How does a country go from 9/11 to "let's sell our ass to these guys" in under three decades?
Reports: EA set to be sold to private investors for up to $50B
61–69 of 69 posts
Re: Reports: EA set to be sold to private investors for up to $50B
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You just need wealth and connections. That’s exactly the problem I’m talking about. Public companies create more equality.
You could just eliminate the regulations on who can and cannot be an accredited investor. It's a bit paternalistic to tell people what they can and cannot spend their money on in the first place tbh
True. Average people are sophisticated enough to understand complex financial instruments designed to scam them by an army of lawyers and MBAs trained at the finest financial institutions and law schools.
Re: Reports: EA set to be sold to private investors for up to $50B
#63Some EA IP I remember Battlefield Mass effect Dragon age Madden The sims Titanfall
Home Alone 2
Re: Reports: EA set to be sold to private investors for up to $50B
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
> lose any potential gains in value after the transaction. the premium paid over the market price takes that into account.
Only to a degree ofc. Otherwise, there would be absolutely no sense in buying up that company.
I happen to be a shareholder in EA as part of a diversified portfolio. Not that my vote matters but I'll definitely be taking PE money. +20% in one day is nothing to sneeze at.
From the other comments about EA's games, it's not like EA is that special of a company. There's always going to be some other company (not necessarily an AAA-games maker) worth putting your capital in and end up doing as well as what the hypothetical EA could do if it were not taken private. (Obviously finding such market-outperformer isn't easy but by the same argument I'm not convinced that EA would be obviously that outperformer either.)
Re: Reports: EA set to be sold to private investors for up to $50B
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
20-30% premium even over the fictional mark-to-market stock price. If all that were to hit the open market at once at any time, the price would plummet. I really question whether acquisition ROI is positive except in rare cases on a first order basis. Eliminating future compensation, securing a propaganda emitter, etc I can see (though not quite sure what the story would be in this case).
>If all that were to hit the open market at once at any time, the price would plummet. But the price doesn't plummet when an attempt to acquire a company is announced. The price plummets when the holders of many shares want to sell. An attempted acquisition is the opposite of that situation.
Right, of course. My point is that the acquisition premium is actually higher than the nominal premium.
The share price is for the current share supply. If the supply increases, then the price goes down.
There is also a confounding effect in the cases where shares have actually flooded the market, where the confounder is whatever the reason for flooding is. But even if you magically forced a mass sale with no negative event causing it, the price would still plummet due to the supply flood.
Re: Reports: EA set to be sold to private investors for up to $50B
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could just eliminate the regulations on who can and cannot be an accredited investor. It's a bit paternalistic to tell people what they can and cannot spend their money on in the first place tbh
True. Average people are sophisticated enough to understand complex financial instruments designed to scam them by an army of lawyers and MBAs trained at the finest financial institutions and law schools.
How does having a net worth of $1M or an annual income of over $200K inure you to being scammed by complex financial instruments?
Also, we already let people engage in sports gambling (which is guaranteed to result in a net loss) and cryptocurrency speculation, (which is a zero sum game). I'd rather give people more options to invest in financial instruments that at least in theory have the potential to be positive sum, since we're not going to ban either of the other two any time soon.
Re: Reports: EA set to be sold to private investors for up to $50B
#67Can someone explain to me how a public company can go private and there’s no fear of outcry from the shareholders in said company? Like companies do all these evil things to please shareholders but wouldn’t many shareholders of a public company be against the transition back to private?
> outcry from the shareholders If you're a shareholder, you can vote "no" to selling with your shares. Generally, selling a public company requires the majority of the shares to vote "yes" in order to force the minority shareholders to go along with the sale. Usually the share price being offered represents a substantial uplift over the current trading price of the shares (and thus the value of the company). If the t…
This makes a lot of sense. Thanks!
Re: Reports: EA set to be sold to private investors for up to $50B
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
True. Average people are sophisticated enough to understand complex financial instruments designed to scam them by an army of lawyers and MBAs trained at the finest financial institutions and law schools.
How does having a net worth of $1M or an annual income of over $200K inure you to being scammed by complex financial instruments? Also, we already let people engage in sports gambling (which is guaranteed to result in a net loss) and cryptocurrency speculation, (which is a zero sum game). I'd rather give people more options to invest in financial instruments that at least in theory have the potential to be positive s…
Your examples of cryptocurrency and sports gambling are a perfect example of my criticism. There are virtually no people that are sophisticated enough to succeed in either of those activities as they are all based on pure speculation and luck. There is no actual asset in either of these cases. While some modern crypto coins might be back with actual assets, many crypto coins are backed by only speculation and no actual assets. Basically they’re scams.
Re: Reports: EA set to be sold to private investors for up to $50B
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does having a net worth of $1M or an annual income of over $200K inure you to being scammed by complex financial instruments? Also, we already let people engage in sports gambling (which is guaranteed to result in a net loss) and cryptocurrency speculation, (which is a zero sum game). I'd rather give people more options to invest in financial instruments that at least in theory have the potential to be positive s…
Your examples of cryptocurrency and sports gambling are a perfect example of my criticism. There are virtually no people that are sophisticated enough to succeed in either of those activities as they are all based on pure speculation and luck. There is no actual asset in either of these cases. While some modern crypto coins might be back with actual assets, many crypto coins are backed by only speculation and no actu…
Yes, that was my point. Both are scams, but both are very legal. It seems dumb to bar people from investing in real, productive assets (even complex ones that might have a poor rate of return relative to index funds) when we let them "invest" in things that are guaranteed losses on average.