content: I thought the article was a bit sensationalist and presumed no understanding of economics. Let me see if I can explain. Imagine you're a slave. You're still you -- you own all your stuff. I'm a slave trader -- but I sell slices of your time to other people. (Like shares in the company, if you're familiar.) I wake you up at all hours and make you go work for other people -- until you notice something. If you sold grandma's china, your house, the dog, etc., you could pay someone a nice wage to go do your slave work. Like $25/hour nice. And you could just sleep in... maybe make them work for you! That seems like a good idea. Your kids would like it. So would the dog... but they don't own any part of you. And there's no more slices of you to sell. So, they could try to organize the other people who bought slices of your time to tell the slave owner that this is what you will be doing with your time and assets, but only if you can get 50% of the buyers to come talk to me. The slave users would be the proxies for the wife, kids, and dog. The other maxim about the undervalued assets -- supposibly, markets don't like to see problems of undervaluation like this. There are others -- it costs much less to buy an ounce of gold than to mine one -- gold mines should close, etc. The undervaluation of Yahoo is based on the idea that it's a website -- not it's worth as a holding company. But look at the price-to-earnings ration: it's quite possible that every asset Yahoo holds is overvalued. Yahoo may or may not be able to sell them -- they may have long-term partnerships with payment in stock and rules on selling to preserve the price.