Lately it's been very difficult for investors to get their bearings, but I can tell you that the winners in this game will be companies with little or no debt. Forget what stock values are doing now and focus on the future. You can take it to the bank that stocks gaining in value will have started from a very solid balance sheet foundation.

That said, I want to talk about Yahoo (NASDAQ: YHOO).

Yesterday the company was in the news again with reports that former AOL chief Jon Miller is seeking capital to purchase YHOO outright for a price that is reported to be in the $20 range.

YHOO shares rocketed higher on the news, immediately jumping up by nearly $1 per share, or approximately 10%.

My initial reaction, as you might expect, was skeptical. Jump on this news as a chance to dump shares. Management at YHOO, with or without Chief Yahoo Jerry Yang, has destroyed shareholder value so much that it would be hard to believe that anyone would pay a premium for the stock.

How could it be that a lone ranger from the failed AOL model be considered a serious alternative to YHOO going it alone? It makes no sense until you take a closer look at YHOO fundamentals. There the story starts to get a little more interesting.

When Michael reported yesterday that former AOL head Jon Miller was hoping to buy Yahoo! for over $20 per share, I did a double take. Yahoo! Inc. (NASDAQ: YHOO) has been floundering for the better part of 2008, and has seen its stock price plummet and its founder step down as CEO after a disastrous run that included the rejection of a $45+ billion takeover offer from Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ: MSFT). One would think Yahoo! is a company without direction or drive, even with its huge, world-leading global eyeball audience.

The fact that Yahoo! has one of the top web audiences on the entire planet but can't seem to monetize it properly is a case study for future business courses. But the real question is why anyone would still want to buy such a directionless company? Enter former AOL head Jon Miller, who is reportedly trying to raise over $28 billion to buy the company for a huge premium over its closing price of $11.15 yesterday. Although Miller is an excellent high-tech leader who could probably do better than most in improving Yahoo!'s fortunes, are backers going to fund him to the tune of $28 billion?

Can Yahoo! ever regain even a piece of its former glory? Highly doubtful -- and it's incredibly hard to see financiers following Miller's logic in this economic environment and shelling out tens of billions to buy the company. Will any of them even be able to issue debt in this environment? Cowen's Jim Friedland indicated to Barron's that "the company will continue to lose share in search and that user engagement with its portal will decline over time." And that, folks, is the killer. If Yahoo! starts losing engagement over time, the game is over. This decline began a few years ago and will likely gain steam in the next two years.

Jonathan Miller, the former chief executive of AOL, is apparently trying to raise money to buy Yahoo! Inc. (NASDAQ: YHOO).

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Miller has been talking to the only people who have any money left to invest right now, deep-pocket private equity investors and sovereign wealth funds. Miller would like to purchase the whole Yahoo! enchilada at $20 to $22 per share, for a total value of $28 to $30 billion.

Yahoo! stock is spiking on the report. As of 1:15, Yahoo! is trading at $11.74, up 9% on the day.

Last week, Zac Bissonnette wrote about the fact that Carl Icahn has recently increased his stake in Yahoo! Icahn bought nearly seven million more shares in the company last week, raising his stake in Yahoo! to roughly 5.5%. Is it possible that a buyout led by Miller is part of Icahn's plan?

Whatever the backroom maneuverings, there is a lot of skepticism about any kind of Yahoo! deal, no matter who leads it. Financing such a big deal would be mighty difficult in this market, and Yahoo!'s valuation remains in flux. So you should probably take the news as reported: people are talking about a deal for Yahoo! but no deal is in place.

The Times of London says Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT) is on the brink of taking control of Yahoo!'s (NASDAQ: YHOO) search business. AllThings Digital says the story is hogwash.

According to the UK paper, "Microsoft is in talks to acquire Yahoo's online search business for $20 billion (£13 billion)." In the transaction, former AOL CEO Jonathan Miller and former Fox executive Ross Levinsohn would end up managing Yahoo! and owning a big piece of the business. The account says that the boards of both companies have met on the deal.

Contrast that to the U.S. technology website's take. "A report in the Times of London in which Microsoft would buy Yahoo's search business in a convoluted $20 billion deal that would include well-known Internet execs Jon Miller and Ross Levinsohn, is -- in the words of one key player -- 'total fiction.'"

The news, or lack of news, points to the role rumor has come to play in important M&A negotiations. How could a major newspaper be so wrong? How could a website, considered an expert in news about the internet, contradict reporting that was obviously based on the Times interviewing people at the center of the deal?

One of two significant industry sources is almost certainly completely wrong. Why on earth would that medium run a story that clearly has no foundation?

When rumors rule, "news" is worthless.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

An interesting release came out at the end of last week when everyone was preparing for the three-day weekend. Jonathan Miller, former Chairman and CEO of Time Warner Inc.'s (NYSE: TWX) America Online unit, has joined General Atlantic, LLC as an adviser to the firm's Media & Consumer sector. General Atlantic didn't just add on Miller. Ross Levinsohn, former President of Fox Interactive Media (FIM) at News Corp. (NYSE: NWS), has also become an adviser.

Before jumping to any conclusions, please be advised that the term "adviser" is far different than "director" or "partner." It is very possible that there will be more to this, but that's all we know for now. Usually this tends to revolve around "identifying or reviewing potential acquisitions" or "finding deals on an unofficial basis" rather than working full-time inside the companies.

General Atlantic has made private equity investments of $1.3 billion in more than 20 companies since 1995. This may be to bring on more partnerships for General Atlantic's existing media properties, and you could argue that it is far more. It looks like we won't know until further announcements hit.

Jon Ogg is a partner in 24/7 Wall St., LLC; he produces the Special Situation Investing Newsletter and he does not own securities in the companies he covers.

The TELEGRAPH in the UK over the weekend reports of a potential unlocking the value in AOL.

You have to love how rumors get started. I saw a chat-post this morning that said AOL was being spun-off and I thought my eyes were deceiving me for a moment. The article quotes AOL's CEO Jonathon Miller: "It's possible, going forward. It's not a discussion that Time Warner Inc. (NYSE: TWX) has a problem with understanding or engaging in. Until we were on this present course, it wasn't even the right discussion. Now it becomes more interesting."

Anything is possible in this day and age of web and traditional mergers, but outside of what may be management testing out the waters, there is no real background or specifics in the article pointing to a deal being imminent.

On a different note, AOL will now sell Paramount movies and television shows through the new AOL video portal. Paramount is part of Viacom (VIA).

After listening to AOL's Jonathan Miller speak at Deutsche Bank's Media and Telecommunications conference, Cynthia Brumfeld of IP Democracy had some issues. Namely, that Miller was "confusing" and "vague," speaking in "buzz phrases, stream of consciousness, sentence fragments and generalities" and saying a whole lot of nothing. Her bottom-line question: "Is all this vague-talk a sign of real trouble at the online unit?"

I know how she feels -- I hate nothing more than "vague-talk" and frequently wish someone would just answer the damn question. I've had questions not-answered by any number of famous and successful CEOs, from Jeffrey Bezos to the great Meg Whitman herself, and have been frustrated listening to analyst conference call after press day after investor meeting and wondering, when is someone going to answer the question that was asked?

I don't think non-answers are a sign of trouble. The buzzwords: more worrisome. Buzzwords, in my opinion, are always a sign of desperation. I've seen smart people turn into blathering fountains of buzz-speak (notably, a Wharton professor whose catch-phrase "in this space" would tend toward the ridiculous when he wasn't at the top of his game) when they were unprepared to talk about an issue. Heck, I've done it myself.

Cynthia: don't worry about the glibness. It's the buzz you should be concerned about. Either Miller was just tired (hey, we all get that way) and ill-prepared, or there really is a problem. I'll leave the opinions on which is the truth, to you all.

Other news from the Milken Conference: AOL Chairman and Chief Exec Jonathan Miller let the cat out of the bag that AOL is considering an online model that makes content -- such as television reruns from Time Warner sister company Warner Bros. -- available for an extended period to let the audience accumulate.

While you may think of Warner Bros. as that benign force that brought us ER, Friends, and The O.C., don't forget that we also owe Warner Bros. for such made-for-TV movies as Dukes of Hazzard: Reunion!  and Terror in the Mall, as well as the sitcom Full House.

As for prospects of looking deep into my computer monitor and seeing Bob Saget reprise his Full House role as cherubic widower Danny Tanner -- something I thought I'd left, along with my "Members Only" jackets and Thriller cassette, safely in the 1980's -- well, Minesweeper is looking better and better...

The Big Three come together to discuss the global balance of power. The Yalta Conference?

No, the Milken Institute's 9th Annual Global Conference. Yesterday in Beverly Hills, media men from News Corp, AOL, and Walt Disney came together to powwow.

But you could certainly be forgiven for confusing the two. That's why I'm offering you, dear readers, a quick primer to keep these things straight:

The Yalta Conference vs. The Milken Institute: Which is Doper?

Players:

Yalta Conference: Franklin Delano Roosevelt, USA; Joseph Stalin, USSR; Winston Churchill, United Kingdom

Milken Institute: Jonathan Miller, AOL Chairman and Chief Executive; Robert Iger, Walt Disney Chief Executive; Peter Chernin, News Corp President and COO

Advantage: Yalta Conference

Location:

Yalta Conference: Yalta, a city in Ukraine, on the north coast of the Black Sea, 1945

Milken Institute: Beverly Hills, home of swimming pools, movie stars, and nip-and-tuck procedures

Advantage: Milken Institute