Yahoo shareholders felt a little giddier earlier this week, when it seemed as if the company had finally decided to make a deal with its Asian partners.

But the happiest crew might end up being the Silicon Valley Internet giant’s outside counsel, Skadden Arps — and especially Leif King, the fantastically named legal eagle who has been advising Yahoo on the deal.

That’s because today the Yahoo board approved continuing the negotiations to come to a final agreement over the stake, sources said, which should take six to eight weeks.

It’ll surely be happy holidays for billable hours!

As costly as the legal bills will be, if it all goes well, an Asian solution will mean one major problem solved, with a possible pile of cash and new assets coming in to Yahoo.

To get there, the company signed a term sheet earlier this week with Japan’s SoftBank to sell back all its holdings there, and with China’s Alibaba Group to sell off more than half its stake (moving from a 40 percent stake to a 15 percent one).

The deal values Yahoo’s total shares in both companies at about $17 billion.

While it gets a pretty accounting name — “cash-rich split “– the vehicle to unwind it all is essentially a complex tax dodge finally cooked up by the trio, in which cash, new assets and stock will be moved around until everyone gets what they want (except the U.S. government).

I would explain it — but I am on vacation, and would rather drink eggnog and sleep — so here is The Wall Street Journal’s version, which I like because it sounds like Alibaba and SoftBank are giving Yahoo a hugely loaded Starbucks card for Christmas:

“As envisioned in the scenario, Alibaba would create a subsidiary into which it would put several billion dollars of cash, plus an operating asset that Yahoo wants to buy using additional cash from Alibaba, almost like giving Yahoo a prepaid card for an asset of its choice, the people said.”

Everyone is hoping there will not be any hiccups in the deal, which has been spearheaded by Yahoo board member and Intuit CEO Brad Smith, and Jerry Yang, who is also the company’s co-founder and a major shareholder.

Alibaba CEO Jack Ma and CFO Joe Tsai, both co-founders of that company, were the point men for the Chinese company. And for SoftBank, it was its founder and CEO Masa Son and his main U.S. exec, Ron Fisher.

Now, said sources, Yahoo’s board is hoping to still keep the bids from a pair of private equity firms — Silver Lake and TPG Capital — alive.

While initially the focus on the action, the PE bidding for partial Yahoo stakes has recently been sidelined by the Asian deal.

Now, sources said, Yahoo is hoping the new infusion of cash and assets will allow it fend off shareholder unrest — stock buybacks and dividends, anyone — to solicit higher prices from the firms to make strategic investments.

Yahoo had considered the initial bids too low, as did some very pissed-off activist shareholders.

Still, it’s not clear if those firms will jack their offers now, although sources said Silver Lake is still interested in some sort of deal that would give it influence over remaking Yahoo.

Silver Lake and others think the long-troubled company could be revived with some effort, and become a much more lucrative Web property.

But those negotiations might run into roadblocks over who gets to pick leadership for the company. Yahoo has accelerated its efforts to hire a new CEO, after firing Carol Bartz in September.

The PE firms, who would buy a large stake in Yahoo, also have wanted some level of control, including CEO and board approval, in order to be able to make massive changes at the company to turn it around.

Wall Street seems to like the Asian part of the deal, at least, since it shows some sort of forward momentum at Yahoo, and from its often-lugubrious board.

Shares are up almost 7 percent in the last few days, although they are not popping as they might be, given that new valuations based on a successful Asian deal put the stock at a much higher price.

In other words, investors like what they see, but are watching and waiting for more.

Last night, the New York Times dropped a juicy little tidbit into its everything-but-the-kitchen-sink daily update of the board mishegas at Yahoo around the deliberations yesterday over two competing private equity bids to buy a partial stake in the company.

No, not the one about Jeff Jordan — former eBay exec, OpenTable CEO and now VC at Andreessen Horowitz — possibly taking a big role at Yahoo if the firm’s bid with Silver Lake prevailed — which was mysteriously removed very soon after it posted (’cuz he will not, so good move, NYT!)

I mean the one about the venture firm’s big-kahuna partner, Marc Andreessen — who will indeed take a board seat and play a strong role in Yahoo’s future if his bid wins — getting a possible competitor in the Silicon Valley savior section of the ongoing show.

That would be in the form of Reid Hoffman, the well-known entrepreneur, VC and angel investor, who the Times said had talked with TPG Capital, Silver Lake’s rival in the Yahoo bidding, about becoming a possible partner.

Wrote the Times:

“TPG has held discussions with Greylock Partners, another venture capital firm, about a possible alignment, two people said. TPG is hoping to draw on the expertise of Reid Hoffman, one of Greylock’s partners and the founder of the professional social network LinkedIn, these people said.”

Translation: If Silver Lake has a tech icon of substance on its team to give uber-geek appeal to its offer — dagnabbit — then TPG was going to raise with another one, whom the very same Times reporter who wrote last night’s article recently nicknamed “The Start-Up Whisperer” in a recent glowing profile of Hoffman.

While I am still trying to grok what a start-up whisperer exactly means (and how someone as self-effacing as Hoffman would react to such a twee moniker without snickering), it’s a move that has likely already irritated Silver Lake.

After all, TPG aiming at nabbing Hoffman is akin to two crazy neighbors trying to one-up each other in holiday-lighting lawn decor. (You have a singing Santa, so I’ll have a singing Santa — and I might even add a Lady Gaga-themed crèche for good measure!)

But it’s not a bad instinct, either, to get your own live-action Silicon Valley legend, even if it is only half true in Hoffman’s case.

Because, according to sources who know such things, while Hoffman and TPG have had conversations, there have been no commitments, and nothing is close to being agreed on to link the pair.

That could certainly change, and quickly, but Hoffman or Greylock aren’t currently in TPG’s proposal to Yahoo.

That’s in contrast to Andreessen, who is all in (I am not even going to bother with “sources said” here, since everyone and my mother has seen the proposal) with Silver Lake on the deal to purchase 19.9 percent of Yahoo for about $16.50 a share.

As I reported earlier this week, for Silver Lake’s money and expertise in fixing broken things, the bid includes: Silver Lake getting three board seats; cash going to a buyback of stock or granting of a dividend to shareholders; the ability to select a CEO; approval of its strategic plan for Yahoo, and its solution to come to terms with Yahoo’s unhappy Asian partners; and all the purple wearables you could ever hope for (perhaps Yahoo’s best asset, IMHO, especially worn by such obviously cool dudes, as seen here).

Also, controversial Yahoo co-founder Jerry Yang gets to stay around on the board (but only if he becomes very, very quiet, so as not to rile the activist shareholders).

TPG’s bid is less formed, although its price is slightly higher. And the PE firm has yet to check the “Big Geek Included” box.

Hence, the floating of Hoffman as a contender to take on Andreessen, who was once dubbed the “Golden Geek” by Time magazine.

I hope TPG does, soon, since what a matchup it would be!

But, for now at least, the pair — who share big investments in a range of Web companies, most especially Facebook (Andreessen is on the board of the social networking giant, and Hoffman was an early investor and adviser) — are at peace.

Dagnabbit.

I have called Yahoo the Hamlet of the Internet many times, for its seemingly endless ruminating on what it should do and what it should be.

And that is true on a lot of fronts — from its strategic direction to rejiggering its advertising business to finding solid leadership to whether or not it will sell itself and how to a variety of bidders.

It’s no small irony then that perhaps it’s only easy move right now and the one most likely to happen soon — and which could temporarily assuage its always restless shareholders — is to finally settle a long and arduous effort to sell its Japanese assets.

Sources close to the situation said that the deal — as has been reported — is the closest to a deal compared to any other that Yahoo is contemplating.

Sale or outside investment discussions remain mired, while similar share sale discussions with its Chinese partner, Alibaba Group, remain a constant roundelay of dashed deals.

It has not always been thus recently between Yahoo and Yahoo Japan. Just over a year ago, the company shifted its paid and algorithmic search from Yahoo to Google, raising tensions between the companies.

Now, though, Japan has become the easy one.

In actuality, striking an actual deal is not and has been a task is on that Yahoo has been working on for many years, trying to figure out the best tax-free way to shed its 35 percent stake.

It makes sense, since the asset is no longer a strategic plus it once was.

It also frees up a lot of cash. As of September 30th, according to Yahoo, the pre-tax value of its Yahoo Japan stake was worth $6.4 billion. Presumably, Yahoo would either use the money to bolster its business or, more likely, give its shareholders some kind of dividend.

In such a deal, Yahoo’s longtime Japanese partner — and one of its very first investors — SoftBank would buy out Yahoo’s stake.

That’s the simple way of putting a deal that only an accountant can grok. But one plus is that if Yahoo does pull it off, it would be rid the company of one complication too many.

That said, any Japanese asset sale could also be impossible without a larger settlement of Yahoo’s globally connected issues — or, as I like to call it, the hairball.

And SoftBank, which already owns a lot of Yahoo Japan would certainly need more than just cash — perhaps more of Alibaba than it already owns — to be enticed to buy even more.

Also, for all intents and purpose, SoftBank is the only buyer of Yahoo’s Japan asset, so there’s that issue.

But if it could show some progress in some part of its hopelessly complicated world, for Yahoo, that is always a good thing.

The New York-based company will pay a dividend of 12 cents a share, starting in December, costing about $9.8 million a quarter. The move is notable because fast-growing companies, such as those in the Internet sector, typically preserve cash for expansion rather than return it to shareholders.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Do sale rumors make a troubled asset more attractive? Yes — except when more rumors (that those sales rumors might not be true) appear.

Welcome to just another day in the life of Yahoo, which saw its shares drop more than 5.5 percent today. Its stock declined almost a dollar to close at $15.64, after it was reported by various news orgs that Yahoo might be leaning toward no sale and a shareholder dividend, and toward taking control of its own sale of its lucrative Asian assets.

That was counter to the news — from a number of the very same outlets — touting a variety of ever more elaborate and sometimes breathless sale scenarios last week, featuring various configurations of Microsoft, Google and private equity firms like Silver Lake and others.

Silver Lake, in fact, appears to be the most aggressive in the possible bidding for all or parts of Yahoo, and has been noodling such a deal most intently, and for a long time now.

It makes sense, given that Silver Lake was successful in a vaguely similar deal that ultimately saved the Internet telephony service Skype, which it eventually peddled at a high price to Microsoft.

In fact, according to several sources, Yahoo director and co-founder Jerry Yang — also a former CEO of the company, who appears to have seized the ball firmly in the strategy game — met with Silver Lake today for an unspecified little chitchat.

That said, one source told me, “what is deeply uncertain is whether Silver Lake will do something at all.”

This is par for the course in this everything-but-the-kitchen-sink drama. Because — although it makes for a boring post, and the back and forth throat-clearing before an actual event might be entertaining — so far, not very much is actually happening as yet at Yahoo, with regard to its variety of options.

Of course, this could change in an hour. Or tomorrow, or the next day. Most of all, it’s clear that Yahoo’s board has to move in some significant way before the end of the year.

So, yes, the Silicon Valley Internet giant is doing all the sales-oriented stuff it should do with its coterie of pricey bankers (presumably being paid by the hour).

Yes, it has recently hired a talent-search firm, which is eyeing the landscape to find a willing CEO. (Even more adviser costs!)

And, yes, it is still wrangling with its Asian partners — Alibaba Group and SoftBank — over how to do a tax-free transaction (you’d think from all the sweating over it that this deal was harder to solve than the European debt crisis).

And, on schedule, activist shareholders — like hedge-fund agitator Dan Loeb of Third Point — should be attacking again soon, until a deal is done.

But according to many sources both inside and outside Yahoo, what’s happening is pretty much business as usual for this Hamlet of a company, which is lugubriously debating and weighing and pondering its fate.

I suppose it should, given the importance of it all, except it is a conundrum that has been going on for far too long at Yahoo, and under a number of different leaders.

In other words, it’s like “As the World Turns,” except with some new characters and a whole lot more amnesia.

But the slowness of a very real process is also causing deep frustration with all those dealing with Yahoo now — including possible bidders, and definitely its Asian partners.

Their gripes — which are louder than in most deals — are not surprising: They refuse to sign a too-onerous NDA to look at Yahoo’s books; there’s an irksome tone of indecision on the part of the company’s board; and, as always, the incessant leaks about all of this and more are making it worse.

One bidder has likened the company to a “melting iceberg that has a lot less time than the planet has to put its house in order.”

Another bemoaned the variety of trial balloons being floated, and noted that no movement was what Yahoo seems to do best.

That’s not exactly true, of course, so expect to see more leaks about plots and plans and meetings.

But no matter what you hear, keep in mind that having Yahoo’s fate being spun about like a top on a daily basis on Wall Street and in the media is not good for the company itself — or for its employees and shareholders.

Since it makes me dizzy — even though I like a good scoop as much as the next reporter — that’s the reason I have largely stuck to reporting about the actual internal turmoil inside Yahoo, from poor employee morale to various staff rejiggerings to more relentless brain drain.

Because while everyone fiddles, Yahoo’s real prospects of maintaining its core business melt a little bit more every day.

Yahoo is on its third CEO in four years, it has lost advertising momentum to Google and Facebook, its engagement levels are dangerously slowing, its social and mobile strategies are unclear and even its powerful email product is under siege.

And in the end, it is only these things that will matter to whoever runs the company in the end.

[Photo from Mat Honan's fantastic tweet here.]

According to multiple sources, 75 percent of the company’s 500-plus employees received the bonus. The dividend was based on tenure, with some of the longer-term employees receiving as much as $100,000.

Big Fish CEO Jeremy Lewis declined to comment, but confirmed that the dividend was given to shareholders and vested option holders.

The dividend shows that the privately held game maker is flush with cash, and that it may have big plans to come.

Big Fish has been considered an IPO candidate in recent years; the latest rumors hint it could come as soon as next year.

Since being founded 10 years ago, the company has grown quickly. It has hired 50 employees worldwide over the past few months, including new CFO David Stephenson. Prior to the job, Stephenson was VP of finance at Amazon.com.

The company specializes in producing games for the casual games market, including puzzles, hidden objects and other strategy games, but has steered clear of the recently popular free-to-play model adopted by newer games companies, like Zynga.

Instead, many of its games are sold through a monthly subscription online or for download on the iPhone and iPad.

The company increased its quarterly dividend payment by 10 cents to 75 cents a share. It was the 16th consecutive year IBM has lifted the payout, and the eighth year in a row the dividend notched a double-digit increase on a percentage basis. Last April, the increase was 18 percent.

The latest increase will cost IBM an additional $496 million a year. IBM has paid a dividend every year since 1916.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Per share earnings were 54 cents, beating the consensus of 50 cents. Net income was $2.1 billion.

Oracle also said it would boost its quarterly cash dividend to 6 cents per share, amounting to a 20 percent increase over the previous dividend of 5 cents.

In a statement, Oracle CEO Larry Ellison touted the strength of the combined hardware and software businesses. “In Q3 we signed several large hardware and software deals with some of the biggest names in cloud computing,” said Ellison. “For example, Salesforce.com’s new multi-year contract enables them to continue building virtually all of their cloud services on top of the Oracle database and Oracle middleware. Oracle is the technology that powers the cloud.”

Operating margin was 44 percent on a non-GAAP basis, and the margin on hardware increased to 55 percent. President Safra Catz said in a company statement that Oracle is now “completely confident” the company will hit its previously stated goal of yielding a $1.5 billion fiscal year 2011 profit for the business it took over when it acquired Sun Microsystems.

Oracle shares rose by 7 cents to $32.25 in after hours trading.

But its statement contained a new characterization from CEO John Chambers about the circumstances Cisco finds itself in. Gone was talk of temporary air pockets that emerged in November when Cisco’s outlook turned suddenly, and unexpectedly, sour. Now it’s in a “period of transition.”

One that’s far from over, apparently. Having reported the hard numbers, it saved the bad news, in particular its outlook, for the conference call. And it wasn’t pretty. It fell to CFO Frank Calderoni to deliver the bad news. While Cisco forecast revenue to grow at a rate of 4 to 6 percent in the third quarter over the same period in 2010, profits were forecast at 35 to 38 cents a share, well below the consensus of 39 cents. Gross margins for the full year will be in the 62 to 63 percent range, down from 64 percent in 2010.

Chambers noted weaknesses both in Cisco’s switching business, where sales declined by 7 percent, and in sales to government customers, saying he expected that segment to be problematic during the next several quarters. Sales of set-top boxes were also weak. Summing it up, Chambers said: “I think we will look back on this period of time and wish we could have avoided it and yet it will make us stronger in the long run.”

There was good news. Cisco will pay its first dividend this year, somewhere in the range of 1 to 2 percent.

And then there’s Cisco’s cash position, which stands at $40.2 billion, though only $3 billion or so of it is inside the U.S.

Chambers used the subject to once again complain about U.S. tax policy regarding cash held overseas. “We have a tax policy that is just broken,” he said.

SAP also said it plans to increase its 2010 dividend by 20 percent.

For the three months ended Dec. 31, net profit fell to 437 million euros ($598 million) from €681 million in the same period a year ago. Earnings per share declined to €37 from €57.

SAP released its full results Wednesday after the firm had reported on Jan. 13 a surge in quarterly revenue, triggering a 3.5 percent rally in its share price

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Great fun to listen to for Apple watchers. But not that meaningful, really–mostly positioning and spin. There was at least one important nugget, though: Apple has a specific shopping list, with some very big-ticket items on it.

Jobs wouldn’t lay those out, of course. But when asked if he planned on spending any of Apple’s $51 billion (!) in cash via a dividend or stock buyback, he explained that he had something else in mind. From my notes, a combination of direct quotes and paraphrase:

“We strongly believe that one or more very strategic opportunities may come along that we’re in unique opportunity to take advantage of because of our cash,” and we want to keep our powder dry “because we feel that there are one or more” opportunities in the future.

M&A guys, start your engines!

The “what will Apple do with all its cash” speculation story is a time-honored tradition–I seem to remember writing one four or five years ago, when Apple had $6 billion or so lying around, and discussing whether it made sense for Jobs to buy a music company like Universal.

But I don’t remember Jobs every signaling his desire to go shopping quite as openly as this before (feel free to correct me in comments if I have this one wrong). Two caveats:

• Jobs is famous for saying one thing and doing…something else. So don’t get too riled up about this.
• Just because Jobs is talking about spending money on “opportunities” doesn’t mean he’s talking about buying a company. He could be talking about big, hairy capital expenditures, like the billion-dollar server farm Apple is finishing up in North Carolina.

Still. It’s hard not to read or hear that quote and not think that he’s thinking about some very big buys. Like what?

A lot of folks will assume that Jobs is talking about buying a big content producer. Music doesn’t make any sense, because there’s little value left in that business. But if Jobs wants to make headway in the TV business, perhaps it makes sense for him to snag a big broadcaster or programmer to give him the leverage he needs with the Comcasts, Viacoms and Time Warners of the world.

Or you could make the same argument for other content makers, like game studios. The biggest one, Electronic Arts, has a market cap of a mere $5.21 billion. Jobs could give ERTS shareholders a hefty premium and still have plenty of walking-around money.

Or perhaps it makes zero sense for Apple to be in the content business, because it’s done just fine not being in the content business to date.

So then what?

Feel free to throw your own guesses in, but I’ll kick off with my own: It’s a company that has yet to compete with or brush up against Apple in any significant way. And it’s one that Apple seems unlikely to be able to move aside, even if it wanted to. And it’s one that’s already competing directly with Google, which has to make Jobs like it even more.

And, if you believe this L.A. Times report, Jobs is already strolling around Palo Alto with its CEO: What do you think of Apple buying Facebook? Discuss….

Earlier

Apple investors who got their first look at the company’s earnings numbers don’t like them–AAPL is trading down seven percent after hours. Let’s see if Apple executives can soothe their concerns during the earnings call.

You can listen in for yourself via this link, or follow along in my liveblog below:

Live Blog

Apple or Apple’s IR company trying some very, very mellow string and piano stuff while we wait.

CFO Peter Oppenheimer kicks off. “Outstanding results” for September quarter. Highest quarterly revenue, earnings.

Mac products and services: 3.9 mm Macs. Record quarter. 27% y/y growth. Double market growth for Q.

IMac, Macbook, Macbook Pro all good. Asia/Pacific performing best.

IPods: 9.1 million.

ITunes revenue more than $1 billion.

IPhone. “Extremely pleased” with 14.4 million unit sales; basically doubled y/y.

$8.6 billion in sales value of iPhones alone.

Heaping praise on iPhone 4 (justified) and stressing iPhone’s move into corporate market, rattling off blue-chip customers.

IPad. “Thrilled” with momentum. “Great enthusiasm” from customers.

65% of Fortune 100 deploying or piloting iPad. Lists some of them.

125 million iOS device sales last month.

200,000 registered iOS developers.

“Very happy” with results of iAd so far.

On to Apple stores. More records here.

Expects to open 40-50 stores next year, 50% of them outside U.S.

IPhone sales mix “better than expected”–boosted overall margin.

$51 billion cash hoard. [Deep, longing sigh from everyone in media, tech business.]

For the year: 5x revenue and 10x earnings compared with five years ago.

“Very enthusiastic” about lineup, “extremely confident” in new product pipeline.

Rare appearance from Steve Jobs!

Had to drop by for first $20 billion quarter.

“We’ve now passed RIM, and I don’t see them catching up to us in the foreseeable future.”

They have to move into software/platform development, and I don’t think they can.

So what about Google?

Apple is activating 275,000 iOS devices per day on average over the past 30 days; peaked at 300k iOS devices some days. 300,000 apps in app store.

Unfortunately, there is no solid data on how many Android handsets sold each quarter.

Google loves to characterize Android as open, Apple as closed. “We find this a bit disingenuous.”

Windows is “open.” But Android is “very fragmented.” OEMs like Motorola install own stuff to make their phones stand out. We don’t do that.

Shout out to “Twitterdeck” ( I think he means Tweetdeck) and their challenges running 100 versions of Android client. “Compare this to iPhone, where there are two versions of the software…to test against.”

Meanwhile, at least four app stores on Android. “This is going to be a mess for both users and developers.”

Apple’s app store has 3x apps compared with Google marketplace.

“Even if Google were right, and the real issue was closed vs. open, it’s important to remember that open systems don’t always win.”

For instance: Microsoft’s [miserable] “PlaysForSure” strategy, RIP.

Google’s “open” argument is a “smokescreen.” Real issue is what’s best for customer–”fragmented vs. integrated.”

Integrated is a huge advantage for us, because it’s better for customers, and better for developers. “We are very committed to the integrated approach no matter how many times Google tries to characterize it as closed.”

Now! On to our tablet competitors:

First of all, only a few credible competitors.

Second, most of them are pushing 7.5″ screen. That means they are just at 45% size of our 10″ screen. “You heard that right….This size isn’t sufficient to create great tablet apps.”

Extolling features of iPad size vs. teeny tiny tablet competitors: They’re “tweeners”–too small to compete with iPad, too big to compete with smartphones.

IPad has 35,000 apps. New crop of tablets will have “near zero.”

Competitors having a hard time coming close to iPad pricing, even with their puny screens. We make our own everything, and this results in an “incredible product, at a great price.” Our competitors will “likely offer less, for more.” They’ll be “DOA. Dead on arrival.”

Questions and Answers

Supply constraints on iPad?

COO Tim Cook: We’ve got a handle on it. And note that we’re expanding distribution in the U.S. and internationally, with more countries to come.

Question about margins I didn’t quite catch.

Oppenheimer: Sold more iPhones than planned, and commodity prices came down, so that helped.

Q for Steve. Please talk about “iPad opportunity.” Size of business, etc., two years or more down the road?

Jobs: “The iPad is clearly going to affect notebook computers. The iPad proves it’s not a question of if, it’s a question of when.” Already seeing “tremendous” interest from education and “much to my surprise, from business.”

“The more time that passes, the more I am convinced that we’ve got a tiger by the tail here.” We’ve trained tens of millions of people on this OS via the iPhone. “I see it as really general purpose, and I see it as very big.”

Could it be the second biggest business after the iPhone?

“I try not to predict, I try to report.” We’re selling more iPads than Macs.

What about Flash? Any update?

“Flash memory? We love flash memory” [hohoho]

A question on iPhone demand, which I missed.

Q: Steve, “You are the tablet market.” Do you see tablet competitors cutting into your market in the same way you cut into RIM’s market? Won’t that fragment the market?

“I have a hard time imagining what those strategies…are.” Pricing won’t work. “Flash hasn’t presented any problem at all; as you know, most video on the Web is now presented in HTML5.” The iTunes store is dominant and “we’re not done” working on stuff for the future.

Q: Smartphones–”Do you see that as a zero-sum game?”

Jobs: As you know, most phones in the world aren’t smartphones. They’ll convert over time, so there will be room for multiple competitors, but “eventually it will turn into a zero-sum game, or close to that.”

Q: For Oppenheimer: Another margins question.

A: We do see a small sequential decline. Higher-than-expected mix of new iPods and new iPads. We’ve been very aggressive on pricing there, and that’s what’s pushing down margins.

Q: Steve, how’s your Apple TV “hobby” coming? And what’s up with streaming media?

Jobs: We don’t talk about unannounced products, but I’m happy to tell you what we know about Apple TV. We have moved to streaming. It’s all streaming. Everything is rented, and/or soon to be streamed from iPad or iPhone.

So far we’ve sold 250,000 new Apple TVs. “I’m thrilled with that.” And with Airplay set up, “it will give people another big reason to buy it.”

Another margin/guidance question. Seems to be the same one repeated each time, with the same answer.

Q for Steve: Key risks for company?

The goal is to make the best devices in the world. “It’s not to be the biggest. As you know, Nokia’s the biggest… but we don’t aspire to be like them.”

Android is the biggest competitor. Outshipped us in June quarter as we transitioned. We’re waiting to find out what happened in this quarter. “I don’t know how we’ll find out” though.

Our approach is to create products that “just work” and “their approach is very different from that.”

Questions for Steve and Tim: Aspirations for iPhone and iPad. In Mac, you didn’t aspire to high market share; in iPod, it was the opposite–you own that market. In the past, Tim you’ve described iPhone business as closer to the iPod model. Steve, you sort of said something different. Please resolve that difference: Biggest, or best?

Jobs: “Nokia makes $50 handsets. We don’t know how to make a great handset for $50.” We want to make “breakthrough, best products,” and “drive costs down” while making them better through “relentless improvement.”

We have a very low share in the phone market. Single digits. And a very high share in tablets. But we don’t think about it that way.

The reason we won’t make a seven-inch tablet isn’t because of price point, “it’s because we don’t think you can make a great tablet with a seven-inch screen.” And as a software company, we think of software first. Developers don’t want to build for all these different platforms and devices, and on this small screen. “It’s not about cost, it’s about value, when you factor in the software.”

Q: Okay, but if the market moves toward lower-functionality smartphones and “dramatically lower price points,” then you’ll cede share, right?

Jobs: “You’re looking at it wrong.” You’re looking at it as a hardware guy who doesn’t really know about software. You assume that software “can come alive on this product that you’re dreaming of. But it won’t” because developers want to build for better products, with faster processors and better screens.

Q: You have about $50 billion in cash. What are you going to do with that? Why not return it to shareholders?

Jobs: “We strongly believe that one or more very strategic opportunities may come along that we’re in unique opportunity to take advantage of because of our cash” and want to keep our powder dry “because we feel that there are one or more” opportunities in the future.

Missing next question about iPhone and iPad penetration into corporate market.

[Market not sold on Apple's story yet, btw: Stock still down 5.84%.]

Question for Oppenheimer. Guess what? It’s about gross margins. Any change in manufacturing, etc? Any color at all?

Oppenheimer: Don’t provide product-specific gross margins. Always trying to lower costs, though. “We were happy” with gross margins for quarter. Down slightly because of product mix, as I’ve said over and over.

Q: Talk about demand from carriers to pick up iPhone 4.

Cook: The pressure I’m feeling is about supply. That’s the problem. At the country level, we have 166 relationships in 89 countries. In many countries, we went to more than one carrier. Latest one of those is Germany.

IPhone 4 in 85 of 89 countries. Will be in all 89 by end of year.

What happens to margins and subsidy when you go nonexclusive?

We don’t give information out on specific markets, but you can see that our ASPs have stayed above $600.

For Steve: Why do you have advantage in price on iPad, as opposed to PC?

Jobs: We engineer so much of it ourselves. Everything from chip to battery to enclosures. We’ve learned so much. We’ve learned a lot, developed a lot of our own components, where competitors have to go through middlemen. “This is a product we’ve been training for for the last decade.”

Call is over. You can hear the whole thing on a podcast later this evening.

“The Sun integration is going even better than we expected,” said Oracle President Safra Catz. “We believe that Sun will make a significant contribution to our fourth quarter earnings per share as well as meet the profitability goals we set for next year.”

Oracle (ORCL) said its net income for the quarter fell to $1.2 billion, or 23 cents a share, from $1.3 billion, or 26 cents a share last year. But revenue rose to $6.4 billion from $5.5 billion. Excluding items, earnings for the quarter were 38 cents a share, which is what analysts surveyed by Thomson Reuters had been expecting.

Two last details worth noting: Revenue from new software licenses rose 13 percent during the quarter. Another sign that enterprise spending on technology is on the rise.

Oracle CEO Larry Ellison is a funny guy. From the company’s earnings release:

“Every quarter we grab huge chunks of market share from SAP,” said Oracle CEO, Larry Ellison. “SAP’s most recent quarter was the best quarter of their year, only down 15%, while Oracle’s application sales were up 21%. But SAP is well ahead of us in the number of CEOs for this year, announcing their third and fourth, while we only had one.”

Oracle Reports GAAP EPS of $0.23, Non-GAAP EPS of $0.38

REDWOOD SHORES, Calif., March 25, 2010 — Oracle Corporation (NASDAQ: ORCL) today announced fiscal 2010 Q3 GAAP total revenues were up 17% to $6.4 billion, while non- GAAP total revenues were up 18% to $6.5 billion. Excluding the impact of Sun Microsystems, Inc., which Oracle acquired on January 26, 2010, GAAP total revenue grew 7%. GAAP new software license revenues were up 13% to $1.7 billion, and up 10% to $1.7 billion excluding Sun. GAAP software license updates and product support revenues were up 13% to $3.3 billion, while non-GAAP software license updates and product support revenues were up 12% to $3.3 billion. GAAP operating income was down 5% to $1.8 billion, and GAAP operating margin was 29%. Non-GAAP operating income was up 13% to $2.9 billion, and non-GAAP operating margin was 45%. GAAP net income was down 10% to $1.2 billion, while non-GAAP net income was up 9% to $1.9 billion. GAAP earnings per share were $0.23, down 11% compared to last year while non-GAAP earnings per share were up 9% to $0.38. GAAP operating cash flow on a trailing twelve-month basis was $8.2 billion.

“Our solid top line growth, coupled with disciplined expense management, was key in generating $8.0 billion of free cash flow over the last twelve months,” said Oracle CFO Jeff Epstein.

“The Sun integration is going even better than we expected,” said Oracle President, Safra Catz. “We believe that Sun will make a significant contribution to our fourth quarter earnings per share as well as meet the profitability goals we set for next year.”

“Exadata is the fastest growing product in Oracle’s history,” said Oracle President, Charles Phillips. “Introduced a little over a year ago, the Exadata pipeline is now approaching $400 million with Q4 bookings forecast at nearly $100 million. This strengthens both sales growth and profitability in our Sun server and storage businesses.”

“Every quarter we grab huge chunks of market share from SAP,” said Oracle CEO, Larry Ellison. “SAP’s most recent quarter was the best quarter of their year, only down 15%, while Oracle’s application sales were up 21%. But SAP is well ahead of us in the number of CEOs for this year, announcing their third and fourth, while we only had one.”
In addition, Oracle’s Board of Directors declared a cash dividend of $0.05 per share of outstanding common stock to be paid to stockholders of record as of the close of business on April 14, 2010, with a payment date of May 5, 2010. Future declarations of quarterly dividends and the establishment of future record and payment dates are subject to the final determination of Oracle’s Board of Directors.

• News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch tried to lower expectations that his Fox broadcast network would hire Conan O’Brien.
• Murdoch hinted that his book publishing unit is in line to get a new deal on e-books from Amazon, just as Macmillan has demanded (as will other publishers).

On the second point, here’s my on-the-fly transcription and paraphrasing of Murdoch’s comments about Amazon (AMZN), Apple (AAPL) and e-book pricing. It’s one of the most candid descriptions you’ll hear from a top executive about Big Media’s reluctance to embrace digital distribution at the expense of its existing system and revenue:

“We don’t like the Amazon model of $9.99….We think it really devalues books and hurts all the retailers of hardcover books. We’re not against electronic books; on the contrary, we like them very much” because they cost us less to distribute, “but we want some room to maneuver.” The Apple deal…“does allow some flexibility and higher prices” though e-books will still be lower than print versions. And now Amazon is willing to sit down with us again and renegotiate.

UPDATE: Here’s a more complete transcript from Seeking Alpha:

We don’t like the Amazon model of selling everything at $9.99. They don’t pay us that. They pay us the full wholesale price of $14 or whatever we charge. We think it really devalues books and it hurts all the retailers of the hard cover books. We are not against [inaudible] books. On the contrary we like them very much indeed. It is low cost to us and so on. But we want some room to maneuver in it. Amazon, sorry Apple in its agreement with us which has not been disclosed in detail does allow for a variety of slightly higher prices.

There will be prices very much less than the printed copies of books but still will not be fixed in a way that Amazon has been doing it. It appears that Amazon is now ready to sit down with us again and renegotiate pricing.

Again, it’s impossible to stress how scarring the music labels’ experience has been for Big Media. And they’re determined not to repeat the experience. Their takeaway, though, seems to be that they can stave off digital distribution by keeping prices high and inventory relatively scarce. Hard to believe consumers are going to go for that.

Earlier

A first glimpse at News Corp.’s fourth-quarter earnings (which, due to the company’s weird fiscal calendar, is technically the company’s Q2 for 2010): Pretty good. And much better than a year ago (thankfully). After factoring out one-time charges, the company posted earnings of 25 cents on revenue of $8.7 billion.

The Street was looking for earnings of 20 cents on revenue of $8.23 billion, and analysts were also hoping the company would boost its earnings forecast, due in part to a bump from the ginormous success of “Avatar.” No word on guidance in the earnings release, though.

I’ll pick through the release for other worthwhile nuggets for the next few minutes. And then the real show begins at 4:30 Eastern, when the company’s earnings call–easily the most entertaining one in its peer group due to the censor-free presence of CEO Rupert Murdoch–begins. We’ll be looking for commentary on his battle/negotiation with Google (GOOG), upcoming content deals with Apple and the iPad, his thoughts on paid content in general, a dash of political commentary or two, and an update on the turnaround effort at MySpace.

From the release: A pretty nice quarter at most of the conglomerate’s divisions, including the previously battered broadcast TV and newspaper groups. News Corp. says print revenue at The Wall Street Journal was up five percent and ads on the Journal’s digital network were up 17 percent.

MySpace and the company’s other digital properties, shuffled into the “other” category, don’t get much of a mention, but don’t seem to have done much, not surprisingly.

But News Corp does mention that digital media earnings were down $32 million compared with a year ago, “principally due to lower search and advertising revenue.” And the company lost $29 million on “digital media dispositions”–i.e., the fire sale/giveaways of properties like Rotten Tomatoes and Photobucket.

Here’s the breakdown by segment (click table to enlarge):

Liveblog

CFO Dave DeVoe: “Extremely pleased” with the quarter.

Movies: Revenue up due to decent DVD sales (no MGM problem here). Also high costs due to “Avatar,” but big profits from the movie will be coming in during the next couple quarters.

Broadcast TV: Local ads are improving; the telecom, fast food, finance categories are all improving.

Cable: Revenue is up 18 percent. Affiliate revenue is up 21 percent (more money for Fox News subs), and there was a “single-digit” boost in ad dollars.

Newspapers: Journal dollars are up, operating costs down. Ad revenue got better as the quarter progressed.

Books: Revenue up, expenses down.

“Other”/MySpace: Digital media revenue down, but cost-cutting helped trim losses.

News Corp. is boosting its dividend by 25 percent.

Guidance: The company’s operating income growth rate is expected to grow from single digits to the high teens. Better than anticipated: Film group, TV and cable. But revenue goals for digital media, including MySpace, will take longer than anticipated.

Murdoch sings the praises of content. [I will not argue with him, for now]. “Avatar” is awesome, he says, a “harbinger of fundamental change in the industry.” Also really good: “Alvin and the Chipmunks.” Fun to hear Rupe say “Alvin and the Chipmunks.”

WSJ is the No.1 paper in U.S. in terms of circulation, influence, quality. WSJ.com is a “digital model for newspapers around the world.”

Fox News Channel’s audience is both “loyal and lucrative.” Roger Ailes is doing an “admirable job” [translation: Bite me, Michael Wolff--the author of a recent Murdoch biography].

Last year, Murdoch says, News Corp.’s pay-to-play ideas sounded nutty, but now “the content clan has gathered around our ideas.” Consumers must pay and will pay “to be entertained and informed.” All those awesome new gadgets being made in China and sold at the Consumer Electronics Show need content or they’re worthless. Content, content, content. Get it? Content, content, content.

Murdoch says he’ll be wringing more dollars from cable operators. And “when it comes to online news, we’ll be changing that model too,” adding that News Corp. is in “substantive conversations with device makers on developing subscription models” to deliver content. And don’t forget about 3-D!

Not performing well but “long-term growth drivers”: Sky Italia satellite service. Also Sky Deutschland. And MySpace is “not yet where we want it.” In the last quarter, however, MySpace “started to see signs of traffic stabilization.”

Shout-outs for Chase Carey and other managers (but not by name).

Q&A

Question: How big a deal is retransmission consent in coming years? $40 million a month? $100 million a month?

Chase Carey: No numbers, but it’s going to be a “transforming event.” We have two of top 10 distributors done, more coming. It’s a three- or four-year process to knock these deals out.

Q: Does this fix the broadcast model?

Carey: “Yes, I guess you could say simplistically, it fixes it.”

Q: What’s the timing on an “Avatar” DVD, and what about a sequel? Also, how do TV ads look this year?

Murdoch: For “Avatar,” we think about 60 percent of profits will be in the next six months. Which means the DVD will be coming “as soon as possible,” but the movie will stay in cinemas for a while because we’re doing huge dollars in theaters still. Sequel? “Very early talks about it. Jim has ideas for one. We haven’t come to any agreement with him….Being Jim Cameron, I wouldn’t hold your breath for an early one.” Asked about the economics of a future release (“Will you keep the same revenue split?”), Rupe sort of rumbles and growls and sort of doesn’t have much to say. “Ask anybody; it is very easy to drop a $100 million in a hurry on a film, and we’d like to lay off some of the risk.”

Carey: TV trends for this year are “positive.”

Murdoch: TV stations will be up 18 or 19 percent, but last year was terrible. We’re still down compared with two years ago. Hard to see more than a quarter in advance. In newspapers, it’s hard to see more than a few weeks.

[Missed a question on Sky Italia here.]

Q: What are growth prospects for cable networks? They’ve been driven a lot recently by new subscriber fees. How much longer can you get those boosts?

Murdoch: Overall, “we think we have great potential for growth. Quite a long way to go yet.” Look at how NBCU’s USA is growing.

Carey: In the U.S., we’re moving to “quality over quantity”–we can wring more out of foreign exchange, etc. Fox News is only getting more powerful; it has “great upside.”

Q: Regarding newspapers, what growth came from organic increase versus currency fluctuations?

The majority is from foreign exchange.

Q: Does your guidance assume that the “Avatar” DVD is coming in the next two quarters?

Murdoch: “Yes, but it won’t be 3-D” [which I don't think the analyst was asking about].

Q: Back to retransmission consent: You’ve been getting more and more money from cable guys. Why can’t you get $4 or $5 per subscription for Fox broadcast subs?

Murdoch: “We’re modest people.”

Carey: Hyuk, hyuk. Real answer: It takes time. “We try to approach this constructively. We’ve built businesses with [cable guys], we’ve built valuable cable channels” [translation: patience!]. We want to extract more without killing the cable guys.

Murdoch: That said, we’re asking for the same thing [for broadcast channels] that the cable networks are getting, which “certainly won’t kill the cable companies.”

Q: Please talk about value of film libraries (i.e., MGM). They’re generating big operating profits for cable now. How long will this last?

Murdoch: Regarding the MGM auction, “you can count us out of that one altogether” because others will pay more than we’re willing. And we’re not pursuing the Miramax catalog at all.

Carey: A film library by itself, without new stuff coming through, is a “depreciating asset.”

Q: On guidance: You say the ad market getting better, etc., but it sounds like you’re saying Ebidta growth is slowing.

Murdoch: “We honestly do not have any visibility about the last quarter.”

Q: On books/e-books/Apple, what’s going on with that?

Murdoch: We don’t like the Amazon model of $9.99….We think it really devalues books and hurts all the retailers of hardcover books. We’re not against electronic books; on the contrary, we like them very much, lower costs to us, but we want some room to maneuver. The Apple deal does allow “some flexibility and higher prices” though e-books will still be lower than print. And now Amazon is willing to sit down with us again.

Press Q&A

Q: What’s up with plans to charge for newspapers on the Web?

Murdoch: “Not ready to announce yet [long pause]. We won’t be ready yet to make an announcement.” A “lot of talks with a lot of people.” There will be more to say within the next two months, Murdoch adds.

Q: Are you still going to fall $100 million short on the Google deal?

Murdoch: Yes. People using social networks don’t use search a great deal. Facebook has seen this, too. It’s “really too early to make confident predictions…but from going down, we’re beginning to go up.”

Q: Can we get some details about Time Warner Cable (TWC) deal?

Nope.

What about Conan O’Brien on late night?

Murdoch: If the programming people can show us we can do it and make a profit on it, we’ll do it in a flash. I’m sure there have been conversations with Conan, but “if you mean real negotiations, no.”

[Missed two questions here.]

Q: Another late-night question: If you do go into negotiations with Conan, how do you placate your affiliates?

Murdoch: It’s a different deal than NBC. They screwed up 10 pm, which reduced the lead-in to local news. Our affiliates run syndicated programming at 11:30, though, so it will take time to adjust there.

Call ended. This one seemed short to me.

More or less redundant disclosure: News Corp. (NWS) owns this Web site.