EA To Take Two: Up Yours, Buddy

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
1
0
EA To Take Two: Up Yours, Buddy


Like two ships passing in the night, Take Two [http://www.ea.com] have honked their horns, flipped each other off and are now sailing quietly away and apart, under the moon's glow.

EA issued a press release today announcing the end of negotiations to acquire fellow publisher Take-Two, saying that while it continues to have "high regard for Take-Two's creative teams and products," it has decided to terminate discussions of a buyout. The decision came despite efforts by Take Two to broker a more friendly deal between the companies, after months of resisting a hostile takeover attempt.

On the Take Two side, Chairman Strauss Zelnick responded by affirming the stockholders' decision to reject EA's hostile bid, adding that his management team remains "actively engaged in discussions with other parties in the context of our formal process to consider strategic alternatives."

It may be overstating things to say that a "formal process to consider strategic alternatives" is managementspeak for "Oh, God, please help us," but Take Two shareholders could very easily end up wishing they hadn't played quite so hard-to-get with EA. EA offered roughly $26 per share in its initial takeover attempt but Take Two management rejected the price as inadequate, based largely on the belief that the company's value would continue to rise leading up to, and following, the release of Grand Theft Auto IV [http://www.rockstargames.com/iv] in April. But while Take Two stocks did surge briefly in the wake of that launch, share prices began a slow but steady decline in June, falling well below the EA price point. Making things worse, after closing at $21.89 on Friday, the price plummeted almost 25 percent on the news of the EA deal falling through, and at this moment sits around $16.50.

So while the legions of EA haters and GTA fans may hail the day as a triumph, the reality may turn out to be very different. Take Two is now in a far more precarious position, and the future of the men currently at the helm, Zelnick and President Ben Feder, may depend largely on what they're able to do in the fallout of this falling-out. Take Two has an impressive stable of games but nothing anywhere near the scale of Grand Theft Auto is on the horizon, leaving the prospects for regaining share value a bit on the bleak side - unless a deal with a different company can be engineered. But with Take Two's current share price around 35 percent lower than EA's offer, and EA no longer interested, making that deal without looking like they blew an opportunity seven months ago is going to be a very tough play.



Permalink
 

L.B. Jeffries

New member
Nov 29, 2007
2,175
0
0
Is it wrong to be mildly annoyed at the "Up yours, Buddy" part of this headline? It's just business, no need to make it sound like some epic feud is going on.

Take-Two made them sign a bunch of non-disclosure agreements and apparently has some outrageous games that they think will s*** gold. EA doesn't agree and also noted that at this stage, the delays had been so significant that they wouldn't have merged in time for X-mas and would thus make the deal stagnate during the slow summer quarters. That would look bad to their shareholders because, hey why isn't my 2 billion dollar acquisition making me rich yet?

But yeah, here's hoping Take Two does actually have something brilliant up their sleeves. They make some of the best and most creative games out there and it'd be a shame if they had to start downsizing.
 

Danny Ocean

Master Archivist
Jun 28, 2008
4,148
0
0
I don't get the concept of a 'Hostile Takeover'

How can a company buy out another company without the other company consenting to it?
 

NeedAUserName

New member
Aug 7, 2008
3,803
0
0
Danny Ocean post=7.71582.729895 said:
I don't get the concept of a 'Hostile Takeover'

How can a company buy out another company without the other company consenting to it?
With guns, a big white van and henchmen, no but seriously I have no idea.
 

L.B. Jeffries

New member
Nov 29, 2007
2,175
0
0
Danny Ocean post=7.71582.729895 said:
I don't get the concept of a 'Hostile Takeover'

How can a company buy out another company without the other company consenting to it?
It's when...okay, you have a bunch of shareholders who "own" the company right? They put a manager, CEO, whatever in charge of the company.

A hostile takeover is when the manager does not want to sell out but the hostile company is offering so much cash that the shareholders step in and order the manager to sell. It's a decision based on profits as opposed to what the actual managers think is best for the business.
 

Danny Ocean

Master Archivist
Jun 28, 2008
4,148
0
0
L.B. Jeffries post=7.71582.729914 said:
Danny Ocean post=7.71582.729895 said:
I don't get the concept of a 'Hostile Takeover'

How can a company buy out another company without the other company consenting to it?
It's when...okay, you have a bunch of shareholders who "own" the company right? They put a manager, CEO, whatever in charge of the company.

A hostile takeover is when the manager does not want to sell out but the hostile company is offering so much cash that the shareholders step in and order the manager to sell. It's a decision based on profits as opposed to what the actual managers think is best for the business.
But surely that can't work if the shareholder is the manager and/or don't want to sell it, right?
 

Anton P. Nym

New member
Sep 18, 2007
2,611
0
0
Danny Ocean post=7.71582.729925 said:
But surely that can't work if the shareholder is the manager and/or don't want to sell it, right?
Correct, but you don't see "hostile takeovers" of privately held companies, which is the type you're describing. TT is publicly held, which means that shares are available on the stock market and shareholders can sell their shares to whomever they wish. A successful hostile bid can buy enough of these free-range shares (and votes) to win a stockholder's vote on whether to sell out or not, if I understand it correctly.

-- Steve
 

Cyclomega

New member
Jul 28, 2008
469
0
0
Danny Ocean post=7.71582.729895 said:
I don't get the concept of a 'Hostile Takeover'

How can a company buy out another company without the other company consenting to it?
Simply by buying a huge lot of stocks and becoming de facto the biggest shareholder, effectively owning the company, instead of negotiating agreements, it's a basic fact of the stock market, if I buy all your shares, I'm not merging with you, I'm litteraly eating your company.

Now, knowing that CEOs are appointed by shareholders, if they decide they prefer EA's large reasure chests full of gold to TT's dividends, basically TT is sacrificed by the shareholders to their interest.
 

Serious_Stalin

New member
Aug 11, 2008
237
0
0
Sucks that their stock dropped, I don't know much about the gaming bussiness but i'm happy EA don't have a hand in Grand Theft Auto.
 

Dectilon

New member
Sep 20, 2007
1,044
0
0
When it comes to creative works like books, comics, movies and games there is more than money to consider. This is why I don't like the stock market in general : P
 

TheBadass

New member
Aug 27, 2008
704
0
0
The_root_of_all_evil post=7.71582.730353 said:
Two words. Aaaaaah, gutted. :)

T2 should buy out EA and get them to make some decent games, without DRM.
I love that idea.
 

Steelfists

New member
Aug 6, 2008
439
0
0
Dectilon post=7.71582.730341 said:
When it comes to creative works like books, comics, movies and games there is more than money to consider. This is why I don't like the stock market in general : P
The shareholders don't necessarily have to interfere with the game design itself. And someone has to pay the workers...
 

m_jim

New member
Jan 14, 2008
497
0
0
Dectilon post=7.71582.730341 said:
When it comes to creative works like books, comics, movies and games there is more than money to consider. This is why I don't like the stock market in general : P
You can look at it that way, but... have you ever read pseudo-video game novel Lucky Wander Boy? There is a scene that discusses pretty much what you're talking about. The gist of it is that any piece of media that you have ever loved or found meaningful was only brought to you because some venture capitalist thought that he could make more money by selling it to you than he spent in buying the rights. That outlook might be a bit overkill on the cynicism, but it isn't far off.