|
One important thing to remember when it comes to CEOs is that they're often capable of leading most any kind of company really. They're basically on a bidding market. They can always choose a higher bidder if they're good enough, and the CEOs of these large corporations usually are.
Imo the bidding has spun away though, considering these people are paid gigantic amounts of money that could've been used elsewhere.
|
On April 30 2013 16:19 teapot wrote:
You can't blame the maggots for eating the rotten meat.
Do you mean kotick or people who buys the game made by activision?
|
On April 29 2013 04:29 mordk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2013 04:24 Creem wrote:On April 29 2013 04:18 Gentso wrote:
I didn't read the thread, but it's probably full of people who think it's ridiculous. What's funny to me is that these same people most likely buy these games and more importantly DLC. Every time people complain about gaming going downhill I always say that gamers are to blame, because they propelled this mediocrity. And Blizzard propelled their D3 sales by deliberately deceiving their loyal customers for hinting that it'd be anywhere close to the standard of their previous games. You actually believe I even consider buying the D3 expansion? ROFL you think they knew the hardcore fans wouldn't like it? And they "deceived" their loyal customers?... Christ people on the internet sometimes... By the time the game was out, EVERYONE and their mother knew what it was all about, I don't know what they expected.
That's just not true. If that was the case the game wouldn't be the "fastest selling game of all times". I tried to return my copy two days after release and I know I wasn't alone. If I had a clue what this game actually contained I'd never buy it in the first place.
Diablo 2 was awesome and held me hostage on and off for ten years. I uninstalled Diablo 3 after 5 hours.
|
On April 30 2013 22:20 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2013 21:38 sunprince wrote:On April 30 2013 18:38 Hider wrote:On April 30 2013 18:35 sunprince wrote:On April 30 2013 18:20 Hider wrote:On April 30 2013 11:31 sunprince wrote:On April 30 2013 11:18 sluggaslamoo wrote:On April 30 2013 11:08 sunprince wrote:On April 30 2013 04:25 Klondikebar wrote:On April 30 2013 04:22 lazyitachi wrote:
If your salad decisions make millions for other... maybe someone will give u money and honey.
But then again.. no one cares much about those salads.. so no one give u the holla dolla. :3
I am quite certain that Mr. Kotick's decisions don't make any money either. It is the people below him actually making decisions. Do you have any facts backing up your "certainty"? Its fair to say Koticks decisions did make the company money. Its pretty easy to see this, many of the decisions he made are clearly visible, and only he would have the power to make tactical or strategic decisions that Activision have made. However it is whether these decisions are acceptable or not as consumers. Firing entire departments, and milking out franchises while not investing into creativity is a very risk free way of making money and is not substantial grounds for a bonus in a "Games Company". It also only benefits the company in the short term, and does nothing in the long term. I agree completely. However, stockholders often pursue short-term profit, and in their eyes Bobby Kotick has therefore absolutely merited a large raise for the short-term gains he provided them. How do you explain Amazons share price? I take it you mean as of Friday? The share price dropped because the revenue that Amazon predicts for this quarter is less than consensus estimates. In other words, investors are selling because the expected short-term results aren't promising. Your point? Have you looked at Amazons P/E-ratio? If investors only cared about short-term profit, shouldn't it be much lower? Please reread my posts more carefully. My exact words were "stockholders often pursue short-term profit. Regardless, Amazon's high P/E ratio is due to it's potential for growth... but are you seriously arguing that growth = long term only? Please answer the below in order for me to better understand your logic. - Are you talking about short-term earnings growth or short-term growth in the stock price? - Please specificy how you think the value of a stock is estimated by analysts and the majority of stockholders in ATVI - Do you have any empirical data/evidence/sources to back up your theory(ies)? - How is this relevant for Activision/ATVI. Could they have purused any other strategy which could have increased the present value of future earnings?
You're wasting time here with this derail.
Due to poor reading comprehension, you're arguing under the impression that I think short-term profit is the only component of share prices. This is a strawman, as I've made no such argument.
|
On May 01 2013 06:17 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2013 22:20 Hider wrote:On April 30 2013 21:38 sunprince wrote:On April 30 2013 18:38 Hider wrote:On April 30 2013 18:35 sunprince wrote:On April 30 2013 18:20 Hider wrote:On April 30 2013 11:31 sunprince wrote:On April 30 2013 11:18 sluggaslamoo wrote:On April 30 2013 11:08 sunprince wrote:On April 30 2013 04:25 Klondikebar wrote:
[quote]
I am quite certain that Mr. Kotick's decisions don't make any money either. It is the people below him actually making decisions. Do you have any facts backing up your "certainty"? Its fair to say Koticks decisions did make the company money. Its pretty easy to see this, many of the decisions he made are clearly visible, and only he would have the power to make tactical or strategic decisions that Activision have made. However it is whether these decisions are acceptable or not as consumers. Firing entire departments, and milking out franchises while not investing into creativity is a very risk free way of making money and is not substantial grounds for a bonus in a "Games Company". It also only benefits the company in the short term, and does nothing in the long term. I agree completely. However, stockholders often pursue short-term profit, and in their eyes Bobby Kotick has therefore absolutely merited a large raise for the short-term gains he provided them. How do you explain Amazons share price? I take it you mean as of Friday? The share price dropped because the revenue that Amazon predicts for this quarter is less than consensus estimates. In other words, investors are selling because the expected short-term results aren't promising. Your point? Have you looked at Amazons P/E-ratio? If investors only cared about short-term profit, shouldn't it be much lower? Please reread my posts more carefully. My exact words were "stockholders often pursue short-term profit. Regardless, Amazon's high P/E ratio is due to it's potential for growth... but are you seriously arguing that growth = long term only? Please answer the below in order for me to better understand your logic. - Are you talking about short-term earnings growth or short-term growth in the stock price? - Please specificy how you think the value of a stock is estimated by analysts and the majority of stockholders in ATVI - Do you have any empirical data/evidence/sources to back up your theory(ies)? - How is this relevant for Activision/ATVI. Could they have purused any other strategy which could have increased the present value of future earnings? You're wasting time here with this derail. Due to poor reading comprehension, you're arguing under the impression that I think short-term profit is the only component of share prices. This is a strawman, as I've made no such argument.
That is why I am asking questions. I have not put up an argument yet. If you read the post I don't even claim you say a single thing actually.
|
On May 01 2013 06:17 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2013 22:20 Hider wrote:On April 30 2013 21:38 sunprince wrote:On April 30 2013 18:38 Hider wrote:On April 30 2013 18:35 sunprince wrote:On April 30 2013 18:20 Hider wrote:On April 30 2013 11:31 sunprince wrote:On April 30 2013 11:18 sluggaslamoo wrote:On April 30 2013 11:08 sunprince wrote:On April 30 2013 04:25 Klondikebar wrote:
[quote]
I am quite certain that Mr. Kotick's decisions don't make any money either. It is the people below him actually making decisions. Do you have any facts backing up your "certainty"? Its fair to say Koticks decisions did make the company money. Its pretty easy to see this, many of the decisions he made are clearly visible, and only he would have the power to make tactical or strategic decisions that Activision have made. However it is whether these decisions are acceptable or not as consumers. Firing entire departments, and milking out franchises while not investing into creativity is a very risk free way of making money and is not substantial grounds for a bonus in a "Games Company". It also only benefits the company in the short term, and does nothing in the long term. I agree completely. However, stockholders often pursue short-term profit, and in their eyes Bobby Kotick has therefore absolutely merited a large raise for the short-term gains he provided them. How do you explain Amazons share price? I take it you mean as of Friday? The share price dropped because the revenue that Amazon predicts for this quarter is less than consensus estimates. In other words, investors are selling because the expected short-term results aren't promising. Your point? Have you looked at Amazons P/E-ratio? If investors only cared about short-term profit, shouldn't it be much lower? Please reread my posts more carefully. My exact words were "stockholders often pursue short-term profit. Regardless, Amazon's high P/E ratio is due to it's potential for growth... but are you seriously arguing that growth = long term only? Please answer the below in order for me to better understand your logic. - Are you talking about short-term earnings growth or short-term growth in the stock price? - Please specificy how you think the value of a stock is estimated by analysts and the majority of stockholders in ATVI - Do you have any empirical data/evidence/sources to back up your theory(ies)? - How is this relevant for Activision/ATVI. Could they have purused any other strategy which could have increased the present value of future earnings? You're wasting time here with this derail. Due to poor reading comprehension, you're arguing under the impression that I think short-term profit is the only component of share prices. This is a strawman, as I've made no such argument.
You have chosen wisely, my son. Arguing with Hider is a fools errand. He will demand you lay out your points in a logical fashion, empirical fashion, so he can then cherry pick which to argue against. You are best not engage and move along.
|
I can understand you can feeling upset about Bobby Kotick getting a lot of money. I can't comment on the topic since since I know very little of the interworkings of Activision and I don't follow the economic side of games. However, I find it difficult to understand why you are so upset with Blizzard for "getting into bed with these guys". Have we seen massive amounts of micro transactions integrated into Starcraft signifying that Blizzard wants to milk us for our money? Was HotS not priced as an expansion as promised? If quality is your concern, is HoTS not a massive improvement upon WoL? Do they not spend a lot of time and resources to supplement the game with WCS, balance, community updates, etc.? Although I can't always agree with the way Blizzard chooses to do things, I don't really feel like they ever cut quality at our end to try to make a quick buck.
|
" I don't really feel like they ever cut quality at our end to try to make a quick buck."
Well my friend, perhaps you should give Diablo III a go.
|
On May 01 2013 07:00 Krohm wrote:
" I don't really feel like they ever cut quality at our end to try to make a quick buck."
Well my friend, perhaps you should give Diablo III a go.
I guess the only product I have experienced was Starcraft. In that case it seemed pretty good. Also I'm not saying Diablo wasn't bad (I wouldn't know), but is it because they failed to delivery something with quality or are people upset with things that they don't agree with that probably wasn't directly related to making a quick buck? I have to ask because the gaming community tends to be unbelievably entitled in general.
|
On May 01 2013 06:35 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 06:17 sunprince wrote:On April 30 2013 22:20 Hider wrote:On April 30 2013 21:38 sunprince wrote:On April 30 2013 18:38 Hider wrote:On April 30 2013 18:35 sunprince wrote:On April 30 2013 18:20 Hider wrote:On April 30 2013 11:31 sunprince wrote:On April 30 2013 11:18 sluggaslamoo wrote:On April 30 2013 11:08 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
Do you have any facts backing up your "certainty"? Its fair to say Koticks decisions did make the company money. Its pretty easy to see this, many of the decisions he made are clearly visible, and only he would have the power to make tactical or strategic decisions that Activision have made. However it is whether these decisions are acceptable or not as consumers. Firing entire departments, and milking out franchises while not investing into creativity is a very risk free way of making money and is not substantial grounds for a bonus in a "Games Company". It also only benefits the company in the short term, and does nothing in the long term. I agree completely. However, stockholders often pursue short-term profit, and in their eyes Bobby Kotick has therefore absolutely merited a large raise for the short-term gains he provided them. How do you explain Amazons share price? I take it you mean as of Friday? The share price dropped because the revenue that Amazon predicts for this quarter is less than consensus estimates. In other words, investors are selling because the expected short-term results aren't promising. Your point? Have you looked at Amazons P/E-ratio? If investors only cared about short-term profit, shouldn't it be much lower? Please reread my posts more carefully. My exact words were "stockholders often pursue short-term profit. Regardless, Amazon's high P/E ratio is due to it's potential for growth... but are you seriously arguing that growth = long term only? Please answer the below in order for me to better understand your logic. - Are you talking about short-term earnings growth or short-term growth in the stock price? - Please specificy how you think the value of a stock is estimated by analysts and the majority of stockholders in ATVI - Do you have any empirical data/evidence/sources to back up your theory(ies)? - How is this relevant for Activision/ATVI. Could they have purused any other strategy which could have increased the present value of future earnings? You're wasting time here with this derail. Due to poor reading comprehension, you're arguing under the impression that I think short-term profit is the only component of share prices. This is a strawman, as I've made no such argument. You have chosen wisely, my son. Arguing with Hider is a fools errand. He will demand you lay out your points in a logical fashion, empirical fashion, so he can then cherry pick which to argue against. You are best not engage and move along.
Your welcome to criticise me for demanding logical arguments.
And of course don't waste time discussing things I agree with (that would be a waste time), so your right, I will cherry pick things that I disagree with, or where I can't follow his logic.
|
On April 28 2013 14:25 wUndertUnge wrote:http://kotaku.com/activisions-boss-got-an-800-raise-and-a-watchdog-doe-483773785"Activision has a lot of money. Bobby Kotick has fat stacks, too. The publisher's CEO saw his total cash-and-prizes compensation jump from $8.1 million in 2011 to $64.9 million in 2012, reports Bloomberg, a figure that would make him the second-highest paid CEO among publicly traded U.S. companies. Kotick is due for another $16 million if the company hits performance targets, too. The bulk of his compensation came in the form of stock awards valued at $55.9 million. (Though they vest over the next five years, Activision is required to report them all at once, now.) The cash salary he got was roughly the same as always, $8.33 million." How about reinvesting some of that money back into the company instead of feeding that fat double-chin of his? Sorry, but this kind of thing makes me so angry. Rarely does anyone actually deserve to be making this kind of money, not to mention the fact that no one could spend this much money in one lifetime. Has Kotick actually made any innovations, or did he just figure out how to turn it into a money machine? It makes me sad that Blizzard got into bed with these guys.
Wow, you're upset because the CEO is doing a damn good job of running the company? WoW, COD, and many other activision-blizzard products have been superb over the past few years. He took over the company and he's making record amounts of profit. I think it's okay to compensate him for his hard work
|
On May 01 2013 06:29 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 06:17 sunprince wrote:On April 30 2013 22:20 Hider wrote:On April 30 2013 21:38 sunprince wrote:On April 30 2013 18:38 Hider wrote:On April 30 2013 18:35 sunprince wrote:On April 30 2013 18:20 Hider wrote:On April 30 2013 11:31 sunprince wrote:On April 30 2013 11:18 sluggaslamoo wrote:On April 30 2013 11:08 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
Do you have any facts backing up your "certainty"? Its fair to say Koticks decisions did make the company money. Its pretty easy to see this, many of the decisions he made are clearly visible, and only he would have the power to make tactical or strategic decisions that Activision have made. However it is whether these decisions are acceptable or not as consumers. Firing entire departments, and milking out franchises while not investing into creativity is a very risk free way of making money and is not substantial grounds for a bonus in a "Games Company". It also only benefits the company in the short term, and does nothing in the long term. I agree completely. However, stockholders often pursue short-term profit, and in their eyes Bobby Kotick has therefore absolutely merited a large raise for the short-term gains he provided them. How do you explain Amazons share price? I take it you mean as of Friday? The share price dropped because the revenue that Amazon predicts for this quarter is less than consensus estimates. In other words, investors are selling because the expected short-term results aren't promising. Your point? Have you looked at Amazons P/E-ratio? If investors only cared about short-term profit, shouldn't it be much lower? Please reread my posts more carefully. My exact words were "stockholders often pursue short-term profit. Regardless, Amazon's high P/E ratio is due to it's potential for growth... but are you seriously arguing that growth = long term only? Please answer the below in order for me to better understand your logic. - Are you talking about short-term earnings growth or short-term growth in the stock price? - Please specificy how you think the value of a stock is estimated by analysts and the majority of stockholders in ATVI - Do you have any empirical data/evidence/sources to back up your theory(ies)? - How is this relevant for Activision/ATVI. Could they have purused any other strategy which could have increased the present value of future earnings? You're wasting time here with this derail. Due to poor reading comprehension, you're arguing under the impression that I think short-term profit is the only component of share prices. This is a strawman, as I've made no such argument. That is why I am asking questions. I have not put up an argument yet. If you read the post I don't even claim you say a single thing actually.
You gave yourself away when you stated:
On April 30 2013 22:20 Hider wrote:
Have you looked at Amazons P/E-ratio? If investors only cared about short-term profit, shouldn't it be much lower?
Emphasis mine. This is either a deliberate strawman or a reading comprehension failure on your part.
|
On May 01 2013 07:59 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 06:29 Hider wrote:On May 01 2013 06:17 sunprince wrote:On April 30 2013 22:20 Hider wrote:On April 30 2013 21:38 sunprince wrote:On April 30 2013 18:38 Hider wrote:On April 30 2013 18:35 sunprince wrote:On April 30 2013 18:20 Hider wrote:On April 30 2013 11:31 sunprince wrote:On April 30 2013 11:18 sluggaslamoo wrote:
[quote]
Its fair to say Koticks decisions did make the company money. Its pretty easy to see this, many of the decisions he made are clearly visible, and only he would have the power to make tactical or strategic decisions that Activision have made.
However it is whether these decisions are acceptable or not as consumers. Firing entire departments, and milking out franchises while not investing into creativity is a very risk free way of making money and is not substantial grounds for a bonus in a "Games Company". It also only benefits the company in the short term, and does nothing in the long term. I agree completely. However, stockholders often pursue short-term profit, and in their eyes Bobby Kotick has therefore absolutely merited a large raise for the short-term gains he provided them. How do you explain Amazons share price? I take it you mean as of Friday? The share price dropped because the revenue that Amazon predicts for this quarter is less than consensus estimates. In other words, investors are selling because the expected short-term results aren't promising. Your point? Have you looked at Amazons P/E-ratio? If investors only cared about short-term profit, shouldn't it be much lower? Please reread my posts more carefully. My exact words were "stockholders often pursue short-term profit. Regardless, Amazon's high P/E ratio is due to it's potential for growth... but are you seriously arguing that growth = long term only? Please answer the below in order for me to better understand your logic. - Are you talking about short-term earnings growth or short-term growth in the stock price? - Please specificy how you think the value of a stock is estimated by analysts and the majority of stockholders in ATVI - Do you have any empirical data/evidence/sources to back up your theory(ies)? - How is this relevant for Activision/ATVI. Could they have purused any other strategy which could have increased the present value of future earnings? You're wasting time here with this derail. Due to poor reading comprehension, you're arguing under the impression that I think short-term profit is the only component of share prices. This is a strawman, as I've made no such argument. That is why I am asking questions. I have not put up an argument yet. If you read the post I don't even claim you say a single thing actually. You gave yourself away when you stated: Show nested quote +On April 30 2013 22:20 Hider wrote:
Have you looked at Amazons P/E-ratio? If investors only cared about short-term profit, shouldn't it be much lower?
Emphasis mine. This is either a deliberate strawman or a reading comprehension failure on your part.
I don't understand why you keep repeating that as it has no relevant to my two prior posts.Why not answer the questions and continue the debate, and give me a chance to better understand your logic?
Anyway it definitely wasn't a strawman, because if you look at Amazons current earnings it is ridicilously low compared to share price, which implies that there is no way the majority of the share price is based on short-term profit. A strawman implies that I am misrepresenting your views, but in this case your view would imply (as I understand it, but I am not really sure I do, that is why I ask the questions) that long-term earnings have a relatively small importance on the value of the stock.
But the thing is; I honestly do not fully understand what you are implying. Are you just implying that the dayily volatility we are seeing in stock prices is caused by short-term investors. Given the context (ATVIs share price) that would imply that ATVI primarily has increased in value (and thus increased the salary of ATVIS CEO) due to short-term oriented investors? If you think I am misrepresenting your view, please answer the questions I asked you.
Again, there is no reason to be offensive, as I am just trying to understand your position. If you don't have any intention of putting up arguments behind your claim, then say so.
|
On May 01 2013 08:42 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 07:59 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 06:29 Hider wrote:On May 01 2013 06:17 sunprince wrote:On April 30 2013 22:20 Hider wrote:On April 30 2013 21:38 sunprince wrote:On April 30 2013 18:38 Hider wrote:On April 30 2013 18:35 sunprince wrote:On April 30 2013 18:20 Hider wrote:On April 30 2013 11:31 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
I agree completely.
However, stockholders often pursue short-term profit, and in their eyes Bobby Kotick has therefore absolutely merited a large raise for the short-term gains he provided them. How do you explain Amazons share price? I take it you mean as of Friday? The share price dropped because the revenue that Amazon predicts for this quarter is less than consensus estimates. In other words, investors are selling because the expected short-term results aren't promising. Your point? Have you looked at Amazons P/E-ratio? If investors only cared about short-term profit, shouldn't it be much lower? Please reread my posts more carefully. My exact words were "stockholders often pursue short-term profit. Regardless, Amazon's high P/E ratio is due to it's potential for growth... but are you seriously arguing that growth = long term only? Please answer the below in order for me to better understand your logic. - Are you talking about short-term earnings growth or short-term growth in the stock price? - Please specificy how you think the value of a stock is estimated by analysts and the majority of stockholders in ATVI - Do you have any empirical data/evidence/sources to back up your theory(ies)? - How is this relevant for Activision/ATVI. Could they have purused any other strategy which could have increased the present value of future earnings? You're wasting time here with this derail. Due to poor reading comprehension, you're arguing under the impression that I think short-term profit is the only component of share prices. This is a strawman, as I've made no such argument. That is why I am asking questions. I have not put up an argument yet. If you read the post I don't even claim you say a single thing actually. You gave yourself away when you stated: On April 30 2013 22:20 Hider wrote:
Have you looked at Amazons P/E-ratio? If investors only cared about short-term profit, shouldn't it be much lower?
Emphasis mine. This is either a deliberate strawman or a reading comprehension failure on your part. I don't understand why you keep repeating that as it has no relevant to my two prior posts.Why not answer the questions and continue the debate, and give me a chance to better understand your logic? Anyway it definitely wasn't a strawman, because if you look at Amazons current earnings it is ridicilously low compared to share price, which implies that there is no way the majority of the share price is based on short-term profit. A strawman implies that I am misrepresenting your views, but in this case your view would imply (as I understand it, but I am not really sure I do, that is why I ask the questions) that long-term earnings have little weight on the value of the stock. But the thing is; I honestly do not fully understand what you are implying. Are you just implying that the dayily volatility we are seeing in stock prices is caused by short-term investors. Given the context (ATVIs share price) that would imply that ATVI primarily has increased in value (and thus increased the salary of ATVIS CEO) due to short-term oriented investors? Again, there is no reason to be offensive, as I am just trying to understand your position. If you don't have any intention of putting up arguments behind your claim, then say so.
Standard Hider. Enters a thread and challenges someones statement, providing no evidence of this own.
On April 30 2013 18:20 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2013 11:31 sunprince wrote:On April 30 2013 11:18 sluggaslamoo wrote:On April 30 2013 11:08 sunprince wrote:On April 30 2013 04:25 Klondikebar wrote:On April 30 2013 04:22 lazyitachi wrote:
If your salad decisions make millions for other... maybe someone will give u money and honey.
But then again.. no one cares much about those salads.. so no one give u the holla dolla. :3
I am quite certain that Mr. Kotick's decisions don't make any money either. It is the people below him actually making decisions. Do you have any facts backing up your "certainty"? Its fair to say Koticks decisions did make the company money. Its pretty easy to see this, many of the decisions he made are clearly visible, and only he would have the power to make tactical or strategic decisions that Activision have made. However it is whether these decisions are acceptable or not as consumers. Firing entire departments, and milking out franchises while not investing into creativity is a very risk free way of making money and is not substantial grounds for a bonus in a "Games Company". It also only benefits the company in the short term, and does nothing in the long term. I agree completely. However, stockholders often pursue short-term profit, and in their eyes Bobby Kotick has therefore absolutely merited a large raise for the short-term gains he provided them. How do you explain Amazons share price?
Then when someone answer him, he demands that the person explain their argument in a format he prefers. He also demands that logic be used. Without even backing up his point in any way, he requires that someone detail provide evidence to back up their initial claim, shift the burden to make an argument away from him and back on the other party.
On April 30 2013 22:20 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2013 21:38 sunprince wrote:On April 30 2013 18:38 Hider wrote:On April 30 2013 18:35 sunprince wrote:On April 30 2013 18:20 Hider wrote:On April 30 2013 11:31 sunprince wrote:On April 30 2013 11:18 sluggaslamoo wrote:On April 30 2013 11:08 sunprince wrote:On April 30 2013 04:25 Klondikebar wrote:On April 30 2013 04:22 lazyitachi wrote:
If your salad decisions make millions for other... maybe someone will give u money and honey.
But then again.. no one cares much about those salads.. so no one give u the holla dolla. :3
I am quite certain that Mr. Kotick's decisions don't make any money either. It is the people below him actually making decisions. Do you have any facts backing up your "certainty"? Its fair to say Koticks decisions did make the company money. Its pretty easy to see this, many of the decisions he made are clearly visible, and only he would have the power to make tactical or strategic decisions that Activision have made. However it is whether these decisions are acceptable or not as consumers. Firing entire departments, and milking out franchises while not investing into creativity is a very risk free way of making money and is not substantial grounds for a bonus in a "Games Company". It also only benefits the company in the short term, and does nothing in the long term. I agree completely. However, stockholders often pursue short-term profit, and in their eyes Bobby Kotick has therefore absolutely merited a large raise for the short-term gains he provided them. How do you explain Amazons share price? I take it you mean as of Friday? The share price dropped because the revenue that Amazon predicts for this quarter is less than consensus estimates. In other words, investors are selling because the expected short-term results aren't promising. Your point? Have you looked at Amazons P/E-ratio? If investors only cared about short-term profit, shouldn't it be much lower? Please reread my posts more carefully. My exact words were "stockholders often pursue short-term profit. Regardless, Amazon's high P/E ratio is due to it's potential for growth... but are you seriously arguing that growth = long term only? Please answer the below in order for me to better understand your logic. - Are you talking about short-term earnings growth or short-term growth in the stock price? - Please specificy how you think the value of a stock is estimated by analysts and the majority of stockholders in ATVI - Do you have any empirical data/evidence/sources to back up your theory(ies)? - How is this relevant for Activision/ATVI. Could they have purused any other strategy which could have increased the present value of future earnings?
Why provide your own evidence or add to the discussion on your own? Its way better to just demand that people enumerate their logic for you in a format that you prefer. Then you can just sit back and pick at the points you want to discuss an ignore the rest. Internet debate at its finest.
PS: If you haven't noticed, I've seen this pattern before. Though never so neatly laid out in this fashion.
|
On May 01 2013 07:10 gamerdude12345 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2013 14:25 wUndertUnge wrote:http://kotaku.com/activisions-boss-got-an-800-raise-and-a-watchdog-doe-483773785"Activision has a lot of money. Bobby Kotick has fat stacks, too. The publisher's CEO saw his total cash-and-prizes compensation jump from $8.1 million in 2011 to $64.9 million in 2012, reports Bloomberg, a figure that would make him the second-highest paid CEO among publicly traded U.S. companies. Kotick is due for another $16 million if the company hits performance targets, too. The bulk of his compensation came in the form of stock awards valued at $55.9 million. (Though they vest over the next five years, Activision is required to report them all at once, now.) The cash salary he got was roughly the same as always, $8.33 million." How about reinvesting some of that money back into the company instead of feeding that fat double-chin of his? Sorry, but this kind of thing makes me so angry. Rarely does anyone actually deserve to be making this kind of money, not to mention the fact that no one could spend this much money in one lifetime. Has Kotick actually made any innovations, or did he just figure out how to turn it into a money machine? It makes me sad that Blizzard got into bed with these guys. Wow, you're upset because the CEO is doing a damn good job of running the company? WoW, COD, and many other activision-blizzard products have been superb over the past few years. He took over the company and he's making record amounts of profit. I think it's okay to compensate him for his hard work
It's OK to compensate Kotick for his hard work, but not the millions of other hard workers in the world? Does Kotick work 90 hours a day, or something?
People are upset at the exorbitance, not that he's being paid.
|
Standard Hider. Enters a thread and challenges someones statement, providing no evidence of this own.
Do you follow the Amazon logic? I explained it briefly in a previous post.
I don't think it neccesarily proof he is wrong as it depends on his arguments/definitions (which I why I want him to define them).
Then when someone answer him, he demands that the person explain their argument in a format he prefers. He also demands that logic be used. Without even backing up his point in any way, he requires that someone detail provide evidence to back up their initial claim, shift the burden to make an argument away from him and back on the other party.
Did you see his reponse? He didn't respond to me, but repeated the same thing. He never asked me anything, so I am not sure what you demand of me? If I ignored his response and still demanded that he answered my questions, sure, you would have a point. But what is it exactly you think I should do differently here (given that I want a structured debate)
Do you think I am not allowed to him ask questions in order for me to understand his thought proces, so I can better discuss him?
Internet debate at its finest.
I think Internet debates at its worst arises when people haven't clarified their definitions and doesn't properly understand each others arguments. I am trying to avoid that from happening.
|
On May 01 2013 08:42 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 07:59 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 06:29 Hider wrote:On May 01 2013 06:17 sunprince wrote:On April 30 2013 22:20 Hider wrote:On April 30 2013 21:38 sunprince wrote:On April 30 2013 18:38 Hider wrote:On April 30 2013 18:35 sunprince wrote:On April 30 2013 18:20 Hider wrote:On April 30 2013 11:31 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
I agree completely.
However, stockholders often pursue short-term profit, and in their eyes Bobby Kotick has therefore absolutely merited a large raise for the short-term gains he provided them. How do you explain Amazons share price? I take it you mean as of Friday? The share price dropped because the revenue that Amazon predicts for this quarter is less than consensus estimates. In other words, investors are selling because the expected short-term results aren't promising. Your point? Have you looked at Amazons P/E-ratio? If investors only cared about short-term profit, shouldn't it be much lower? Please reread my posts more carefully. My exact words were "stockholders often pursue short-term profit. Regardless, Amazon's high P/E ratio is due to it's potential for growth... but are you seriously arguing that growth = long term only? Please answer the below in order for me to better understand your logic. - Are you talking about short-term earnings growth or short-term growth in the stock price? - Please specificy how you think the value of a stock is estimated by analysts and the majority of stockholders in ATVI - Do you have any empirical data/evidence/sources to back up your theory(ies)? - How is this relevant for Activision/ATVI. Could they have purused any other strategy which could have increased the present value of future earnings? You're wasting time here with this derail. Due to poor reading comprehension, you're arguing under the impression that I think short-term profit is the only component of share prices. This is a strawman, as I've made no such argument. That is why I am asking questions. I have not put up an argument yet. If you read the post I don't even claim you say a single thing actually. You gave yourself away when you stated: On April 30 2013 22:20 Hider wrote:
Have you looked at Amazons P/E-ratio? If investors only cared about short-term profit, shouldn't it be much lower?
Emphasis mine. This is either a deliberate strawman or a reading comprehension failure on your part. I don't understand why you keep repeating that as it has no relevant to my two prior posts.Why not answer the questions and continue the debate, and give me a chance to better understand your logic? Anyway it definitely wasn't a strawman, because if you look at Amazons current earnings it is ridicilously low compared to share price, which implies that there is no way the majority of the share price is based on short-term profit. A strawman implies that I am misrepresenting your views, but in this case your view would imply (as I understand it, but I am not really sure I do, that is why I ask the questions) that long-term earnings have a relatively small importance on the value of the stock. But the thing is; I honestly do not fully understand what you are implying. Are you just implying that the dayily volatility we are seeing in stock prices is caused by short-term investors. Given the context (ATVIs share price) that would imply that ATVI primarily has increased in value (and thus increased the salary of ATVIS CEO) due to short-term oriented investors? If you think I am misrepresenting your view, please answer the questions I asked you.
You're arguing as if you believe any growth value is long-term profit only. However, growth exists over the short term as well. In fact, the Amazon example supports my case: the share price tumbled because the company's own projected growth for the current quarter is lower than expected. This is a substantial decrease in share price due simply to a projected short-term decrease in growth.
The implication of my original claim, as related to the discussion including sluggaslamoo that preceded it, is that even if Kotick's decisions benefit Activision over the short-term rather than the long-term, this is still something that shareholders might legitimately see fit to reward him for. This does not imply that ATVI has increased in value due to short-term investors, it means that the short-term gains optimized by Kotick's business strategy is something that shareholders often applaud.
On May 01 2013 08:42 Hider wrote:
Again, there is no reason to be offensive, as I am just trying to understand your position. If you don't have any intention of putting up arguments behind your claim, then say so.
Your posts in this discussion, as well as your posting history, all seem to indicate that you are not arguing in good faith.
I've given basic explanations of my limited claim (that investors are often interested in short-term profit) and the arguments behind them, but I am not interested in writing a textbook on how the market determines share prices while you sit back and throw leading questions hoping that I'll make a misstep.
|
On May 01 2013 09:02 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 07:10 gamerdude12345 wrote:On April 28 2013 14:25 wUndertUnge wrote:http://kotaku.com/activisions-boss-got-an-800-raise-and-a-watchdog-doe-483773785"Activision has a lot of money. Bobby Kotick has fat stacks, too. The publisher's CEO saw his total cash-and-prizes compensation jump from $8.1 million in 2011 to $64.9 million in 2012, reports Bloomberg, a figure that would make him the second-highest paid CEO among publicly traded U.S. companies. Kotick is due for another $16 million if the company hits performance targets, too. The bulk of his compensation came in the form of stock awards valued at $55.9 million. (Though they vest over the next five years, Activision is required to report them all at once, now.) The cash salary he got was roughly the same as always, $8.33 million." How about reinvesting some of that money back into the company instead of feeding that fat double-chin of his? Sorry, but this kind of thing makes me so angry. Rarely does anyone actually deserve to be making this kind of money, not to mention the fact that no one could spend this much money in one lifetime. Has Kotick actually made any innovations, or did he just figure out how to turn it into a money machine? It makes me sad that Blizzard got into bed with these guys. Wow, you're upset because the CEO is doing a damn good job of running the company? WoW, COD, and many other activision-blizzard products have been superb over the past few years. He took over the company and he's making record amounts of profit. I think it's okay to compensate him for his hard work It's OK to compensate Kotick for his hard work, but not the millions of other hard workers in the world? Does Kotick work 90 hours a day, or something? People are upset at the exorbitance, not that he's being paid.
The value of a person's work is not determined by how hard they work or how many hours they work. It is determined by how much others will pay for that work.
Manual laborers work much harder and many more hours than, say, dentists, but the former is paid minimum wage while the latter is paid an upper-middle class salary.
|
On May 01 2013 09:46 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 08:42 Hider wrote:On May 01 2013 07:59 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 06:29 Hider wrote:On May 01 2013 06:17 sunprince wrote:On April 30 2013 22:20 Hider wrote:On April 30 2013 21:38 sunprince wrote:On April 30 2013 18:38 Hider wrote:On April 30 2013 18:35 sunprince wrote:On April 30 2013 18:20 Hider wrote:
[quote]
How do you explain Amazons share price? I take it you mean as of Friday? The share price dropped because the revenue that Amazon predicts for this quarter is less than consensus estimates. In other words, investors are selling because the expected short-term results aren't promising. Your point? Have you looked at Amazons P/E-ratio? If investors only cared about short-term profit, shouldn't it be much lower? Please reread my posts more carefully. My exact words were "stockholders often pursue short-term profit. Regardless, Amazon's high P/E ratio is due to it's potential for growth... but are you seriously arguing that growth = long term only? Please answer the below in order for me to better understand your logic. - Are you talking about short-term earnings growth or short-term growth in the stock price? - Please specificy how you think the value of a stock is estimated by analysts and the majority of stockholders in ATVI - Do you have any empirical data/evidence/sources to back up your theory(ies)? - How is this relevant for Activision/ATVI. Could they have purused any other strategy which could have increased the present value of future earnings? You're wasting time here with this derail. Due to poor reading comprehension, you're arguing under the impression that I think short-term profit is the only component of share prices. This is a strawman, as I've made no such argument. That is why I am asking questions. I have not put up an argument yet. If you read the post I don't even claim you say a single thing actually. You gave yourself away when you stated: On April 30 2013 22:20 Hider wrote:
Have you looked at Amazons P/E-ratio? If investors only cared about short-term profit, shouldn't it be much lower?
Emphasis mine. This is either a deliberate strawman or a reading comprehension failure on your part. I don't understand why you keep repeating that as it has no relevant to my two prior posts.Why not answer the questions and continue the debate, and give me a chance to better understand your logic? Anyway it definitely wasn't a strawman, because if you look at Amazons current earnings it is ridicilously low compared to share price, which implies that there is no way the majority of the share price is based on short-term profit. A strawman implies that I am misrepresenting your views, but in this case your view would imply (as I understand it, but I am not really sure I do, that is why I ask the questions) that long-term earnings have a relatively small importance on the value of the stock. But the thing is; I honestly do not fully understand what you are implying. Are you just implying that the dayily volatility we are seeing in stock prices is caused by short-term investors. Given the context (ATVIs share price) that would imply that ATVI primarily has increased in value (and thus increased the salary of ATVIS CEO) due to short-term oriented investors? If you think I am misrepresenting your view, please answer the questions I asked you. You're arguing as if you believe any growth value is long-term profit only. However, growth exists over the short term as well. In fact, the Amazon example supports my case: the share price tumbled because the company's own projected growth for the current quarter is lower than expected. This is a substantial decrease in share price due simply to a projected short-term decrease in growth. The implication of my original claim, as related to the discussion including sluggaslamoo that preceded it, is that even if Kotick's decisions benefit Activision over the short-term rather than the long-term, this is still something that shareholders might legitimately see fit to reward him for. This does not imply that ATVI has increased in value due to short-term investors, it means that the short-term gains optimized by Kotick's business strategy is something that shareholders often applaud. Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 08:42 Hider wrote:
Again, there is no reason to be offensive, as I am just trying to understand your position. If you don't have any intention of putting up arguments behind your claim, then say so.
Your posts in this discussion, as well as your posting history, all seem to indicate that you are not arguing in good faith. I've given basic explanations of my limited claim (that investors are often interested in short-term profit) and the arguments behind them, but I am not interested in writing a textbook on how the market determines share prices while you sit back and throw leading questions hoping that I'll make a misstep.
I dont understand what you are talking about with good faith? Do you imply I have some other intentions beside trying to understand your thought proces so I could discuss you (because I do disagree, I don't think this short-term profit is relevant at all. I think the long-term value of ATVI has increased and long-term investors are rewarding the CEO). But okay, I accept that you won't go into a further discussion, so lets just leave it here (but please answer the good-faith question, because I don't see in which way I could have any other intentions besides disagreeing with you).
EDIT; Just my last comments regarding Amazon; Investors/analysts often extrapolate growth rates. So if the growth in the current quarter declines by x%, then the future growth rate is more likely to decline as well (this is typically how they model things). Thus the growth rate of the last quarter, while not particularly relevant in it self, is used as a predictor of the future (longer term) growth rate.
EDIT EDIT: I think Acitivision probably has a better long-term busienss model than Blizzard. Blizzard relies so much on developing extremely good games for 2-4 franchies, and thus they are extremely dependant on having quality human ressources. With the release of D3 (and too some extent Sc2 which IMO is suboptimal in a lot of ways), I feel that this is prooving to be too much of a liability (as the Diablo-franchise has little left in terms of future profit).
Activision are better at monetizing and branding their games rather than Blizzard (their branding is primarily due quality games, while Acitvisions branding has come due to a better understanding of the behaviour of consumers and advertising). So Activision are showing that they are not just relying on their lower levelled employees to produce quality games, but have developed shareholder (read; long-term value) throgh their executives.
As long as Activision can use their knowledge of branding and moneitizing then they will be capable of generating returns to their shareholders 10+ years from now on.
Blizzard on the other hand relies heavily on Titan to be a succes as WoW subscribers are declining, which IMO is quite a a gamble.
|
On May 01 2013 09:02 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 07:10 gamerdude12345 wrote:On April 28 2013 14:25 wUndertUnge wrote:http://kotaku.com/activisions-boss-got-an-800-raise-and-a-watchdog-doe-483773785"Activision has a lot of money. Bobby Kotick has fat stacks, too. The publisher's CEO saw his total cash-and-prizes compensation jump from $8.1 million in 2011 to $64.9 million in 2012, reports Bloomberg, a figure that would make him the second-highest paid CEO among publicly traded U.S. companies. Kotick is due for another $16 million if the company hits performance targets, too. The bulk of his compensation came in the form of stock awards valued at $55.9 million. (Though they vest over the next five years, Activision is required to report them all at once, now.) The cash salary he got was roughly the same as always, $8.33 million." How about reinvesting some of that money back into the company instead of feeding that fat double-chin of his? Sorry, but this kind of thing makes me so angry. Rarely does anyone actually deserve to be making this kind of money, not to mention the fact that no one could spend this much money in one lifetime. Has Kotick actually made any innovations, or did he just figure out how to turn it into a money machine? It makes me sad that Blizzard got into bed with these guys. Wow, you're upset because the CEO is doing a damn good job of running the company? WoW, COD, and many other activision-blizzard products have been superb over the past few years. He took over the company and he's making record amounts of profit. I think it's okay to compensate him for his hard work It's OK to compensate Kotick for his hard work, but not the millions of other hard workers in the world? Does Kotick work 90 hours a day, or something? People are upset at the exorbitance, not that he's being paid.
Exactly this. Why are we not hearing about stock options for the other workers? This man is not solely responsible for all that profit. Even if he was the decision-maker, there are a whole lot of marines, SCVs, hydras, drones, probes, and zealots that go into make this stuff happen. (See what I did there?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
