You are lying and name calling, and want to judge other peoples posts (most of which are in your head).
"Were you the #$%$ drinking brigade back in January when you were telling us TTWO was priced in at $11 while Icahn was loading up?"
Were you the guy who repeatedly claimed I was telling people to short TTWO in February at $11 when:
a) I didn't advise shorting it.
b) I wasn't even posting.
c) The stock wasn't in the $11's.
Oh yeah, you were. Then when called out on it you switch your lie to January, except points a and b above still apply. So keep on lying as a smoke screen to avoid valid discussion about the stock.
If you're betting on a left field announcement you must be short? Because there is a bigger history of Z-bombs at earnings than Z making unexpected bullish announcements. He'll maybe hint that they're "exploring" GTAV for next-gen, and he'll give the usual speech about improving operating performance, guiding for profit in non-GTA years, blah blah blah.
I think some here were talking about RDR's impact on earnings and how the stock responded positively to earnings CC's. Not so much. RDR was released May 2010. From Feb 2010 to Dec 2010 TTWO's guidance and ultimate FY results improved gradually each quarter from -$0.50 to $1.06. In that time, TTWO dropped 25% then rebounded though still under-performed the market. It wasn't until Feb 2011's CC that it bounced more to beat the market.
It should be higher today due to the massive cash flow, and maybe earnings will finally be the catalyst to make it move. Or maybe it'll be yet another time the Kool-Aid gang has been more bullish than everyone else. Because if it doesn't pop on earnings, when will it?
Lie about sales, file this lie with the SEC. Follow-up with more lies on 10-Q, also filed with SEC. Oh yeah, that makes perfect sense. Genius plan.
ZM had that $2.5M fee from which they were paying Zelnick, Slatoff and Feder. They dumped Feder, but kept the same fee, so instead of TTWO saving money Zelnick gets paid double.
Which trend line are you talking about? Dates etc.?
ATVI's P/E excl cash before the deal was about 13. Now after the deal (and including the accretive eps effect) their P/E excl cash is about 16, so they've already had a jump in valuation.
pumpkin, it's easy to imagine this in the low $20's based on earnings beat, guidance, momentum from new highs, etc. It's also easy to imagine this at the current price in 6 months, based on lower 2014 earnings and usual lack of visibility.
I was just trying to explain the lack of movement to the spectacular cash flow, not justify it, by suggesting that a fund manager looking at TTWO's chart and upcoming catalysts, compared to the market that always goes up (Bernanke's year end target is 1800 S&P) and to bigger names with more visibility hitting new highs, maybe that's why they aren't buying it? It's so much easier to buy an index, NFLX, AMZN, GOOG, etc.
With Govt data shut down, not a chance Fed tapers any time soon (and they're far more likely to talk about it than do it).
I saw someone mention some "long term trend line" implying $24 target, which IMO is grasping at straws. TTWO is known for its volatility, if you're going to look at any trends then you should also look at monthly, weekly, daily, none of which are very encouraging. The market is up over 4% since we first heard of V's record sales, and TTWO isn't even up a dime and can't even get above the 20ma. That's weak, no matter how bullish you are, you must admit that's objectively weak.
Perhaps it's so easy for someone to pin this at $17 because there aren't enough funds interested enough to squeeze them out of that trade? Maybe fund managers are thinking why throw money at this when the regular indices go higher all the time and have dividends, and GOOG can jump 12% to new highs, and AMZN can hit new all-time highs despite being a non-profit company, so why bother with a stock that doesn't move and that has management who apparently don't care?
The next catalyst is earnings. So far people were wrong about record sales sending TTWO higher, and wrong about NPD sending it higher, third time lucky? Or maybe not. Because if it goes the wrong way at earnings, what then? If it isn't going higher on V's sales, what catalyst in 2014 will send it to $24? The only hope of that will be a buyout, and it's been nearly 6 years since the last (and maybe only?) attempt.
That's not some conspiracy theory thing. The stock is up a whole 10 cents from just before we learned of the game changing sales and what it means for cash flow, while the QQQ's are up 4% in the same time. Why isn't Icahn dropping a tweet, or why is he allowing someone else to manipulate the price e.g. pinning at $17 last options and most of this week?
If GTA only gets 35% of sales from international, and we know it's sold through 3M in the UK already (Gfk/Charttrack), with 2.25M in its first week there, just how weak do you think Canada + Mexico + Japan + mainland Europe + Australia etc. are? If your ratios are correct then the UK is selling as much as all those territories combined. Doesn't sound right, does it?
NPD has GTAV at over 50% of all dollars spent, i.e. over $504M. This includes some portion of PS3 sales as GTA bundles, I'm going to guess 50K. This puts NPD's estimate (remember, they estimate US retail sales from a sampling of IIRC around 60%), at around $490M plus the 50K or so which were in bundles, implying over 7M units.
We know it had record sales in the UK (different tracking company). Add for Canada (nearly 10% of US population) and Mexico, and it all looks in line with TTWO's PR's. It also means GTAV was two thirds of all software sales, which is a) incredible dominance, b) shows how weak everything else was. For instance I read on GAF the new Rayman game only sold about 70K.
How do they get a combined this FY and next FY decrease of 2 cents, from an estimate of 4M more free profit sales than they expected?
"costs associated to the GTA Online debacle"
Cost of title updates is all, which TTWO probably got a great rate on anyway. Worst case $100K. Unless you think the cost of developer salaries is relevant, since they were paying those people regardless how well Online launched.
Your point? BLOPS2 was also on PC and WiiU, and unlike this time last year, WiiU is totally dead. It took 15 days for BLOPS2 to hit $1BN and all signs point to lower interest for this years CoD. Plus it has competition from BF and GTA which didn't exist last year.
4M more units, all 100% profit, and they say that adds 9 cents? What's that, about $2 profit per game sold after all costs already accounted for in earlier sales?
Update, Ghosts on 4 platforms has 75% of the pre-orders that BLOPS2 had on 2 platforms. Kotick says people haven't decided which platform to buy for yet, however BF4 on 4 platforms is dead even with BF3 on 2 platforms so no such issues for EA it seems.