Carl Icahn Puts the Squeeze on Take-Two
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Please read my total post, I said "People to whom money is more important than everything else, more important than quality, more important than people, anything." Do note that I did not even use the word 'rich'.hansari said:
He just wants to make a lot of money for the stockholders, he even says that in the actual article. He doesn't care about their actual products, just his wallet. I can't stand that.
Plus, when was such a business model good for a gaming company? When were strict release dates ever good for a creative business? Just look at Age of Conan, yeah sure that released nice and on time, but good heavens did anyone actually like that? When a game is not ready, especially an anticipated game, only a fool will still release it.
The worst and most extreme example was Atari, and that backfired horribly for them.
A better job than who? He doesn't care who doesn't come back, he just wants seats open. So he can put people he's picked on the board. So he can increase his power to manipulate company policy. For the express reason of making more money.
Now I'm sure that on at least some level he and the people he chooses will understand that a decrease in quality will hurt future income, but I'll be damned if I trust 'a guy with money' and his cronies to value future income over fast money in the short term.
Note that Icahn wants to "maximize shareholder value" which means making the stocks rise in selling price. That's pretty much what the board of directors does. Unless the developers themselves own stock in the company, it doesn't affect them. Even if they did, they wouldn't make money on the stocks unless they sold them at a profit and/or made dividends from them. Looking at the 2008 annual statement of Activision though, they don't pay dividends, nor do they expect to pay them in the future.theaceplaya said:
Of course in order to raise stock prices, the company has to make more and spend less in order to increase net income. If the company does make more money, it could trickle down to the developers in the form of increased salaries and/or bonuses. Though, as the article stated, that means condensed schedules and more game releases, and in an industry where creativity is a significant part of the product, less time for quality would mean less sales of a product.
This change could go either way, but I'm not going to hold my breath in the hopes that "increasing shareholder value" is going to allow the developers enough time to put out a polished product.
Thats how this business works. There are investors, some who have never picked up a game controller in their life. I think its reasonable to keep investors happy. Particularly now that their $25 shares are worth much less.Cowabungaa said:
In fact, some investors must already be leaving...how else did Icahn acquire these extra shares in such rapid time? (1 year, and he is #2)
Thats just an assumption.Cowabungaa said:
The article says this man is aggressive in acquiring companies. It says he likes having a significant say in how things are done in his investments. History has shown these two to be true.
BUT, it doesn't say what sort of plans he has. Pachter was stating an observation about TakeTwo, and Chalk was just guessing at a few possible scenarios.
I think we should wait and see what this guys does so we know if he is the next Ritticello, the next Kotick, or if he doesn't do much of any changes at all. (even that is a possibility...maybe he just craves power...)
There is no video game company using that model. And considering typical profit margin in making a video game, I'm sure the newcomers to TakeTwo will be smart enough to know better.brewbeard said:
Although I am interested in seeing what change, if any, occurs to Duke Nukems publishing rights...that offers neither "fast money" nor much "future income"
