Take-Two Buyout Rumors Return
Take-Two Buyout Rumors Return
April 13, 2009
Take-Two, which managed to avoid being assimilated by Electronic Arts in last year's long-running takeover saga, may be the target of a new buyout, according to Barron's.
The financial news service attributes a recent rise in the share price of TTWO to takeover rumors:
Take-Two Interactive (TTWO) shares are up sharply for the second straight session on a revival of rumors that the video game company might be a takeover target... Last Thursday, the stock was hopping on what TheFlyOnTheWall.com [subscription req.] described as “renewed takeover chatter.” That apparently continues today.
As I post this, TTWO is up to 9.45, even though Wall Street itself is down.
UPDATE: Reached for comment by GamePolitics, Wedbush-Morgan financial analyst Michael Pachter pooh-poohed T2 takeover rumors:
I don’t see anyone making a move, given that management rejected EA’s $26 offer [last year]. It’s hard to see how anyone would pay more in this market, and I don’t know that Take-Two management would entertain an offer lower than $26 given their rejection of EA’s offer.
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGINGamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:34pm
Valdearg: "just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal." I would disagree. If there's no laws against it, it makes it perfectly legal. It's definitely not right, but perfectly legal to do.
Valdearg: "just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal." I would disagree. If there's no laws against it, it makes it perfectly legal. It's definitely not right, but perfectly legal to do.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:33pm
Valdearg: Meaning in 29 states, private sector discrimination against gays is perfectly legal.. Sickening.
Valdearg: Meaning in 29 states, private sector discrimination against gays is perfectly legal.. Sickening.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:33pm
Valdearg: 19 states have no protections, and another 10 only have protections for public sector jobs.
Valdearg: 19 states have no protections, and another 10 only have protections for public sector jobs.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:32pm
Andrew Eisen: Well, most businesses have equal rights policies in place and just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal. Still, no argument against adding such protections.
Andrew Eisen: Well, most businesses have equal rights policies in place and just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal. Still, no argument against adding such protections.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:28pm
Valdearg: More information. Apparently, it's worse than I actually thought.
Valdearg: More information. Apparently, it's worse than I actually thought.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:28pm
Valdearg: Check the link. Apparently, its more like 20 states that have no protections.
Valdearg: Check the link. Apparently, its more like 20 states that have no protections.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:26pm
Andrew Eisen: In the US? Not that I'm aware of. Sad if true.
Andrew Eisen: In the US? Not that I'm aware of. Sad if true.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:25pm
Valdearg: @AE: Actually, I think, at least for now, businesses can still discriminate against gays in a few states.. Something like 5 or 8. Its part of why Gay Rights Advocates are in support of the Employee Nondiscrimination Act, or ENDA.
Valdearg: @AE: Actually, I think, at least for now, businesses can still discriminate against gays in a few states.. Something like 5 or 8. Its part of why Gay Rights Advocates are in support of the Employee Nondiscrimination Act, or ENDA.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:22pm
Valdearg: @AE: And that's fine. Official "Church" functions are fine, despite the fact that it's discrimination, it's what I guess I would consider "acceptable" discrimination, despite the fact that I hate to use "acceptable" to define it.
Valdearg: @AE: And that's fine. Official "Church" functions are fine, despite the fact that it's discrimination, it's what I guess I would consider "acceptable" discrimination, despite the fact that I hate to use "acceptable" to define it.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:21pm
Valdearg: What's stopping someone from working with the church to declare a Catholic Corporation, that would retain it's "right" to discriminate against non-Catholics?
Valdearg: What's stopping someone from working with the church to declare a Catholic Corporation, that would retain it's "right" to discriminate against non-Catholics?
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:20pm
Valdearg: Let me ask you this. What defines something as "catholic"? There are Catholic Schools, Churchs, Charities, and even law firms.
Valdearg: Let me ask you this. What defines something as "catholic"? There are Catholic Schools, Churchs, Charities, and even law firms.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:20pm
Andrew Eisen: Indeed. You can restrict the membership of your private club however you see fit. However, a business can't refuse to hire someone based on sexual orientation.
Andrew Eisen: Indeed. You can restrict the membership of your private club however you see fit. However, a business can't refuse to hire someone based on sexual orientation.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:20pm
gellymatos: Would you hire someone against gay rights for a position of leadership in a gay rights advocacy group?
gellymatos: Would you hire someone against gay rights for a position of leadership in a gay rights advocacy group?
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:19pm
gellymatos: So, it's wrong to not hire a guy for a position specific to a belief when his belief conflicts with his position.
gellymatos: So, it's wrong to not hire a guy for a position specific to a belief when his belief conflicts with his position.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:18pm
Valdearg: And either way, it's discrimination. I'm not saying that the Government should force the church to make gay people priests, but there are plenty of other seemingly "religious" posts that really aren't all that religious.
Valdearg: And either way, it's discrimination. I'm not saying that the Government should force the church to make gay people priests, but there are plenty of other seemingly "religious" posts that really aren't all that religious.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:17pm
Valdearg: There's a fine line between Job Descrimination and Letting them practice their religious "right" to discriminate.
Valdearg: There's a fine line between Job Descrimination and Letting them practice their religious "right" to discriminate.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:15pm
gellymatos: Oh, and they are worried that "would restrict the right of a church school to employ a head teacher who shared their faith"
gellymatos: Oh, and they are worried that "would restrict the right of a church school to employ a head teacher who shared their faith"
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:15pm
Andrew Eisen: If it is separate, then the church has every right to discriminate against its own members. Put another way, the gov't has no say who the church lets in its own organization.
Andrew Eisen: If it is separate, then the church has every right to discriminate against its own members. Put another way, the gov't has no say who the church lets in its own organization.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:14pm
Andrew Eisen: Haven't read the law and not sure how it works overseas but is there a separation of church and state?
Andrew Eisen: Haven't read the law and not sure how it works overseas but is there a separation of church and state?
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:14pm
Valdearg: Like I said. He wants the Church to retain it's right to Job Discrimination. He want's the right to be above the law, and discriminate against gays. ALSO, there were provisions in the bill to prevent that scenario, with the priesthood.
Valdearg: Like I said. He wants the Church to retain it's right to Job Discrimination. He want's the right to be above the law, and discriminate against gays. ALSO, there were provisions in the bill to prevent that scenario, with the priesthood.
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
Gotta love rumor based trading. It's like highschool all over again, except people are losing their 401k because of greedy day traders.
i hope it isnt EA this time.when DRM is in gta im going to stop playin it.
blog sounds like a kind of vomit :(
I hope EA doesn't take them over, I don't care if they offer fifty dollars a share. I hope they get rejected.
yeah right they're not gonna get sold so easily. Had wall-street forgout all about last year's with take 2/ea thing?
http://www.magicinkgaming.com/
And just watch: whoever tries to buy them out, when T2 turns them down, Wall-Street just calls them stupid.
Capitalism: buying out your rights since 1776.
I am placing a 3-way bet on which company is planning the buyout;
1. EA, again... *sigh* 3:1
2. Nobody... (what raises stocks better than deception?) 4:1
3. Someone else (and hopefully makes GTA "innovative" again) 3:1
Takers?
______________________________
Because I have NO Life... :P I introduce the following.
PSN User ID: FirebirdXR (Yes, I use that moniker often)
Xbox Live ID: FirebirdLR (It's a Silver Membership... just putting it up)
*Limited Time Only*
I knew I shoulda taken some of my tax refund money and bought some stock. Hmphf!
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Nightwng2000 has also updated his MySpace page: http://www.myspace.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl
Sooo, how long before out favorite white haired pundit tries to take credit for this?
Jesus does he haved to be brought it up in every single fucking story now?
----------------------------------------------------
Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it's over they have the same positions they started in.
This is not a new thing...
"De minimus non curat lex"
Isn't he supposed to be leading a shareholder revolt?
Well, Pachter says it won't happen so we know there's no chance of it. Oh wait...it's Pachter so that being said, I wonder who is bidding for them.
Parallax Abstraction
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
blog.digital-lifeline.ca
Any particular reason why you doubt Patcher's opinion?
Patcher is a well known video game analyst and as such he tends to bring out the distrust of many gamers. There are times where he has bee nway off the mark, but it is no less frequent than any other analyst in any industry.
But this is the games industry. Anyone that is wrong just once is worthless. /sarcasm
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma
I think it has more to do with the fact that he was largely wrong about the T2 buyout last year, from start to finish. Wrong despite the fact that T2 was clearly disinterested, that EA was a little to low to overcome that disinterest, and rather than try negotiations or give up, they sat around for months extending their deadlines again and again.
It doesn't help him that he was in the "the buyout is a good thing and it'll go through!" camp, when a large percentage of gamers that care to track such news were disinterested in the EA chimera devouring yet another decent company into it's bland mix.
Nor does it help that analysts in general are on a lot of people's crap lists right now.
-Gray17
Pachter's predictions have been almost universally wrong (one of his more famous ones was that not only would Sony come back out of 3rd place, they would soundly dominate this generation) and like most analysts, he generally tends to state things as fact that are based on very loose and almost always unverifiable information. Simply put, he's wrong far more than he's right and starts rumours to get his name in the press. This is in fact what most press-oriented analysts do and it isn't an uncommon practice. And it works becaues despite his track record, the gaming press at large continues to trip over themeslves to get quotes from him and only ever trump up the rare occasion he's right and never when he's wrong.
But to coin my own version of EZK's strawman, Heaven forfend I dare to call out the enthusiast press for continuing to rely on a provably weak source of information. This isn't to single out GP because virtually every major site does it.
Parallax Abstraction
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
blog.digital-lifeline.ca
I would have thought that an industry analyst with such a crappy track record would have lost credibility with their main audience, i.e., institutional investors. But, if Madoff and Sanford teach us anything, it's that there're plenty suckers out there for the taking.
I think thats more a universal truth to begin with.