Forgotten Ancient
Banned
Fuck it. Nintendo + Cisco + Apple FTW.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Cisco hoping to acquire Nintendo
- Thread starter koam
- Start date
Larry Bird
Member
QFTForgotten Ancient said:
fly high ~ayunite~
Member
gopher said:
Yamauchi would have anyone shot who even attempted to purchase their assets.
Couldn't they like sell Mario/Zelda etc... to the Miyamoto family(whoever is alive at this time) and Metroid/Kid Icarus/etc... to the Yokoi family and so on? So they will remain untouched.
The thing is, Nintendo has been around over 100 years and they will probably be around and another 100. They will outlive us.
The thing is, Nintendo has been around over 100 years and they will probably be around and another 100. They will outlive us.
DeadlyMelody
Member
Why do you doubt that? They've yet to not make any type of profit off their hardware, and they're one of the top three publishers in the world.Kroole said:
Nintendo doesn't die.
Cheebs said:
When more and more companies look to expand into home entertainment and Nintendo is raking in profit while they still only concentrate on making hw and the sw for it you'll bet that the companies see Nintendo as a good investment.
Nintendo makes good profit but many companies makes more so...
DeadlyMelody
Member
Who? Surely you're not going to say Microsofts game division. :lolKroole said:
Tim the Wiz
Banned
Kroole said:
You know what? You'd make a great videogame analyst.
:lol
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
Where did you get that from? You can't buy something that it's owners won't sell. In case of Nintendo, I'm pretty sure the company itself has a pretty sizeable share majority.Kroole said:
Tim the Wiz said:
I will? Geeee thanks
I'm just not naive to think that if a company really want to gobble up Nintendo they can't do it because Yamauchi doesn't want to. Many companies are bigger than Nintendo and if a few of them wants to go into home entertainment Nintendo could be a valid investment. That's all.
DeadlyMelody
Member
Friend.. would you be so kind as to name these companies you obliviously think generate more profit than Nintendo? I'm not ignorant enough to think that there aren't a couple, but you underestimate them.Kroole said:
Tim the Wiz
Banned
Kroole said:
You're right on that front: Nintendo own ~11% of its own shares. However, Yamauchi is the majority stock holder.
Tim the Wiz said:
From Planet gamecube:
"Yamauchi, whose 10 percent stake makes him the company's single biggest shareholder, concedes that the new consoles are a hit with game players and have helped the industry. Yet he insists that the challenge is for Nintendo to stay focused on developing games."
Tim the Wiz
Banned
Strange, because Nintendo bought 2.2% of their stock last year, rising their total of 8.8% to ~11%. And now you're saying Yamauchi has 10%? To be frank, I'm a tad clueless on these sorts of financial issues -- so, I'll leave it there.
Edit: For argument's sake, here's the profit listing for MS, Sony and Nintendo for the past several years...
Year............Sony..................Nintendo...........Microsoft
1998........974,000,000........629,000,000
1999.......1,130,000,000.......645,000,000
2000........730,000,000........421,000,000
2001.......-409,000,000........726,000,000
2002........623,000,000........800,000,000........-750,000,000
2003........939,000,000........560,000,000......-1,191,000,000
2004........650,000,000........316,000,000......-1,215,000,000
2005........406,000,000........672,000,000..........-58,000,000
Totals.....5,043,000,000.....4,769,000,000.....-3,214,000,000
Note: The 2005 totals for Microsoft and Sony are as of Dec 31st, 2004, but the Nintendo is their forecast through March 31st, 2005. Also, the totals are from the companies respective financial reports.
Edit: For argument's sake, here's the profit listing for MS, Sony and Nintendo for the past several years...
Year............Sony..................Nintendo...........Microsoft
1998........974,000,000........629,000,000
1999.......1,130,000,000.......645,000,000
2000........730,000,000........421,000,000
2001.......-409,000,000........726,000,000
2002........623,000,000........800,000,000........-750,000,000
2003........939,000,000........560,000,000......-1,191,000,000
2004........650,000,000........316,000,000......-1,215,000,000
2005........406,000,000........672,000,000..........-58,000,000
Totals.....5,043,000,000.....4,769,000,000.....-3,214,000,000
Note: The 2005 totals for Microsoft and Sony are as of Dec 31st, 2004, but the Nintendo is their forecast through March 31st, 2005. Also, the totals are from the companies respective financial reports.
OpinionatedCyborg
Member
Did someone say Nintendo should buy Cisco? lol:
http://www.forbes.com/finance/mktguideapps/compinfo/ForeignCompanyTearsheet.jhtml?cusip=6639550
http://www.forbes.com/finance/mktguideapps/compinfo/CompanyTearsheet.jhtml?tkr=CSCO
http://www.forbes.com/finance/mktguideapps/compinfo/ForeignCompanyTearsheet.jhtml?cusip=6639550
http://www.forbes.com/finance/mktguideapps/compinfo/CompanyTearsheet.jhtml?tkr=CSCO
DCharlie
Banned
the only thing Yamauchi being the majority share holder means is that they can possibly rely on his support.
Although his constant supply of nubbile girls , caviar ice cream, and platinum back scrubbers surely racks up an insane bill - he might like the idea of a lum sum from a shares sale.
Looking at the figures yesterday whilst enjoying some bizarro comments in this thread,i think the combined treasury stock + Yamauchi comes to around 21%.
So christ knows where this 50% figure comes from.
The notion that companies have to ask the major shareholder or nintendo for permission to sell is way off.
It's like this- if MS (or whoever) want the other shares , they make a buy offer to the shareholders at a price that is above the value of the shares.
Now , given that most of the top 10 owners are investment banks, and that the shares are 49% or so in foreign hands, do you think any of them would be thinking about how great the DS is, or how cool the Rev might be? Or , do you think they'll go "Hmm... this represents an instant $??? dollar per share profit, i think i'll take it"
or course , they may choose not to sell - but seems that in most cases, if the price is right, then people will cash in because people buy shares to make cash. A guaranteed win on a set of stocks and of course the big players are going to cash in.
(see: Man Utd - "oh the fans would never sell their shares to an American"... "The management would never allow it" etc etc )
Now, the big problem with a hostile approach is that a lot of your staff might just up and walk. For MS, that would probably have been a big issue, so walking in and taking Nintendo by force (especially as a big Western company absorbing a Japanese one) might have been disasterous. However, if they go to Nintendo, make assurances about what would happen, and try and get the management on board with the idea of what would happen, then there is more chance of the talent staying.
The only thing we are missing from the thread is comments about the "7 billion war chest"
:/
LegendofJoe
Member
Cheebs said:
Nintendo is going 3rd Party!!!
I think you are mixing up Nintendo's employee stock buy-back plan with private holdings by individuals such as Yamauchi. Yamauchi does alone own 10% of Nintendo's stock (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2002/05/24/nintendo-president.htm). The last figure I saw showed that Nintendo insiders owned about 30% of its public stock, while about 60% of the company is privately held. That means 80% of the company is in private hands.Tim the Wiz said:
AdmiralViscen
Banned
Just because a few random electronics companies make more money than Nintendo doesn't mean that Nintendo can't continue to exist in its current form. Especially since they're branching out into movies and shit. They aren't going anywhere.
UltraMarioMan
Member
Heres an idea instead of wishing for Nintendo games on your system of choice BUY A NINTENDO SYSTEM!
StorablePrawn
Banned
gopher said:
Even dumber was the junior member challenging it, which actually justified such a blunt statement.
What backwards forum are all these idiots migrating from?
DCharlie said:
It's not quite that simple and you far overexaggerate how easy it is to suceed in what would certainly be a hostile take-over. And while most public mid-to-large sized companies shareholder's go along with the take-over, for as you said they're in it for money, rarely does the company itself (and by proxie) own 25% of the company; making it likely that the company will invoke a poison-pill option before outright take-over. Not only would such a maneuver require extremely high-liquidity, which I don't believe is there; but it's not something that's done without recource by the Nintendo BoD. I'm sure having been around in the '80s when such thngs were all the rage, there is some form of poison pill in place which would raise the current market valuation of Nintendo (20B USD) to a high multiple, perhaps 2 to 6 times this; making the cost of aquiring 51% just not worth it. Not many companies can realistically take over such a company.
IMHO, an anthropic-like proof exists in that Microsoft, perhaps the preeminent company which has the means, motive and desire to take Nintendo didn't.
DCharlie
Banned
not really, i'm just keeping it at a level people will understand. Of course, as you then say , there are defenses to make the price of the company (prefered stock, discounted shares (reduce the effect of the purchased shares), obscene golden parachute deals, merger with other company, supermajority tweaking etc).
However, what i was addressing here is the notion that Nintendo can refuse to let people sell the stock - that's just wrong. As you say, they have to employ tactics to make things attractive for the investor (discounted shares for instance) and to ward off the suitor, but if someone DID try a hostile takeover and the did have the cash (and the liquidity) then you run the risk of the company "suiciding"