now, running through the numbers and the display shortfall in the Americas region.

“We simply did not have appropriate coverage,” says Morse, noting consumer products, tech and autos as weak spots in the advertising market.

Thank goodness, then, for the guarantees from search revenue in the Microsoft partnership deal.

More numbers and then it is back to Bartz to talk about search, which is going better than the last quarter, when it was the culprit for the revenue decline.

She says that Microsoft and Yahoo were working together to improve the issues.

“We’d like to be further down the road,” says Bartz about the goal of search revenue per search growth, as well as settling all the other problems, such as the Asian issues.

And, by further, I am presuming she means actual forward movement, which is what roads are actually for.

2:27 pm: Q&A time, the part of our program where Wall Street analysts do not ask the questions that need asking (and where I win fancy journalism awards for pointing this delta out!).

Therefore, Bartz is first thanked for providing “color” about the display disaster and is not asked about more specifics of the disaster itself.

The second question still does not get to it either, but she does note Yahoo’s sales force has to sell beyond “Gee, we’re big” and come up with better ad solutions.

“The issue is we did not have enough sales people in front of the big clients,” says Bartz.

That’s because all those former Yahoos are now working at Groupon, LivingSocial, Facebook and on down the line and now in front of big clients for those hotter companies.

2:34 pm: Question about its Asian assets. Yahoo’s talks with Yahoo! Japan and Alibaba are separate, says Bartz, although I would add that they have non-movement in common.

And also a question about Yahoo’s interest in the acquisition of the Hulu premium online video service.

Bartz winks verbally and says nothing, which translates into: Of course, it is interested.

More on the reasons for the display fall-off, which Bartz makes clear is not due to big competitive threats, but internal issues.

Maybe she’s saving big competitive threats as the reason for a revenue decline in the third quarter!

I look forward to the quarter I get the finger pointed at me for causing revenue to fall, due to my snarky posts.

Now, we are into softball questions about improvements in engagement. It’s up, but no one asks why Yahoo is still not doing anything very cutting edge in product innovation compared to competitors.

I believe Google has launched at least 14 new social networks since this Sunday, along with its strong quarterly performance last week. And Apple, well, blew away its quarter today as it is about to release more cool new stuff later this week.

And that might be the crux of the issue for Yahoo, which might not solve its woes by throwing a more focused sales army at the issue.

That’s because Yahoo’s products are simply not nearly has social as Facebook or even Google right now, which might be the true problem as old customers move on to new advertising solutions.

Whatever the reason, Yahoo clearly needs a refresh of its ad products and how it sells them, especially in its fast-growing mobile, video and communications products.

Bartz talks about getting better expertise, a tighter regional focus and other issues of going to market, which is perhaps something she might have realized many, many quarters ago.

After all, she’s been in charge for a while, and these issues are not new.

In fact, in an earlier quarter, Bartz was stressing “tentpole” events and anchor media properties and the power of the size of Yahoo as a selling point.

This was in April, in fact, in the first quarter of this year.

As I wrote then:

“CEO Carol Bartz excited was the Silicon Valley Internet giant’s traffic gusher for big tentpole events such as the Super Bowl and the Oscars. In fact, Bartz practically sounded like a gushy “Entertainment Tonight” flunky when talking to Wall Street analysts about Yahoo’s Oscar news, games and other offerings. She proudly noted the site’s efforts generated more than a billion pages views.”

Now big is out! Moving on!

The last question is another about Yahoo’s talks with its Asian partners.

“It’s complex,” says Bartz.

You can say that again.

Groupon’s S-1 filing for an IPO last month certainly got a lot of ink.

Unfortunately, much of it was negative, focused on several controversial parts of the document. Most scrutinized were large slugs of money taken out of the social buying site by its founders, as well as aggressive accounting terminology to make large losses look less, well, large.

Rattled by the intense media and analyst reaction to the filing, sources said the Chicago-based company commissioned a poll of its consumers and merchants to gauge the impact.

One source familiar with the survey said that top execs and its board wanted concrete reaction from key constituencies, instead of relying on “noise from the echo chamber” of Wall Street and Silicon Valley.

And, said several people who had seen the poll, it should probably come as no surprise that the impact of the drumbeat of Groupon-is-doomed news on merchants and consumers was low, with only one percent saying that they had formed a negative opinion of the company from the filing.

That, of course, does not mean that those important groups for Groupon aren’t disgruntled about a whole laundry list of other issues.

But — for now, at least — an S-1 with some warts isn’t one of them.

Whatever the case, Groupon will continue to face scrutiny as it moves to amend the filing after comments from government regulators, and also when it reports its latest financial results soon for the three months ended June 30, 2011.

And those are numbers that everyone will surely be paying attention to.

Still reading?

OK, then. Morgan Stanley’s Katy Huberty kicks thing off with a report that says the next iPhone goes into production in August. She figures that could mean a late-September launch, so she’s cut back on Q3 estimates for the existing iPhone models, because everyone will be consumed with the shiny newness.

Not exciting enough to rouse you on a Monday? Then we’ll try this: Deutsche Bank’s Chris Whitmore predicts that the new iPhone will actually be two new iPhones. That would be both a relatively modest iteration of the current iPhone 4 — in Appleland, we call it the iPhone 4S — and a genuine oh-my-God-will-you-look-at-this new take on the iPhone — the iPhone 5.

Whitmore, via Fortune’s Philip Elmer-DeWitt, doesn’t offer sourcing for his prediction. More of a rationale — he figures a modestly priced iPhone 4, perhaps featuring prepaid cell service, would be a big hit in international markets where the phone isn’t a big deal yet. And presumably the iPhone 5 will satisfy the rest of us.

Talking to AOL CEO Tim Armstrong earlier this week about its investors day tomorrow, he used the word “execution” a lot.

No, not the kind evoking a firing squad if he did not succeed at turning around the New York-based Internet giant soon as he has long promised.

Instead, Armstrong was referring to reassuring big shareholders and Wall Street analysts that AOL was now in a mode of making sure all its many moves to turn around the company will finally begin to pay off.

“Basically, our point is going to be about fully operating around the strategy we’ve built,” said Armstrong in a wide-ranging interview. “It seems right for investors to ask about executing on what we have been doing for the last year and a half.”

It’s certainly the right message for the charismatic executive to be delivering, as he and other top AOL execs present their plans moving forward, especially after what has turned out to be a very hyperactive year.

After deep layoffs, a massive rejiggering of its management ranks and a number of shifts of its business focus, without much advertising increase to show for it yet, Armstrong has also pushed through a series of acquisitions.

It culminated in the high-profile and decidedly dramatic purchase of the Huffington Post in January for $350 million in cash.

Now, said Armstrong, deals will be taking a back seat to products.

“We are diligently staying on strategy and really focusing on products and services,” said Armstrong. “We have laid out the path we are on and now investors want proof of the concept.”

To Armstrong, that means the push of “branded content” and a continued focus on significant properties in key topic areas.

Tomorrow, in news that could worry investors, AOL will be noting that traffic is flat year over year, but explaining that it is due to the outsourcing of its sports and health sites.

“If you added that back in, we would have had a phenomenal year of growth,” said Armstrong. “Our main point will be that this is the right path for AOL.”

In fact, in an unusual wording, he said AOL was betting on the “urbanization” of the Web around big branded sites, which is, in many ways, exactly where the Web was a decade ago with Yahoo, Excite and others.

But Armstrong will be making the point that this retro idea is perfect for today, as marketers look for quality content that attracts big audiences, which has seen its most energetic application in the Huffington Post.

Thus, his linchpin remains the flashy news site’s even flashier co-founder Arianna Huffington, who has cut a very wide swath through AOL’s content efforts since Amstrong made her media czar of the company.

As Armstrong did, she also stressed the focus on unique visitors and ad growth, more video and a laser focus on local.

This includes shoving editorial into every AOL property, including unlikely ones such as Moviefone and MapQuest, and integrating it all to point back to the Huffington Post mothership.

“Much better editorial integration is a centerpiece of what we are doing, surfacing content in new places it was not before,” said Huffington, who used examples of local stories via its Patch unit that have gone global with a special push.

And by global, that also means the creation of new content sites in Europe and elsewhere, in order to build this unusual dream of a fully aggregating world.

“It is a big test of the HuffPo platform aggregation to do this,” said Huffington, who has clearly longed for the kind of money and staff to do this for a very long time. “It has moved a lot faster than I thought it would … but it feels good to be moving on so many fronts at once.”

Many fronts indeed, which might make investors pause. So far, those shareholders have had a continued wait-and-see attitude toward AOL, which has seen its stock decline almost 13 percent from its late 2009 IPO debut.

That’s mostly due to worries about whether the continued and expected fall-off of its lucrative access business can be met by similar increases in its ad business.

That share drop has been especially steep since the beginning of the year, but it has also not been drastic, indicating an interest in continuing to believe Armstrong’s confident — well, confidently delivered, at least — narrative.

As Citi’s Mark Mahaney wrote in a one-hand-other-hand note yesterday about the investor day:

Positives: 1) AOL still remains a top 5 U.S. Internet property; 2) In the latest quarter, AOL’s Display segment grew Y/Y for the first time in ~3 years, and this improvement seems sustainable; 3) At 4x ’11 EV/EBITDA, AOL’s valuation is among the lowest of any ’Net Stock. Negatives: 1) Deteriorating fundamentals; 2) Significant market share losses — ’Net usage, Display Advertising revenue & Search queries; 3) A significant profit hole from the structural decline of its Subs biz; 4) Substantial competitive risk; and 5) An unproven (@ AOL) management team.

“We all like Tim and what he says makes a lot of sense,” added one big investor, who is also attending and has many questions about the efficacy of what AOL is doing, in a common sentiment among its large shareholders. “But we also need to see real results soon.”

Apparently, reassurances about its relationship with Chinese partner Alibaba Group and some lively presentations by top execs at a six-hour investor day yesterday did almost nothing for Yahoo shares.

The stock of the Silicon Valley Internet giant continues to stay mired on either side of $16 a share today, as it has been since it got into a very public fight with Alibaba over the spin-out of its Alipay online payments unit.

Alipay got its license from the People’s Bank of China today, due in part to moving the unit to the ownership of Alibaba founder and CEO Jack Ma, but that also did squat for Yahoo shares.

Also dragging the stock down: An IDC report released today that shows that Yahoo has lost its number-one display advertising title to Google. The search giant’s share of that market in the U.S. rose to 14.7 percent in the fourth quarter of 2010, while Yahoo’s declined to 12.3 percent.

That’s not good news, even though both Yahoo’s Chief Product Officer Blake Irving and its U.S. media and advertising head Ross Levinsohn both gave energetic presentations at Yahoo’s investor day yesterday.

The two execs–one sporting a natty blazer and the other his patented hair-tastic ’do–trotted out a lot of can-do stats and fancy plans for the audience, which was mostly preoccupied with Yahoo’s China problem.

In contrast, CEO Carol Bartz, CFO Tim Morse and co-founder Jerry Yang were mind-numbingly rote on that thorny issue, noting that negotiations with Alibaba were ongoing and would remain private.

(As if–if I have anything to say about it!)

Bartz told the group of investors and Wall Street analysts yesterday that Yahoo “really believe[s] we are working towards protecting the value of Alibaba Group. The emphasis is on discussion. [We're] not going to get into a public back-and-forth.”

Having already done that in a ham-handed way the week before, that’s probably a most excellent idea for the shoot-from-the-hip exec.

In any case, investors don’t seem to want to take Bartz’s word for any of it until she delivers–both a China solution and, more importantly, turbocharging of both its core search and display advertising businesses.

The execs at Yahoo were huddled yesterday and also today, getting ready for its investor day tomorrow morning.

It’s probably a good idea, especially since the Silicon Valley Internet giant has to come up with a good answer to how it is settling the recent kerfuffle with Chinese partner Alibaba Group.

A settlement announcement over the spinoff of Alibaba’s Alipay payments unit would be the best thing Yahoo could deliver by tomorrow, of course.

All parties–Alibaba, Yahoo and Japan’s SoftBank–I spoke to said a resolution was still being worked on, but one assumes reaching one sooner than later would be a big coup for Yahoo.

Barring that, China will surely be Question No. 1–and likely Nos. 2 through 23–from about 200 Wall Street analysts and big shareholders gathered from 8 am to 2 pm at the Fairmont Hotel in San Jose to hear about how Yahoo is doing in 2011.

Given that the China problem has kept Yahoo stock stuck in the $16 doldrums for weeks now, after it had seen some progress before that, Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz and the passel of top execs presenting–Ross Levinsohn, Blake Irving and Tim Morse, among others–will have to scratch that itchy itch first before moving on to other questions.

In the interests of making the day interesting–and because press is not invited–I am here to help those investors without a clue of what to ask.

Thus, my list, in no particular order:

* Now that a newish management structure is in place, what is the big vision for Yahoo going forward?

* Please explain in detail the issues raised in the recent earnings call with the search and online advertising partnership with Microsoft, and should the deal be re-negotiated?

* Do you need to make more cuts in staff–which seems to have creeped back up in size?

* Why is Yahoo still in search in such a significant and expensive way, especially since market share is declining?

* How is the display market faring and how does Yahoo plan to innovate its flagship advertising business?

* Engagement is a key metric these days, so how is Yahoo going to improve its customer relationships, besides saying it will?

* What new and innovative products are in the pipeline–and you may not trot out Livestand for the umpteenth time as an example, unless you want me to start calling it Not-Flipboard–and when will they launch?

* Has Yahoo considered other ownership options that would better reward long-suffering shareholders?

* And, oh yes, China. Let’s not forget about China.

(Although media is not invited to the investor confab, I will be covering it via a live stream Yahoo is offering–you didn’t think I would miss it?)