Yahoo! Rumor Finds New Home, but No Sources

The Business Press Maven has been bitterly critical of the New York Post over the past half year for trafficking in rumors about Microsoft(MSFT Quote - Cramer on MSFT - Stock Picks) taking over Yahoo!(YHOO Quote - Cramer on YHOO - Stock Picks) without sources, cause, good reason or a clue.

Ask me sometime and I'll tell you how I really feel, but here's the irony: Yahoo! reported after the close yesterday and guess what? The New York Post is finally silent about Microsoft committing an act there is no precedence for it committing. But guess what? The Financial Times picks up the deflated ball and runs with it, forced by circumstance (the reporting of unsourced nonsense) to hedge its comments so ridiculously that The Business Press Maven nearly choked to death on his own righteousness.

They Just Don't Get Microsoft and Yahoo!

In an otherwise sober article called "Yahoo's Woes," one that (save for one separate point) adequately captured the troubled case laid out by Yahoo! on its call, the FT ended with this whopper:

"Investors' best hope for a rapid reversal in fortunes remains a bid. Microsoft, wanting to plug the gaping hole in its internet strategy, is still the obvious buyer. The software giant, however, either needs to get seriously desperate, or suddenly enjoy a shot of confidence that it would have a chance of running Yahoo's business any better."

Let us pause for dramatic effect. And, quick, someone give me the Heimlich!

According to FT, Yahoo!'s best hope (not pipe dream, mind you) remains a bid by Microsoft, the so-called obvious buyer. To date, however, despite all the words spilled on the matter, there have been as many legitimate sources saying that The Business Press Maven would buy Yahoo! (or Microsoft, for that matter) for a few trinkets and a song, as Microsoft.

Even assuming there were sources to this rumor, look at how unlikely it is. Microsoft, after all, has never made an acquisition of such size. What will it take? According to FT, Microsoft, which is doing very nicely, thank you, needs to "get seriously desperate." Uh, OK.

Or, FT posits, they have to get hit by a thunderbolt that they can run Yahoo!, with some chronic challenges, better than Yahoo! itself. These are one-in-a-millions. Two of them, to be exact. And since these one-in-a-millions are harnessed to a rumor that has never been sourced to anyone well-placed, why publish such rank speculation? Why? It serves only to titillate and -- as a direct result -- continue to mislead investors, offering Yahoo! shareholders a hunk of false hope.

Unfortunately for those of us who reside on planet earth, The Financial Times was hardly the only offender. This MicroHoo! thing is like a verbal tick. Hey, it might happen one day, on the tenth of the month of Never. But before you believe the coy references, just make sure they are based on a single bit of decent evidence.

One of the "Fast Money" Traders was asked a question about a possible deal: "What's up next for Yahoo!, does it get bought out here?"

A simple and accurate (funny how those two words go hand-in-hand) answer might be: "nothing around about a deal that you can hang a hat, even a visor, on right now." Instead one of the "Fast Money" traders trotted out the usual suspect: Microsoft. "It could be a great opportunity for Microsoft to finally step in," he said, as if Microsoft had actually been thinking about it. The "finally" is actually inserted only because the Post has been running unsourced stories about the deal since, in the immortal words of Joe Pesci just before he gets wacked in Goodfellas, Pikes Peak was a pimple.

Like The Financial Times, which ran with the rumor before backpedaling from it in ridiculous fashion, the "Fast Money" trader did the same: "I'm not saying they are, but that's been the rumor for quite some time now." Unless it happens, though, he would not be a buyer of Yahoo!.

Uh, OK.

Anyhow, getting back to The Financial Times -- what else did it (and many others) miss?