3 ms·
I don't see the same issues. 1. It's been reported that Kotick will leave once the acquisition is finalized (i.e. when MS actually owns the company). If and wh
by RandomBK 5y ago
I don't see the same issues.
1. It's been reported that Kotick will leave once the acquisition is finalized (i.e. when MS actually owns the company). If and when that doesn't happen, _then_ I'll join in on the criticism. [edit: based on WSJ reporting, not official statement]
2. Kotick is the de-facto ruler of ABK. The acquisition's not happening unless you play ball. If getting ABK under new management and kicking Kotick out requires playing along for a while, then so be it.
3. A big part of MS's investment thesis here seems to be "ABK's assets are worth more than $69B, but their scandals are suppressing their valuation. We can fix the scandals and better realize the IP's true value". MS will be stupid to let ABK keep going without decisively handling the scandals.
- movedx 5y ago> 3. A big part of MS's investment thesis here seems to be "ABK's assets are worth more than $69B, but their scandals are suppressing their valuation. We can fix the scandals and better realize the IP's true value". MS will be stupid to let ABK keep going without decisively handling the scandals. This is the correct answer. The intrinsic value of the company is worth more than the share price, which is being pulled down by the scandals and highly negative PR. Microsoft have bought a bargain.
- KittenInABox 5y ago> 1. It's been reported that Kotick will leave once the acquisition is finalized (i.e. when MS actually owns the company). If and when that doesn't happen, _then_ I'll join in on the criticism. Do you have a source for that? Not because I disagree but I really want to hope you're right, and I would like evidence to make that belief have some real evidence.
- RandomBK 5y agoAlas, I now realize this was not in an official statement, but merely reporting by the WSJ. I'll edit my comment to make that clear.