Nintendo Plunges After Saying Pokemon Go’s Impact Is Limited(bloomberg.com) |
Nintendo Plunges After Saying Pokemon Go’s Impact Is Limited(bloomberg.com) |
However, what distressed investor is not the fact that Nintendo didn't adjust quarterly earnings, but the conservative management team refused to signal that they acknowledge the potential of their IP + mobile + new technology such as AR and change their future strategy to be beyond in-house consoles + first party games.
It almost seems to me that their management is embarrassed by the meteoric success of Pokemon Go, considering that they have traditionally been very reluctant of creating contents for smartphones. Now despite their pride, the biggest value jump in their company's history was not lead by any in-house product, but literally a 3rd party American startup writing an app on a platform they traditionally ignored.
I wouldn't be surprised if they are trying to downplay the impact of Pokemon Go just to save face.
Investors, on the other hand, just want to see them acknowledge this potential gold mine and commit a strategy in the future.
On the Nikkei, Nintendo has been hovering between 15,000 and 25,000 yen (or about $150-$250 a share). That's about typical for them in the last 20 years. Since you need 100 shares for a minimum order on the Nikkei, that's a minimum investment of $15-25k. In the middle of the 2000's Nintendo faced some criticism for letting its stock price reach 60,000 yen (minimum investment $60k). They were quite happy with this because they did not want casual investors buying their stock.
Basically nothing to see here.
Sure Nintendo has been able to protect their moat relatively well (after losing their home console castle), but just like the overall Japanese economy, their traditional culture is really limiting how they can compete in today's cutting edge tech markets.
I can guarantee you Nintendo, as a tightly controlled company, could care less about this volatility.
couldn't* care less?
Until Pokemon, Nintendo had been hovering at 15k since the beginning of the year. As of this writing it's at 23220.
All we can take away from this is that Nintendo is still in trouble, just like they have been since before the release of Pokemon Go.
Predicting errors is hard though. You could have shorted Nintendo's stock after Pokemon go came out. But what if they started announcing more Pokemon games for mobile, and they were also huge successes?
You can't rationally predict irrational errors. At best you could have spotted the trend early and jumped off at the right time, but that is still speculating on the degree of irrationality.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2016/07/25/nintendo-d...
It's funny how the plunge, a singular event, is now news, rather than the trend over time. sure enough, last week it was the surge, another singular event... short term view presented in market news never stops amusing.
This is the key point in the article which should be stressed much more.
How can you definitively say it is hype or not?
Here's an article about it written before Pokemon Go came out: http://www.ign.com/articles/2016/04/27/why-nintendo-is-in-re...
why??
> this particular error
It isn't an error, unless you think language has to be perfectly regular and logical with no warts. That's a fantasy. Language develops organically and as such we should expect contradictions and illogical constructions to arise from time to time.
Everyone knows what "could care less" means. There's no external, objective standard by which you can say it's "incorrect". Stop worrying about it.
An example of this type of inversion that has become widespread: in French, "pas" means "not", but originally meant "step", and came into its current meaning via (roughly) the following sequence:
"Je ne marche" (I don't walk) -> "Je ne marche pas" (something like: I don't walk [even a single] step) -> "Je marche pas" (over time, "ne" became dropped in informal speech, and "pas" carries the negative meaning.)
Come to think of it it also explains how "point" is sometimes used instead of "pas".
I've had junior members of staff express genuine surprise when I've corrected such mistakes in documents. It's a difficult thing to do without offense, but when clear meaning is imperative there's no leeway for doubt.
In 20 years time, will people still understand today's silly idioms or try to read them literally? "Nip it in the butt!"
That standard can't be "doesn't make sense", as a lot of language doesn't make sense
Even if language and idioms change, we need more ways to describe fallacies of circular reasoning, not fewer.
There wasn't any sort of serious financial analysis going on, just hype.
