Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"
Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"
June 21, 2008
Financial website The Motley Fool mocks Electronic Arts today.
Rick Aristotle Munarriz delivers the slap in a column recounting EA's seemingly endless campaign to acquire Grand Theft Auto publicher Take-Two Interactive:
What if you threw a wedding and nobody came? That's becoming the embarrassing reality... EA's latest tender offer to buy the Grand Theft Auto IV software hotshot expired on Monday, so what did EA do? It repeated the offer. Again.
For those scoring at home, this is the third time that EA has seen its tender offer... expire sorely undersubscribed. It gets worse with every passing month. EA had 6.4 million shares -- or less than 8% of the outstanding shares -- submitted during the first tender. EA now has just 6.1 million shares on board.
EA needs to step up and either raise its bid, dare Take-Two to seek out a better deal elsewhere, or just walk away. Anything else is just delusional.
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGINGamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 07/04/09 at 09:24pm
PHX Corp: For those that want to know what i watching it's called man vs cartoon(a.k.a fixing Wile E. coyote's Mistakes one trap at a time by EMERTEC)
PHX Corp: For those that want to know what i watching it's called man vs cartoon(a.k.a fixing Wile E. coyote's Mistakes one trap at a time by EMERTEC)
Posted 07/04/09 at 08:20pm
GoodRobotUs: Went out for my Mum's 65th Birthday, which is the only relevance 4/7 has in the UK for me ;)
GoodRobotUs: Went out for my Mum's 65th Birthday, which is the only relevance 4/7 has in the UK for me ;)
Posted 07/04/09 at 08:18pm
Andrew Eisen: Beach + fireworks + root beer + strawberries, blackberries, raspberries, whipped topping, and pound cake = my Fourth of July!
Andrew Eisen: Beach + fireworks + root beer + strawberries, blackberries, raspberries, whipped topping, and pound cake = my Fourth of July!
Posted 07/04/09 at 07:58pm
GoodRobotUs: Which seems to be the only point Jack proved, that some people find some games offensive. i.e. Nothing.
GoodRobotUs: Which seems to be the only point Jack proved, that some people find some games offensive. i.e. Nothing.
Posted 07/04/09 at 07:57pm
GoodRobotUs: The discussion was supposed to be whether games were dangerous not 'Do you find some games offensive'...
GoodRobotUs: The discussion was supposed to be whether games were dangerous not 'Do you find some games offensive'...
Posted 07/04/09 at 07:55pm
GoodRobotUs: Some agreed, some didn't, but it was their choice to make, not the governments.
GoodRobotUs: Some agreed, some didn't, but it was their choice to make, not the governments.
Posted 07/04/09 at 07:55pm
GoodRobotUs: By asking the audience their opinion, he more or less proved that it's a matter of personal choice
GoodRobotUs: By asking the audience their opinion, he more or less proved that it's a matter of personal choice
Posted 07/04/09 at 07:55pm
GoodRobotUs: Meh, he ended proving Mark's point for him
GoodRobotUs: Meh, he ended proving Mark's point for him
Posted 07/04/09 at 07:26pm
Erik: Jack if you are reading this you are a LIAR. There is no legal weight to the MPAA's ratings.
Erik: Jack if you are reading this you are a LIAR. There is no legal weight to the MPAA's ratings.
Posted 07/04/09 at 07:24pm
JDKJ: I still think my buddy the midget who rides a unicycle backwards while juggling four bowling pins would have been a much bigger hit with that crowd. And he can make up statistics and misinterpret studies, too.
JDKJ: I still think my buddy the midget who rides a unicycle backwards while juggling four bowling pins would have been a much bigger hit with that crowd. And he can make up statistics and misinterpret studies, too.
Posted 07/04/09 at 06:33pm
Alyric: Of course, Mark falls into the common trap about Columbine, which had nothing to do with bullying, etc. See: http://slate.msn.com/id/2099203/?GT1=3256 for a more thorough explanation.
Alyric: Of course, Mark falls into the common trap about Columbine, which had nothing to do with bullying, etc. See: http://slate.msn.com/id/2099203/?GT1=3256 for a more thorough explanation.
Posted 07/04/09 at 06:32pm
PHX Corp: Read this http://www.destructoid.com/sgc-09-liveblogging-the-jack-thompson-debate-138502.phtml#ext
PHX Corp: Read this http://www.destructoid.com/sgc-09-liveblogging-the-jack-thompson-debate-138502.phtml#ext
Posted 07/04/09 at 05:54pm
PHX Corp: JT is afraid of such ban then advocates it That's what i call a total Hypocrite
PHX Corp: JT is afraid of such ban then advocates it That's what i call a total Hypocrite
Posted 07/04/09 at 05:50pm
PHX Corp: AE: JT is a -Bleeping- Jackass
PHX Corp: AE: JT is a -Bleeping- Jackass
Posted 07/04/09 at 05:07pm
Andrew Eisen: JT "knew it would be a good audience." Not what he said on Tuesday.
Andrew Eisen: JT "knew it would be a good audience." Not what he said on Tuesday.
Posted 07/04/09 at 05:01pm
Andrew Eisen: VG cause violent behavior. VG companies influence behavior to get sales. Yeah, that makes sense. (To be fair, the Twitter feed makes deciphering JT's point pretty tough.)
Andrew Eisen: VG cause violent behavior. VG companies influence behavior to get sales. Yeah, that makes sense. (To be fair, the Twitter feed makes deciphering JT's point pretty tough.)
Posted 07/04/09 at 04:52pm
Andrew Eisen: Yes, it's been proposed but as far as I know it has not been passed. Big difference.
Andrew Eisen: Yes, it's been proposed but as far as I know it has not been passed. Big difference.
Posted 07/04/09 at 04:50pm
Cheater87: http://www.gamezine.co.uk/news/formats/xbox360/all-violent-video-games-be-banned-in-germany-$1301757.htm
Cheater87: http://www.gamezine.co.uk/news/formats/xbox360/all-violent-video-games-be-banned-in-germany-$1301757.htm
Posted 07/04/09 at 04:49pm
Andrew Eisen: Far as I know, Germany has not banned all violent video games.
Andrew Eisen: Far as I know, Germany has not banned all violent video games.
Posted 07/04/09 at 04:44pm
Cheater87: Jack wants the US to follow Germany's total video game ban.
Cheater87: Jack wants the US to follow Germany's total video game ban.
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
The Motley Fool, dispite it's name, is actually pretty good. They do a good job of making all the crazy economic terms and buzzwords make sense.
---------------------------------
So speak I, some random guy.
@EA
walk away... you challenging everything is ruining everything
Now if only Activision would step in. I wouldn't mind working on the next GTA ;)
No offense, but I'd rather see EA get ahold of GTA than Activision. Ask around the office about True Crime: New York City if you want to know why that is.
Agreed, Activision are the ones whoring out Guitar Hero and deciding that the next Call of Duty gets put back in the hands of Treyarch.
EA, meanwhile, are developing Spore and Dead Space.
I'm not going to comment about the inner workings of Activision, I like my job too much.
If anything as soon as T2 is bought Rockstar will jump ship like there is no tomorrow. They did publish some game on their own for a while.
It really is getting ridiculous. EA needs to stop trying to monopolize everything. We'll end up with EA, Microsoft and Nintendo controlling all the games.
I'd say EA is the persistant horny drunk and Take Two is the girl at the bar with her boyfriend.
-kurisu7885
Really? Who's the girlfriend? I don't see her. Who is else is offering Take-Two anything?
Autonomy.
---------------------------------
So speak I, some random guy.
EA's attempt to buy Take-Two has been pretty anemic, that's for sure. They make a single offer, and just can't seem to grasp that shareholders are either not interested or that the price is too low. Normally, a sensible business would re-evaluate the strategy they pursued and change their plan... but I honestly don't know what to call EA's tactic here. "Runaway Groom" doesn't seem to fit... "delusional" is certainly more accurate.
It's more like an unwashed man standing on a crowded street with a "free hugs" sign for the fourth day in a row, who continues to give passers-by a sad smile despite the fact that no one has hugged him since day one.
Pretty much get the feeling that EA does not know when to quit. Yes they want to control Every market that might bring in money and this is understandable being for FOR Profit company, but please. No actually can mean No. Stubborn fools.
I probably would not care (or as much) if they had not managed to bastardise several companies that I used to buy game from.
To follow out Kurisu's anology. Maybe the boyfriend (Rockstar, verendi, someone) or the bouncer (The Courts) will remove the irratant and kick him to crub.
The only fool in this is the Motley Fool. Take-Two's shares are stalled below $27. The market had already taken into account the large sales of GTA IV. The stock is overvalued, as Take-Two is a one-trick pony with GTA.
EA is offering too much, not too little. Most analysts understand that.
Dufus in New York
If they're offering more than it's worth then where is the incentive to sell?
-kurisu7885
Sounds to me like Take-Two's shares are stalled at about the value of the company. It shot up with the EA offer, then remained steady with the release of GTA4. That says to me that all EA's offer really did was hasten the raise in the value of the stock a little, and that it'll remain where it is when EA finally gives up.
I wouldn't call them a one trick pony either given they've produced stuff like Bioshock recently. They've got plenty of talent floating around that just need to put to use.
Either way Motley Fool's right that EA's just embarassing themselves by continuing to extend their offer. It should be clear at this point that Take-Two is not interested in being bought at this time for that price. EA needs to raise their price, or go away and try again later.
Using the words analyst and understanding in the same sentence is an oxymoron.
That doesn't make sense. If EA was offering too much, then shareholders would be scrambling to take the deal. As EA has managed to grab less than 10% of Take Two's stock, I'd say that's not happening. Obviously shareholders are hanging onto what they have because they think they can get more money for it down the line.
I stand by my original prediction: EA will get a significant share of Take Two's stock, but not enough to take control of the company.
You know, EA, time for you to give it up, because obviously Take-Two isn't buying.
There comes a point in time where you must realize that "No" means "No" and that Take-Two doesn't want your money.
Besides, if Take-Two went to you, I'd never buy a GTA game again. (Or any Rockstar game, for that matter.)
Yeah, I gotta say, they have summed the whole thing up. I never believed this thing to be serious, after all the nonsense EA was throwing.
-If shit and bricks were candy and tits, we'd all be livin' large. For information on games and psychology, look up:
Jonathan Freedman (2002)
Block and Crain (2007)
Grand Theft Childhood, a book by Harvard Medical School researchers Lawrence Kutner and Cheryl Olson
Maybe they think it's like an argument as a small child; Pester them enough and they'll give in.
I have to agree, Electronic Arts, being the hungry overlords they are, seemingly can't grasp the concept of a company NOT wanting to join their dreadful "empire." And the fact that the FTC was giving T2 trouble until recently, despite them NOT wanting to sell, only serves to annoy me even more.
Fight the power, Take-Two!
Well, TT probably wouldn't mind if the price was right. EA's problem is that they can't seem to grasp that their offer isn't the right price, and it won't be for quite some time, if at all.
EA is just going to out endure them. There's no rush for them to raise their price: especially when they're offering too much as it is.
Critisize EA all you want, but they didn't get to where they are now by being bad on a business level.
So you think that EA will just keep extending the "deadline" on their offer for the next year or five in hopes that at some point the offer will become attractive to the TT investors?
Cause personally yeah, I'd call that bad business. They should have make their offer, up it or withdraw it if it gets rejected, and come back later when there'd actually be some pressure on Take-Two to sell. Instead we've got their offer where they've made their offer, it's been rejected, they decided to try a hostile takeover, and keep extending the duration of their offer as investor interest slowly fades.
They're trying to out endure investor disinterest, that's not exactly a very good tactic.
Let's be honest here...with Take Two saying over and over that they don't wish to sell to EA, be it for whatever reason, and EA continuing to attempt purchasing by giving these deadlines, it only shows how badly EA wants Take Two, and therefore, their asking price is too low. EA came to Take Two without T2 wanting to sell. That means they have to give them an offer they can't refuse. Sadly, T2 has been refusing, so the offer isn't that great. Giving deadlines, only to extend them every time, and yet still toss out that same amount...that just makes EA look more and more desperate. T2 has EA almost by the balls in this situation, even though EA got the FTC involved. If I went up to someone and said "Hey, I'll buy your car for $20 and you need to give me an answer in 5 minutes", then got told no, only to say "Ok, how about I give you $20 for your car and you need to give me an answer in 5 minutes from now"...it's not going to work. It shows desperation on EA's part (and desperation isn't sexy) and it shows T2 isn't falling for it.
There has to be more to it then we are able to see. Any company the size of EA isn't stupid. There are obviously things going on behind the curtain to perpetuate this behaviour from EA.