Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

June 21, 2008 -

Financial website The Motley Fool mocks Electronic Arts today.

Rick Aristotle Munarriz delivers the slap in a column recounting EA's seemingly endless campaign to acquire Grand Theft Auto publicher Take-Two Interactive:

What if you threw a wedding and nobody came? That's becoming the embarrassing reality... EA's latest tender offer to buy the Grand Theft Auto IV software hotshot expired on Monday, so what did EA do? It repeated the offer. Again.

 

For those scoring at home, this is the third time that EA has seen its tender offer... expire sorely undersubscribed. It gets worse with every passing month. EA had 6.4 million shares -- or less than 8% of the outstanding shares -- submitted during the first tender. EA now has just 6.1 million shares on board.

 

EA needs to step up and either raise its bid, dare Take-Two to seek out a better deal elsewhere, or just walk away. Anything else is just delusional.

 


Comments

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

There has to be more to it then we are able to see. Any company the size of EA isn't stupid. There are obviously things going on behind the curtain to perpetuate this behaviour from EA.

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

Let's be honest here...with Take Two saying over and over that they don't wish to sell to EA, be it for whatever reason, and EA continuing to attempt purchasing by giving these deadlines, it only shows how badly EA wants Take Two, and therefore, their asking price is too low.  EA came to Take Two without T2 wanting to sell.  That means they have to give them an offer they can't refuse.  Sadly, T2 has been refusing, so the offer isn't that great.  Giving deadlines, only to extend them every time, and yet still toss out that same amount...that just makes EA look more and more desperate.  T2 has EA almost by the balls in this situation, even though EA got the FTC involved.  If I went up to someone and said "Hey, I'll buy your car for $20 and you need to give me an answer in 5 minutes", then got told no, only to say "Ok, how about I give you $20 for your car and you need to give me an answer in 5 minutes from now"...it's not going to work.  It shows desperation on EA's part (and desperation isn't sexy) and it shows T2 isn't falling for it.

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

I have to agree, Electronic Arts, being the hungry overlords they are, seemingly can't grasp the concept of a company NOT wanting to join their dreadful "empire." And the fact that the FTC was giving T2 trouble until recently, despite them NOT wanting to sell, only serves to annoy me even more.

Fight the power, Take-Two!

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

Well, TT probably wouldn't mind if the price was right. EA's problem is that they can't seem to grasp that their offer isn't the right price, and it won't be for quite some time, if at all.

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

EA is just going to out endure them. There's no rush for them to raise their price: especially when they're offering too much as it is.

 

Critisize EA all you want, but they didn't get to where they are now by being bad on a business level.

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

So you think that EA will just keep extending the "deadline" on their offer for the next year or five in hopes that at some point the offer will become attractive to the TT investors?

Cause personally yeah, I'd call that bad business. They should have make their offer, up it or withdraw it if it gets rejected, and come back later when there'd actually be some pressure on Take-Two to sell. Instead we've got their offer where they've made their offer, it's been rejected, they decided to try a hostile takeover, and keep extending the duration of their offer as investor interest slowly fades.

They're trying to out endure investor disinterest, that's not exactly a very good tactic.

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

Maybe they think it's like an argument as a small child; Pester  them enough and they'll give in.

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

Yeah, I gotta say, they have summed the whole thing up. I never believed this thing to be serious, after all the nonsense EA was throwing.

-If shit and bricks were candy and tits, we'd all be livin' large. For information on games and psychology, look up:

Jonathan Freedman (2002)

Block and Crain (2007)

Grand Theft Childhood, a book by Harvard Medical School researchers Lawrence Kutner and Cheryl Olson

Reality/////////////////////////////////////Fantasy. Seems like a pretty thick line to me...

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

You know, EA, time for you to give it up, because obviously Take-Two isn't buying.

There comes a point in time where you must realize that "No" means "No" and that Take-Two doesn't want your money. 

Besides, if Take-Two went to you, I'd never buy a GTA game again.  (Or any Rockstar game, for that matter.)

 

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

The only fool in this is the Motley Fool.  Take-Two's shares are stalled below $27.  The market had already taken into account the large sales of GTA IV.  The stock is overvalued, as Take-Two is a one-trick pony with GTA.

EA is offering too much, not too little.  Most analysts understand that.

 

Dufus in New York

 
 

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

That doesn't make sense. If EA was offering too much, then shareholders would be scrambling to take the deal. As EA has managed to grab less than 10% of Take Two's stock, I'd say that's not happening. Obviously shareholders are hanging onto what they have because they think they can get more money for it down the line.

I stand by my original prediction: EA will get a significant share of Take Two's stock, but not enough to take control of the company.

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

Using the words analyst and understanding in the same sentence is an oxymoron.

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

Sounds to me like Take-Two's shares are stalled at about the value of the company. It shot up with the EA offer, then remained steady with the release of GTA4. That says to me that all EA's offer really did was hasten the raise in the value of the stock a little, and that it'll remain where it is when EA finally gives up.

I wouldn't call them a one trick pony either given they've produced stuff like Bioshock recently. They've got plenty of talent floating around that just need to put to use.

Either way Motley Fool's right that EA's just embarassing themselves by continuing to extend their offer. It should be clear at this point that Take-Two is not interested in being bought at this time for that price. EA needs to raise their price, or go away and try again later.

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

If they're offering more than it's worth then where is the incentive to sell?

-kurisu7885

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

Pretty much get the feeling that EA does not know when to quit.  Yes they want to control Every market that might bring in money and this is understandable being for FOR Profit company, but please.  No actually can mean No.    Stubborn fools. 

I probably would not care (or as much) if they had not managed to bastardise several companies that I used to buy game from.

To follow out Kurisu's anology.  Maybe the boyfriend (Rockstar, verendi, someone) or the bouncer (The Courts) will remove the irratant and kick him to crub. 

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

EA's attempt to buy Take-Two has been pretty anemic, that's for sure.  They make a single offer, and just can't seem to grasp that shareholders are either not interested or that the price is too low.  Normally, a sensible business would re-evaluate the strategy they pursued and change their plan... but I honestly don't know what to call EA's tactic here.  "Runaway Groom" doesn't seem to fit... "delusional" is certainly more accurate.

It's more like an unwashed man standing on a crowded street with a "free hugs" sign for the fourth day in a row, who continues to give passers-by a sad smile despite the fact that no one has hugged him since day one.

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

I'd say EA is the persistant horny drunk and Take Two is the girl at the bar with her boyfriend.

-kurisu7885

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

Really?  Who's the girlfriend?  I don't see her.  Who is else is offering Take-Two anything?

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

Autonomy.

---------------------------------

So speak I, some random guy.

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

It really is getting ridiculous.  EA needs to stop trying to monopolize everything.  We'll end up with EA, Microsoft and Nintendo controlling all the games.

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

Now if only Activision would step in.   I wouldn't mind working on the next GTA ;)

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

No offense, but I'd rather see EA get ahold of GTA than Activision. Ask around the office about True Crime: New York City if you want to know why that is.

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

Agreed, Activision are the ones whoring out Guitar Hero and deciding that the next Call of Duty gets put back in the hands of Treyarch.

EA, meanwhile, are developing Spore and Dead Space.

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

I'm not going to comment about the inner workings of Activision, I like my job too much.

If anything as soon as T2 is bought Rockstar will jump ship like there is no tomorrow.  They did publish some game on their own for a while.

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

@EA

walk away... you challenging everything is ruining everything

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

The Motley Fool, dispite it's name, is actually pretty good.  They do a good job of making all the crazy economic terms and buzzwords make sense.

---------------------------------

So speak I, some random guy.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Which group is more ethically challenged?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Goth_Skunk"The New Totalitarians Are Here" from The Federalist. http://ow.ly/Pjz3b07/07/2015 - 11:31pm
MattsworknameThere was a time in america when we needed unions and they served a good purpose, but that time hasnt been tbe case for about 20 years or more. The same could be said of our current system for teachers in higher educatoin,but thats a whole nother story07/07/2015 - 10:22pm
TechnogeekIn large part, though, that's an extension of the level of unjust deference given to police in general. Kind of hard to find any real grievances to defend against when the organizational culture views "complains about coworker" as worse than "murderer".07/07/2015 - 8:45pm
TechnogeekThat's a police union.07/07/2015 - 8:43pm
TechnogeekNo, police unions are worse by far. Imagine every negative stereotype about unions, then add "we can get away with anything".07/07/2015 - 8:43pm
Goth_SkunkeZeek: No, I do not agree they are union members.07/07/2015 - 7:48pm
E. Zachary KnightTeachers unions are just as bad as police unions, except of course you are far less likely to be killed by a teacher on duty than you are a cop. But they also protect bad teachers from being fired.07/07/2015 - 6:29pm
E. Zachary KnightGoth, so you agree they are still union members. Thankfully we have a first ammendment that protects people from being forced to join groups they don't support (in most cases any way.)07/07/2015 - 6:27pm
E. Zachary KnightAh, police unions. The reason why cops can't get fired when they beat a defenseless mentally ill homeless person to death. Or when they throw a grenade into a baby's crib. Or when theykill people they were called in to help not hurt themselves.07/07/2015 - 6:26pm
Goth_SkunkeZeek: Non-union employees have no right to attend meetings or union convention/AGM, or influence policy. The only time they get to vote is whether or not to strike.07/07/2015 - 6:24pm
Infophile(cont'd) about non-union police officers being given hell until they joined the union.07/07/2015 - 4:58pm
InfophileParadoxically, the drive in the US to get rid of unions seems to have left only the most corrupt surviving. They seem to be the only ones that can find ways to browbeat employees into joining when paying dues isn't mandatory. I've heard some stories ...07/07/2015 - 4:57pm
Matthew WilsonI am old school on this. I believe its a conflict of interest to have public sector unions. that being said, I do not have a positive look on unions in general.07/07/2015 - 3:59pm
TechnogeekWhat's best for the employee tends to be good for the employer; other way around, not so much. So long as that's the case, there's going to be a far stronger incentive for management to behave in such a way that invites retalitation than for the union to.07/07/2015 - 3:10pm
TechnogeekTeachers' unions? State legislatures. UAW? Just look at GM's middle management.07/07/2015 - 3:05pm
TechnogeekIn many ways it seems that the worse a union tends to behave, the worse that the company's management has behaved in the past.07/07/2015 - 3:02pm
james_fudgeCharity starts at home ;)07/07/2015 - 2:49pm
james_fudgeSo mandatory charity? That sounds shitty to me07/07/2015 - 2:49pm
E. Zachary KnightGoth, if Union dues are automatically withdrawn, then there is no such thing as a non-union employee.07/07/2015 - 2:38pm
Goth_Skunka mutually agreed upon charity instead.07/07/2015 - 2:33pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician