Microsoft Raises Dividend and Announces New Share Buyback

The surprisingly big hike takes Microsoft's dividend yield to around 3.4 percent, ahead of major tech corporations such as International Business Machines Corp and Apple Inc.

But it may not satisfy activist investment firm ValueAct Capital and its supporters, mainly other big investment funds, analysts said. Some investors held out hope for a bigger slice of the company's $70 billion cash hoard, now that ValueAct has an option to take a seat on the software giant's board and exert greater influence over the company.

ValueAct has not publicized its goals. But people familiar with the fund's thinking say it questions Chief Executive Steve Ballmer's leadership and the wisdom of buying Nokia Corp's handset unit to delve deeper into the low-margin hardware business, and that it wants higher dividends and share buybacks.

Microsoft's shares finished 0.39 percent higher at $32.93 on the Nasdaq.

"I expected ValueAct to push for a big lump-sum payment like they have in the past," said Fort Pitt Capital analyst Kim Forrest, who has not spoken with the fund.

"And this is Microsoft saying no."

A hotly anticipated investor meeting on Thursday will give shareholders their first chance to quiz management on who may replace Ballmer, who announced plans to retire within a year after ValueAct pressed for his ouster.

It is unclear how hard ValueAct pushed Microsoft to share more of its $70 billion cash hoard. ValueAct CEO Jeffrey Ubben declined to comment about Microsoft during an industry event in New York on Tuesday.

For years, investors have called on Microsoft to return cash to shareholders rather than invest in peripheral projects, and limit its focus to serving enterprise customers with its vastly profitable Windows, Office and server products.

This month, it announced plans to buy Nokia's phone business and license its patents for 5.44 billion euros ($7.2 billion), a hefty investment that some criticized as a foray into a field already dominated by Apple and Google Inc hardware and software.

Microsoft has lost almost $3 billion on its Bing search engine and other Internet projects in the last two years alone, not counting a $6 billion write-off for its failed purchase of online advertising agency aQuantive.

Investors want a clearer picture of where Microsoft's investments in devices will take the company in coming years, especially as its cash cows, Windows and Office software, come under attack from Apple and Google in the mobile market, and the likes of Evernote and Box begin to develop productivity software.

"They really need to address what Microsoft will look like in a few years, and what the end goal is," Forrest said.

ONE COMPANY TO RULE THEM ALL

Ballmer announced his move just weeks after unveiling a 'One Microsoft' vision focused on hardware and cloud-based services. But poor sales of the Surface tablet, on top of its years-long failure to make money out of online search or smartphones, have cast doubt on the plan.

One of the biggest questions hanging over Microsoft is who will take the helm once Ballmer exits, and whether the successor will hew to his vision. Several sources have said top investors in the company are seeking a turnaround expert from within or without, and have proposed CEOs like Ford Motor Co's Alan Mulally or Computer Sciences Corp's Mike Lawrie.

The Nokia acquisition also brings former, well-regarded Microsoft executive Stephen Elop, who had headed the Finland-based company, back into the fold.

Tuesday's dividend and buyback declaration will help appease some investors for the time being, analysts said.

Microsoft said it will raise its regular dividend, payable on December 12 to shareholders of record on November 21, to 28 cents per share and authorized a new share buyback program.

The 5-cent increase, worth about $400 million a quarter, was about 3 cents more than analysts had expected. The new share repurchase program, with no expiration date, would replace another set to expire on September 30.

Microsoft ranks fourth on Wall Street in terms of actual cash payouts, behind Apple, Exxon Mobil and AT&T Inc. In terms of dividend yield, it ranks fourth among U.S. information technology companies, lagging only Intel Corp, Seagate Technology and Microchip Technology Inc, according to S&P Dow Jones Indices.

"We view this as a further indication that things are changing at Microsoft with respect to corporate governance that we believe could benefit shareholders over the next six to 12 months," Nomura Securities analyst Rick Sherlund said in a note.

But Barclays analyst Raimo Lenschow had expected an accelerated or expanded share buyback plan. The slightly bigger-than-expected dividend increase may signal a willingness to bow to investors' demands.

"A major open question is the timeframe over which the company plans to utilize the new $40 billion authorization, as that will dictate whether the level of the annual buyback is changing," Lenschow wrote on Tuesday.

"While the size of the new buyback program appears on the lower end of investor expectations, which we had pegged at close to $50-60 billion, the lingering question around the timeframe of the program makes the comparison to expectations flawed."

(Additional reporting by Nadia Damouni, Sam Forgione and Svea Herbst-Bayliss; Writing by Edwin Chan; Editing by Saumyadeb Chakrabarty, Robin Paxton, Noel Randewich and Richard Chang)

Narrowing Second Quarter Loss, Yelp Raises Sales Forecast for Year

The quarter's loss was smaller and revenue growth was bigger than analysts had expected. Yelp shares gained more than 5 percent in after-hours trading.

Yelp is getting clicks, helping it increase its ad sales. It drew 108 million unique visitors per month in the second quarter, a 38 percent increase from a year earlier. It's also adding content, with 42.5 million total reviews, up 41 percent from a year ago.

But it's still losing money. The company reported a loss of $878,000, or a penny per share, compared with a loss of $2 million, or 3 cents per share, in the April-June period last year. Revenue soared 69 percent to $55 million.

Analysts expected a loss of 4 cents per share on $53.3 million in revenue, according to a FactSet survey.

The San Francisco company predicted revenue of $58 million to $59 million in the third quarter revenue and raised its outlook for the year to $222 million to $224 million from its previous guidance of $216 million to $218 million.

Both would slightly beat the forecasts of analysts, who were expecting $57.3 million in the September quarter and $219.8 million for all of 2013.

Yelp is trying to expand its presence on mobile devices, where Yelp users conduct about 59 percent of their searches. It's also launching features to draw advertisers to the site, and this month it acquired the SeatMe app used to reserve seats in restaurants.

The company is also spending much more as it grows. Sales and marketing costs rose 52 percent to $30.8 million, while research and development expense jumped 86 percent to $8 million and overhead costs climbed 69 percent to $10.1 million.

The stock ended regular trading up a penny at $41.80. Shares have more than doubled this year. In aftermarket trading Wednesday, they added $2.25, or 5.4 percent, to $44.05.

DealBook: Dell Founder Raises Takeover Bid, With Conditions

Bits Blog: Coursera, an Online Education Company, Raises Another $43 Million

Ramin Rahimian for The New York Times Daphne Koller, a co-founder of Coursera, at the company’s offices in Mountain View, Calif. Over the next few months, Coursera plans to double its employees to about 100.

Coursera, a year-old company offering free online courses, has raised another $43 million in venture capital from investors active in both domestic and international education.

The new investors include the International Finance Corporation, the investment arm of the World Bank, and Laureate Education, an international higher education company with dozens of profit-making universities around the world, as well as GSV Capital, Learn Capital and Yuri Milner, an individual entrepreneur.

“We hope it’s enough money to get us to profitability,’’ said Daphne Koller, a co-founder of Coursera. “We haven’t really focused yet on when that might be.’’

Coursera, based in Mountain View, Calif., previously raised $22 million from Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers; New Enterprise Associates; and the University of Pennsylvania and California Institute of Technology, two of its university partners.

Over the next few months, Coursera plans to double its employees to about 100, and expand in several areas, including mobile apps and its Signature Track offerings, which charge a fee to students who want an identity-verified certificate upon successful completion of Coursera’s free courses. Since January, when the Signature Track option was first offered in five courses, Signature Track fees have produced more than $800,000, Ms. Koller said — and in the long run, she said, such revenue may be enough to make the company sustainable.

The company also plans to invest in international expansion, through localization, translation and distribution partnerships, and techniques for blended learning, in which Coursera’s online materials are used alongside classroom sessions with a professor.

“We see great potential for using some of the Coursera materials in our universities, so there is a strategic element to this investment,’’ said Douglas L. Becker, chairman and chief executive officer of Laureate. “The I.F.C. made the largest education investment they ever made in Laureate, and they’re joining us in this investment. Coursera allows us to invest in something we see as a rising technology impacting higher education, and gives us access to their content and curriculum.”

Coursera has grown with stunning speed since it began in April 2012, with four university partners. Now, the company works with 83 educational institutions on four continents, offering about 400 free college-level courses to more than four million students from every country in the world.

But after the initial burst of enthusiasm last year about massive open online courses, or MOOCs, and their potential for democratizing higher education worldwide, this year has brought some pushback. Faculty members at several institutions have expressed concern about how the courses may change higher education, how quickly university administrators signed on to work with MOOC providers, and whether the aim is more to save money than improve the quality of education.

So far, most of the students who have completed Coursera MOOCs have been college graduates, and it is still unclear how well the format will work to help students without degrees earn college credit for their online work. Coursera has recently started to market its materials for use by public universities in blended on-campus classes. Universities that use the materials will pay licensing fees, which Coursera will share with the universities that produce the courses.

DealBook: SoftBank Raises Bid for Sprint to $21.6 Billion

Toru Hanai/ReutersA SoftBank branch in Tokyo.

9:58 p.m. | Updated

SoftBank of Japan agreed late on Monday to increase its takeover bid for Sprint Nextel to $21.6 billion, seeking to block a rival bid by Dish Network.

Under the revised terms of the complex transaction, SoftBank agreed to shift over about $1.5 billion earmarked for Sprint itself to the company’s shareholders instead. Existing investors can now sell their shares at $7.65 apiece, up nearly 5 percent from the first offer.

All told, the new offer is valued at about $7.48 a share, up almost 19 percent from the original bid. SoftBank would own about 78 percent of Sprint if the deal is approved.

Sprint added that it had ended sales talks with Dish, which surprised many in April by offering $25.5 billion for all of the cellphone service provider, or about $7 a share. In a statement, Sprint said Dish had failed to put forward an acceptable formal bid despite weeks of conducting due diligence.

The new proposal by SoftBank, cobbled together largely over the weekend, is aimed at preserving SoftBank’s biggest gamble: buying control of Sprint to challenge the existing titans of the American cellphone market, AT&T and Verizon Wireless. Its plans included infusing Sprint with billions of dollars to build out a nascent high-speed data network.

SoftBank reiterated that it intended to invest $1.9 billion in Sprint if its deal closed, in addition to the $3.1 billion it already invested into the company.

The Japanese company has been frustrated by the emergence of Dish as a bidder, which has sought to stymie that plan on a number of fronts. Led by Charles W. Ergen, Dish network’s chairman, has contended that its deal would create a new behemoth that could offer a variety of wireless services, like cellphone coverage and satellite TV.

Shares in Sprint have traded above SoftBank’s previous offer, the result of investor dissatisfaction. The company’s stock closed on Monday at $7.18, before the new proposal was revealed.

SoftBank is betting that its improved offer will knock out its rival. Among its advantages is the speed with which the deal can be closed: SoftBank expects to close the transaction early next month, while Dish would most likely need months to complete its bid.

“The amended agreement announced today delivers more upfront cash to Sprint stockholders, while still achieving our goal of creating a well-capitalized Sprint that is better positioned to bring meaningful competition to the U.S. market,” Masayoshi Son, SoftBank’s chief executive, said in a statement.

The deal has been approved by a special committee of Sprint’s board. A vote on the proposed sale has been rescheduled from Wednesday to June 25.

The offer may be enough to win over Sprint investors who were skeptical of the previous bid. Paulson & Company, the hedge fund that is the company’s second-biggest shareholder, said in a statement that it would support the new SoftBank offer.

Still, Dish has until June 18 to propose an acceptable “best and final” bid. The amended agreement with SoftBank puts in place a number of additional restrictions, including forcing Dish to present fully committed financing and the adoption of defenses that would limit a hostile bid.

DealBook: Trying to Avoid Rejection, Sprint Nextel Raises Its Offer to Buy All of Clearwire

Joe Raedle/Getty ImagesCellphones at a Sprint Nextel store. Sprint increased its offer for the nearly 50 percent stake in Clearwire that it does not own.

6:03 p.m. | Updated

Sprint Nextel sweetened its bid for full control of the wireless network operator Clearwire on Tuesday, moving at the last minute to avert rejection by shareholders.

Sprint Nextel sweetened its bid for full control of the wireless network operator Clearwire on Tuesday in an effort to avert rejection by shareholders.

Sprint is now offering $3.40 a share for the nearly 50 percent stake in Clearwire that it does not already own. That is 14 percent higher than the cellphone service provider’s December bid, and now values the stake at $2.5 billion.

The move highlighted the resistance Sprint is facing in its bid for Clearwire, an important part of its turnaround strategy. A number of major shareholders had angrily denounced the previous bid of $2.97 a share as too low, though other major Clearwire investors had already sold to Sprint at lower prices.

The sweetened offer, which was completed on Monday night, suggests that Sprint knew its previous proposal was bound to fail. Though the company already has the support of Clearwire investors that own about 26 percent of the network operator’s stock, it must still win over an additional 24 percent.

“The revised offer demonstrates Sprint’s commitment to closing the Clearwire transaction and improving its competitive position in the U.S. wireless industry,” Sprint said in a statement.

Clearwire postponed a vote on the deal, which had been scheduled for Tuesday, to May 30, while its board evaluates the latest proposal.

Shares of Clearwire jumped to $3.40 a share Tuesday, suggesting that while investors may still be hoping for a higher bid, they would be more amenable to accepting the new proposal.

Still, one of the biggest critics of the Sprint offer, the hedge fund Crest Financial, urged shareholders to reject even the sweetened bid as too low.

“Clearwire is acting in its usual stockholder-unfriendly way by adjourning the special meeting to grant Sprint the ability to pose a new, still inadequate offer,” David K. Schumacher, Crest’s general counsel, said in a statement. “Stockholders should demand that the Clearwire board finally act in the best interest of all shareholders, not just in the interest of Sprint.”

The battle over Clearwire is playing out in the shadow of a fight over Sprint itself. On one side is SoftBank of Japan, which has bid $20.1 billion for the company. On the other is Dish Network, which offered $25.5 billion last month.

Late on Monday, Sprint said that it was still holding due diligence talks with Dish to see if its newer suitor’s proposal was likely to prove superior. SoftBank has consented to the limited negotiations between Sprint and its rival bidder.

A decision by Sprint’s board could come within the next two or three weeks, according to a person briefed on the matter.

Sprint’s securing full control of Clearwire would be especially important to SoftBank, as that would allow the American cellphone service company to expand its Long-Term Evolution network, using the high-speed data standard employed by the latest generation of mobile devices.

Sprint is betting that upgrading its network will help it better compete against bigger rivals like Verizon Wireless and AT&T, after years of struggling to compete.

Its bid was made possible by a cash infusion from SoftBank of Japan, which bid $20.1 billion late last year to gain control of Sprint. Clearwire’s spectrum is similar to what SoftBank uses in Japan, potentially giving Sprint more bargaining power to order the newest phones.

SoftBank’s chief executive, Masayoshi Son, has suggested that Sprint could carry out its turnaround plans even without buying full control of Clearwire. Even if Sprint’s takeover entreaties fail, the company will still end up owning about 65 percent of the network operator.

But Clearwire still faces enormous financial pressure, and has already slowed important network improvements to preserve cash. The company has retained the Blackstone Group as an adviser on potential reorganization options, including a bankruptcy filing.

DealBook: Pleased by Apple’s Move, Einhorn Raises His Bet

Casey Kelbaugh for The New York TimesDavid Einhorn, the hedge fund manager, and his wife, Cheryl Strauss Einhorn, at the Time 100 gala.

When Apple agreed to extensively expand its stock buyback program last month, David Einhorn was pleased.

So pleased, in fact, that he has increased his stake in the iPad maker.

During an earnings call for another company that his hedge fund owns, Mr. Einhorn said that his firm, Greenlight Capital, raised the size of its Apple holdings. The hedge fund owned about 1.3 million shares as of Dec. 31, making it Apple’s 75th-largest investor.

Last month, Apple announced that it would quintuple the size of its share buybacks, to $60 billion, and would increase its dividend by 15 percent. The moves came after Mr. Einhorn publicly pushed Apple to pay out some of its enormous war chest — now totaling some $145 billion — to shareholders.

Here’s what Mr. Einhorn said on Tuesday:

Apple took a major step forward by issuing debt and announcing it will return $100 billion to shareholders over the next three years. This is a vastly more shareholder-friendly capital allocation policy then where Apple stood a few months ago. We have added to our Apple position. Now we just wait for the release of Apple’s next blockbuster product.

Fwd.Us Raises Uproar With Advocacy Tactics

Fwd.Us, the new nonprofit advocacy group created by Mr. Zuckerberg and several technology executives and investors to push for an overhaul of immigration law, has bankrolled television ads endorsing the conservative stands taken by three lawmakers, prompting an outcry from liberal groups and a call to withhold advertisements from Facebook.

The uproar, some say, will be a lesson for Silicon Valley companies as they try to influence emotional political issues like immigration. But the group’s supporters brashly say they were ready for the reaction.

“Our advertising decisions are being made by a very smart team of political operatives who know that passing major reform will require some different and innovative tactics,” Jim Breyer, a venture capitalist with Accel Partners and a contributor to the cause, said in an e-mailed statement. “I’m proud to support Fwd.Us as they work to pass comprehensive immigration reform.”

The group has faced the most vocal criticism for television advertisements sponsored by its two subsidiaries, which are known as Americans for Conservative Action and Council for American Job Growth. One of those spots takes swipes at President Obama’s health policies. Another lauds the Keystone XL pipeline, fiercely opposed by many environmental groups.

Those TV spots, which ran in several states for a week, prompted strong reaction from a coalition of liberal organizations that includes the Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters and MoveOn.org. They announced earlier this week that they would suspend buying advertisements on Facebook, which they acknowledged was meant to send a message and would have little economic impact on the company.

Cathy Duvall, director of strategic partnerships at the Sierra Club, said her group was especially disappointed to see the technology industry adopt a strategy that was more typical of old-fashioned, brass-knuckled Washington lobbying.

“When the ads came out they were politics as usual and divisive and pitting one issue against another,” Ms. Duvall said. “We were really surprised that Silicon Valley would be moving into the political space by doing the worst of business-as-usual politics.”

Fwd.Us, like other industry-backed interest groups, has said very little about how much money it has raised and from whom, except to name contributors on its Web site. It would say only that it spent in the “seven figures” on the television spots.

The ads are particularly surprising considering some of the other backers. John Doerr, a venture capitalist, is known for his investments in clean technology companies, and his wife, Ann, has been a major donor to environmental causes.

Reid Hoffman has described himself as “progressive” in an essay posted recently on LinkedIn, a company that he founded.

Bill Gates, co-founder of Microsoft, in 2010 backed an effort not to roll back California’s global warming law. None of them returned calls and e-mails requesting comment for this article, referring instead to Fwd.Us operatives in Washington.

“We recognize that not everyone will always agree with or be pleased by our strategy,” said Kate Hansen, a spokeswoman for Fwd.Us. “Fwd.Us remains totally committed to support a bipartisan policy agenda that will boot the knowledge economy, including comprehensive immigration reform.”

For his part, Mr. Zuckerberg has covered his political bases. He recently held a fund-raiser for Chris Christie, the Republican governor of New Jersey, at his home in Palo Alto, Calif., and Facebook has hired several former White House and Congressional aides to work in its Washington office.

Mr. Zuckerberg has declined requests to be interviewed about Fwd.Us.

Jim Manley, a former chief spokesman for Senate majority leader Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, said that the ads may have achieved their goal, but that Mr. Zuckerberg should learn from the negative reaction.

“He is finding out it can be very, very problematic to get your company involved in hot-button social issues,” said Mr. Manley, who now directs the communications practice at the Washington lobbying and public relations firm Quinn Gillespie. “There is going to be blowback. You are going to pay a price for it.”

Fwd.Us has been openly criticized by others in Silicon Valley. Josh Miller, founder of a start-up called Branch, denounced what he called the group’s “questionable lobbying practices” and said he was disappointed that the group had not been transparent about its intentions.

“More discouragingly, the leaders of the technology industry (and of FWD.us) have built their careers on bringing meaningful change to the world,” he wrote in a BuzzFeed opinion piece. “They should be doing the same in Washington.”

Vinod Khosla, a venture capitalist who finances some of the same clean energy companies as Mr. Doerr’s firm and who was once a major partner at Mr. Doerr’s investment firm, said on Twitter over the weekend: “Will Fwd.us prostitute climate destruction & other values to get a few engineers hired & get immigration reform?”

One advocacy group called CredoAction, based in San Francisco, tried to use Facebook ads to draw attention to the Keystone XL pipeline TV spot sponsored by Fwd.Us. The ads were prohibited by Facebook officials, because the company’s terms of service prohibit using Mr. Zuckerberg’s image in another organization’s ad. A coalition of organizations has also created a Facebook group to agitate against Fwd.Us.

Still, others say the ads signal a calculated pragmatism. Fwd.Us is led by experienced political operatives, including Joe Lockhart, a former Clinton Administration official, and Rob Jesmer, a former Republican Senate political adviser. One executive involved in the effort said the advertisements were vetted with executives backing it — and that the executives realized before they were shown that they might alienate certain liberal audiences. But the group made a decision to back both Democrats and Republicans who support the immigration bill in order to get it passed.

“We did not just fall off the turnip truck,” the executive said. “There are a lot of people involved in these organizations that have been involved in politics for a really long time.”

The group e-mailed statements from prominent backers, including a former Facebook executive, Chamath Palihapitiya, who argued that Fwd.Us needs to be “disruptive” in politics, as in commerce.

“In order to push Washington to do something different and pass major legislation like comprehensive immigration reform, groups like Fwd.Us can’t just do the same thing and expect different results,” he said. “As part of our work, we’re using a wide variety of tactics, some of which may ruffle some feathers, but we believe the passage of the bill will be worth it.”

Ad Blocking Raises Alarm Among Firms Like Google

PARIS — Xavier Niel, the French technology entrepreneur, has made a career of disrupting the status quo.

Now, he has dared to take on Google and other online advertisers in a battle that puts the Web companies under pressure to use the wealth generated by the ads to help pay for the network pipelines that deliver the content.

Mr. Niel’s telecommunications company, Free, which has an estimated 5.2 million Internet-access users in France, began last week to enable its customers to block Web advertising. The company is updating users’ software with an ad-blocking feature as the default setting.

That move has raised alarm among companies that, like Google, have based their entire business models on providing free content to consumers by festooning Web pages with paid advertisements. Although Google so far has kept largely silent about Free’s challenge, the reaction from the small Web operators who live and die by online ads has been vociferous.

No Internet access provider “has the right to decide in place of its citizens what they access or not on the Internet,” Spiil, an association of French online news publishers, said in a statement Friday.

The French government has stepped into the fray. On Monday Fleur Pellerin, the French minister for the digital economy, plans to convene a meeting of the feuding parties to seek a resolution.

Free’s shock to advertisers was widely seen as an attack on Google, and is part of the larger, global battle over the question of who should pay to deliver information on the Web — content providers or Internet service providers. An attempt to rewrite the rules failed at the December talks of the International Telecommunication Union in Dubai, after the United States and other nations objected to a proposal that, among other measures, would have required content providers to pay.

Mr. Niel declined to comment on Sunday, through a spokeswoman, Isabelle Audap.

But he has often complained that Google’s content, which includes the ever expanding YouTube video library, occupies too much of his network’s bandwidth, or carrying capacity. “The pipelines between Google and us are full at certain hours, and no one wants to take responsibility for adding capacity,” he said during an interview last year with the newsmagazine Nouvel Observateur. “It’s a classic problem that happens everywhere, but especially with Google.”

Analysts said that French regulators would probably not oppose an agreement between Free and Google aimed at smoothing traffic flows and improving the quality of the service, as long as competitors were not disadvantaged. But they said regulators would probably not allow an Internet access provider to unilaterally block content.

When it comes to blocking ads, though, disgruntled consumers do not have to rely on their Internet service providers. Consumers already have the option of downloading software like Adblock Plus to do the job for them.

Free is the second-largest Internet access provider in France, behind Orange, which is operated by France Telecom and has 9.8 million Internet customers. Because Free seeks to be a low-cost competitor, the company may feel itself particularly vulnerable to the expense of providing capacity to meet Internet users’ ever-growing demand for streaming and downloading videos, music and the like.

Ms. Pellerin, the digital economy minister, expressed sympathy for Free’s position in an interview with Le Figaro, published Saturday. “There are today real questions about the sharing of value between the content providers — notably in video, which uses a lot of bandwidth — and the operators,” she said.

“In France, and in Europe,” Ms. Pellerin added, “we have to find more consensual ways of integrating the giants of the Internet into national ecosystems.” And in a subsequent Twitter message, she said she was “no fan of intrusive advertising, but favorable to a solution of no opt-out by default.”

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: January 7, 2013

Because of an editing error, an earlier version of this article misstated Iliad’s third-quarter revenue. It was €819 million, not €819 billion.