Nintendo Shares Plummet After Investors Realize It Doesn't Actually Make Pokemon Go (theverge.com) 192
Sam Byford, reporting for The Verge: Nintendo shares have skyrocketed since Pokemon Go's release and instant transformation into global cultural phenomenon, but they fell dramatically today after investors realized that Nintendo doesn't actually make the game. Nintendo put out a statement after the close of trading on Friday pointing out that the bottom-line impact will be "limited" as it only owns 32 percent of The Pokemon Company, and that revenue from the game and its Pokemon Go Plus smartwatch peripheral have been accounted for in the company's current forecasts. Pokemon Go is a collaboration between The Pokemon Company and Niantic Labs, the developer who previously created the similar AR game Ingress as part of Google. This apparent revelation caused shares to plummet in Monday trading, with the stock dropping 17 percent at one point, representing about $6.4 billion in value; as Bloomberg notes, Tokyo stock exchange rules prevent share prices from moving more than 18 percent in a single day.
Breaking news: investors are idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
The real news here isn't really about Nintendo or Pokemon.
The real news is about investors pumping billions into a company without even the most cursory research.
Re:Breaking news: investors are idiots (Score:5, Interesting)
The real news here isn't really about Nintendo or Pokemon.
The real news is about investors pumping billions into a company without even the most cursory research.
Gotta jump on them stocks fast!
Re:Breaking news: investors are idiots (Score:5, Funny)
The real news here isn't really about Nintendo or Pokemon.
The real news is about investors pumping billions into a company without even the most cursory research.
Gotta jump on them stocks fast!
Gotta buy 'em all?
Re: (Score:3)
Knew I should have shorted Nintendo when I saw the articles saying their share prices sky rocketed with the release of Pokemon.
Re: (Score:2)
This. A lot of money was still made.
Re: (Score:3)
And an equal amount of money was lost.
Can't play with babies (or shit flinging monkeys) without getting some shit on you.
Re: (Score:2)
Short now dude... I'm guessing they will shed another 18% once the retail investors find out the stock just tanked and their 401k's just took a hit..
Wana make even more, quicker, with less investment? You should have considered options when it was on the way up. Could have traded a bunch of contracts which would now be "In the money" big time.. (How would you like to have a pile of PUTs at 10% under the peak price right now? They would have been cheep on Friday.)
Re:Breaking news: investors are idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the laws of physics still forbid investing with the benefit of hindsight.
Re: (Score:2)
Read the article... This stock hit the stops in Tokyo which stops trading a stock that looses 18% in one session. Read my reply, I clearly state that I expect it's going to continue to fall in the next session. You may not be able to trade the stock right now, but you CAN trade options.
But none of that matters, I was telling somebody what they *should* have done when they said the following:
Knew I should have shorted Nintendo when I saw the articles saying their share prices sky rocketed with the release of Pokémon.
I was telling them that you could make more using options than selling short with about the same risk, likely wit
Re: (Score:2)
I was telling them that you could make more using options than selling short with about the same risk
You make about the same with about the same risk. Some people prefer one over the other, but in practice, they are effectively interchangeable. Options reduce maximum loss (risk) and maximum gains. If you use options and the price doesn't change, you lose money. If you sell short, and the price doesn't change, then you don't lose money. Options are better about magnifying investments. A smaller payment for a greater potential gain. So long as you don't finance your sell short, which so many do, in whi
Re: (Score:2)
You are thinking way too one dimensional on how options trading works. There are many ways options are used.
Just doing option trading is usually only successful when you are armed with a workable strategy and that usually involves some kind of technical analysis and automation that looks for specific queues in the options chains for favorable conditions for a transaction. Such trading is usually very high frequency, and traders are in and out in seconds or min.
Mixing options into a trading strategy wher
Re: (Score:2)
but you CAN trade options.
Only if you find a really stupid person to trade with.
Believe it or not: You can't just walk into a stockbroker and buy whatever you want. Sometimes they say "no".
Re: (Score:2)
Wana make even more, quicker, with less investment? You should have considered options when it was on the way up.
Wow, that is a great idea! Do you have any other investment tips that require a working time machine?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Instead of shorting, I would suggest to just sell the stocks.
Shorting Stocks is buying against the company. So you will have 100 stocks in Nintendo and 100 stocks against Nintendo in essence 0ing your value.
Now Stock shorting is good for reducing volatility in stocks where a similar stock is expected to follow the trend, but not as much. So if both go up, the more volatile stock will still go up but not as much. And when they go down the same thing. Preventing a massive crash.
Re:Breaking news: investors are idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that, but they don't understand the costs involved. 18% sounds like easy money, but you pay a commission to buy and sell, and you also pay rent for the stock that is already priced based on the fact it might go up/down. In the end you could have made a tiny bit of money, or lost some. And if you're shorting things frequently, you'd be losing a lot of money even if you believed each of them would move 18% because you have to be right, and right on the right days.
Probably a lot of these people saying
Re: (Score:2)
Or buy a put option.
Re: (Score:2)
You're still adding overhead, it costs you more than just buying and selling regularly. So if you're actually able to time price swings, you would make less money. And if you turn out to only be average at it, you lose money.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why I don't actually short, or usually even buy individualy, stocks. I just crack wise about it on discussion forums. I much prefer funds and long term for actual investing.
Re: (Score:2)
Well said.
Watch The Big Short [imdb.com] for more information delivered in a very entertaining format.
Re: (Score:2)
You should have shorted it right after you installed the app and say it was garbage. It's a real stretch to even call it a game. The user base is already declining.
https://www.surveymonkey.com/b... [surveymonkey.com]
Re:Breaking news: investors are idiots (Score:4, Informative)
The real news here isn't really about Nintendo or Pokemon.
The real news is about investors pumping billions into a company without even the most cursory research.
Investors, by definition, would have sought enough information to know this. The trouble is with the traders, including the automated algorithms that trade based on news wire feeds.
Re: (Score:2)
Not the ones that cashed out. They knew what would happen. Deciding when was the tricky part. All these unicorns out there might crash the entire market real good this fall. It's the new "sub-prime" thing. Here's lookin' at you, Uber..
Best to get out in AugustSeptember and reenter in December/January to pick up the pieces real cheap. Even if the market doesn't crash, it will take its usual election year dip, so there's still money to be made.
Re:Breaking news: investors are idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not really all that hard, you just have to avoid greed. You sell some as soon as it hits a predetermined point, and some more at another higher predetermined point. Remember, if goes even higher, you aren't losing money by not getting that price, you've made money no matter what. Nintendo isn't a pump and dump stock, so if you end up with some left over at the normal price when the bubble pops, you're doing just fine.
Also, when the stock plummets you have some buy orders when the market irrationally decides that now the company is completely worthless because it isn't overpriced and you make even more money by using your gains on Nintendo to buy Nintendo when everyone is underpricing it. When Nintendo's stock price levels out, you've made even more money.
You will have a problem if you're holding all your cash for that "perfect moment" where you can maximize your take. That's how you end up getting your ass handed to you in sudden downturns in price or you simply miss most of the profit. Free money is free money. Don't get greedy.
Re: (Score:2)
What you are describing is called "investing". What most people want out of the stock market is better described as "gambling".
Re: (Score:2)
This is why God invented options... You can, for a minimal investment, hedge yourself and make it less necessary to time the buy's and sells exactly right.
Better yet, don't get into risky positions with fast moving stocks going in either direction.... Any time you are trading on split second timing, I can assure you the big boys will always win that game. Best to not play games you are sure you cannot win.
Re: (Score:3)
Unicorns crashing are unlikely to cause a crash of the 2008 type. That happened because the housing market was out of control AND because housing "packages" were resold 6 or 8 times, thus creating an illusion of 6 or 8 times the amount of money existing. (In the sense that a classical savings&loan doubles the apparent amount of money available).
I rather doubt than a unicorn crash could even rival the first dotcom crash circa 1999.
Re: (Score:3)
The real news is about investors pumping billions into a company without even the most cursory research.
I wouldn't necessarily call that news....did you see how much Theranos was valued at just under a year ago, before it came to light that they didn't have anything revolutionary?
https://science.slashdot.org/s... [slashdot.org]
That $9 Billion valuation was given by Forbes.....not just a bunch of day traders buying up stock. If a "respected" voice in the financial industry can get it that wrong, I don't expect John Q Public to do any better.
Re: (Score:2)
That $9 Billion valuation was given by Forbes.....not just a bunch of day traders buying up stock. If a "respected" voice in the financial industry can get it that wrong, I don't expect John Q Public to do any better.
Actually valuation numbers like "$9B" simply meant that a company claims that for the amount of money received from some sucker, the investors only got "N%" share** of the company.
In the case of Theranos, it was N~4%. Forbes (and other industry trade-press) did not give the valuation, it merely reported what Theranos said some sucker private equity firms were bamboozled into paying for a share of the Theranos dream...
Maybe John Q Public doesn't get that this effectively means the news source of the valuati
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which isn't really news either, because stock brokers and investors are idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
Which isn't really news either, because stock brokers and investors are idiots.
Actually, stock brokers are not the idiots in this scenario because they are the ones that made money on commissions because of the idiot investors want to buy shares (and they will make money again when the investors sell the shares for a loss).
As they say, look around the poker table: if you can’t see the sucker, you’re it...
Re: (Score:2)
Seems most investors don't research now anyway...it is all automated with HFT. The trick is to modify and change your algorithms before you get stuck with a bunch of stock that goes worthless fast...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't play the game or invest in nintendo but even I already knew this. My brother pointed out that Niantic had made another game he thought sucked the day it came out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Think options... This buy and sell of the actual stock idea is an antique thing. If you are trying to do these trades based on timing the market, you are missing out when trading the actual stock, but taking all the risk anyway. For the same risk, options require a lower investment up front and that means you can make more per dollar invested (better returns).
Of course.... KNOW what you are doing first, because the big brokerage houses do this kind of thing very well and will eat your lunch, breakfast an
Herd (Score:2)
The herd realized it over the weekend and sent each other emails? How does this happen en masse? Suddenly one person realizes something that is publicly available information, and mentioned in many articles? Presumably at least *some* people knew.
Re: (Score:2)
The news seems to miss the news, and pat itself on the back.
Nintendo "doesn't actually make Pokemon Go," they just own a significant portion of the Pokemon company. Oh, so they do own that. Oh, they don't actually make the software for the game... but they are the major owner of the company that sells the license and makes the money off merchandise.
Who is more clueless, the investors that thought this being such a huge market hit that there are Pokemon zombies on all the sidewalks would sell merch, or the r
idiots (Score:3)
Nintendo has lots of worthy IP that could be made into mobile games, using Mario, Link, etc. There's plenty of potential left at Nintendo if they simply move beyond console gaming.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:idiots (Score:5, Interesting)
Nintendo's position seems to be that they can keep innovating in the console space, and keep their position atop a heap of their own making. They don't want to deliver on someone else's platform, because it isn't as profitable. They are going after big long term profit, not reactionary short term profit.
No matter how many times folks at Nintendo explain this, people still don't seem to get it - maybe the same people who invest in Nintendo after another company releases Pokemon Go. Or maybe because it's a bigger gamble or bolder play, and most people are very risk averse, they can't wrap their heads around it?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah what idiots. They only had revenues of $4.6bn USD last year from their IP on consoles. It's incredible how stupid they are for sticking to what they know best.
Re: (Score:2)
The size is irrelevant. You need to compare that to total profit which is a fraction of that number. But the key part is that this is their core business, it is what they know best. You can't magically increase that number by going into the mobile space and expect to turn it into a profit, there are huge costs involved.That's like saying I'm an engineer today maybe I should change and be a doctor tomorrow since their numbers are better, and then ignoring the multiple years of no income due to studying at un
Re: (Score:3)
Up, down, flying around (Score:4, Informative)
It's still 60% above what it was on 7th July... but doesn't seem to be done plummeting yet.
Just let them get Wii U Zelda out before folding, eh?
Here's something for graph fans, since there wasn't one of the share price:
http://abstrusegoose.com/191 [abstrusegoose.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Nintendo has been around for a very, very, VERY long time (late 1890s?)
If you think they're going anywhere, you're sorely mistaken.
Great example of a key flaw in the stock market (Score:5, Insightful)
Automated trading only reinforces the problem, since it magnifies emotionally driven market conditions.
Re: (Score:2)
Too much emotion, not enough reason.
Reason has been educated out of our system, and replaced with Emotion. Much easier to manipulate the masses is all you have to do is cry "Hate" and have a bunch of kneejerk reactionaries goosestep the same way.
These things are related.
Re: (Score:3)
I wouldn't worry, this is hardly going to put Nintendo out of business. The only losers are those who didn't understand that this was a bubble and that they needed to take their money while they could get it while it was streaking upward, because it was very soon to come straight down again.
Nintendo will bounce off of the opposite and equally emotional response to sell and be back at their usual price in a little while.
If we'd only stop bailing out the losers who make these kinds of mistakes, the market wo
Re: (Score:2)
and a third party (Nintendo) suffers for it.
Man I wish I could suffer so much that I'm still worth 50% more than what I was despite the tumble.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Too much emotion, not enough reason. Excess enthusiasm and pessimism are the top causes of market instability. People got whipped up into a buying frenzy based on bad/incomplete information, and a third party (Nintendo) suffers for it.
How has Nintendo suffered? I can't see how.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now, now. I've been told time and time again that the efficient markets hypothesis is true, and anyone who says otherwise simply doesn't understand economics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Great example of a key flaw in the stock market (Score:5, Insightful)
The market corrects for it by brutally penalizing those who make bad decisions and rewarding those who make good ones.
If only that were true....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Great example of a key flaw in the stock market (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's true, thanks for the clarification :-)
Re: (Score:2)
If you think big companies and governments are truly separate, then I have a bridge to sell you. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
The market penalized the companies, NOT the people running those companies.
Those people had their "golden parachutes" ready so they could bail themselves out of the companies, letting the companies collapse on to the workers.
Re: (Score:2)
As to the "workers", nothing will come of this particular spike in the price of Nintendo.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're citing government actions, not the market
The government spends money, therefore the government is part of the market.
Definitely time to short THAT stock, then!
Who saw this coming? (Score:3)
I'm surprised so many people didn't see this coming. The share price was totally out-of-whack with reality. I'd have shorted the hell out of Nintendo's stock (if I had money and the means to do so). Surely, someone with money did? Anyone here?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not seeing where you had some special insight into this event.
You don't need special insight to see a bubble event forming, just use the two eyes you have and apply the common sense that maybe a company didn't magically double in material value simply because a game which shows all the signs of a temporary craze is popular this week. When the stock market suddenly spikes positively for a company which hasn't announced any major new physical or tangible achievement you can always assume a correction will come. It's only a matter of time before investors actually settle
Re: (Score:2)
Care to show me your post where you predicted this?
You caught me AC! I didn't post it on slashdot so I couldn't possibly have thought of it earlier or discussed it with other humans (with friends last week at lunch).
I guess if slashdot is your only means of communicating with other humans, then it makes sense to believe that discussions not posted on slashdot couldn't have happened.
Mark Twain quote from The Big Short (Score:4, Insightful)
Pump and dump Does someone need to look in to this (Score:2)
Pump and dump Does someone need to look in to this
Game Freak? (Score:2)
Isn't the Pokemon Company the company that handles Merchandising, but Game Freak the ones that create and Publish the games? Isn't it supposed to be the case that Neither of these companies directly tied to Nintendo, and Game Freak could be considered a Third Party Developer like WayForward?
The real reason is this one line: (Score:2)
Shares falling %17 after growing nearly %100, meh (Score:4, Informative)
Is this accurate? (Score:4, Interesting)
Now I'm seriously confused as to how the stock market works. Is it really full of that many idiots that just throw money at anything without doing ANY research beforehand? The only real tie that Nintendo has with Pokemon is their tie to The Pokemon Company, so why didn't people jump on those stocks?
Re: (Score:2)
As USians, we can't buy The Pokemon Company (it's a Japanese company), and Niantic isn't publicly listed, so we can't buy it either. Nintendo is listed in Japan, but it trades here under a special stock called an ADR (American Depository Receipt) here in the US. Since Nintendo owns parts of these other companies, buying the ADR was the only way some investors could get in on the action.
As I watched the stock, it jumped initially because of the Pokemon Go news (from ~$17 to $27), then it consolidated. That a
apple, the big winner... (Score:2)
Some analysts have appeared to suggest that the 30% iTunes cut from in game purchases of poke-crap might net them $1B over the next couple years...
Of course that's a drop in the bucket for Apple, and everything may fizzle before poke-crap becomes popular, so you never know...
Re: (Score:2)
Pokemon is owned by three companies.
Nintendo
Game Freak
Creatures
Game Freak and Creatures are both subsidiaries of Nintendo.
They all have different roles in what happens with the IP.
Niantic is a subsidiary of Google who writes mobile games leveraging the Google Maps data.
Re: (Score:2)
I am surprised that people don't think that Niantic owns the Pokemon trademark. Take a look at the title screen. [ytimg.com] It says "Niantic <br/> [Niantic Logo] <br/> The Pokemon Company." It looks like "The Pokemon Company" is Niantic's tagline. That's not typically how a company is named.
In other news (Score:2)
In other news, people who invest in stocks are often idiots with no clue as to 1) how the market works, 2) who makes what, or 3) why a stock price goes up or down.
I'm only surprised they weren't calling their stock brokers and telling them to "Get me 5000 shares of something called 'Pokemon!'"
Ride the wave, bail before it crashes. (Score:2)
I don't think folks on the market were idiots, at some point due to market hype some folks hopped on hoping to ride the wave and to jump before it crashed. I think a lot of folks knew that it was way overvalued but decided to buy into it in the hopes to catch the wave. Some high speed trading systems that caught it early probably managed to make some decent money before it started to collapse again.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If the Business and Economic sector weren't filled with stupid people; and economics and business management education even in the top Universities weren't filled with bad teaching (either by design or by pure stupidity) and too much philosophizing and misinformation,
we wouldn't be having cycles of economic crisis constantly happening. The worst is the education part, because people put more credence on ideological and theorizing bullshit rather than complex situational analysis (because following a preferr
Re: (Score:3)
Re:"Business People" (Score:5, Insightful)
The stock market isn't rational. It never was.
A company lays off people the stocks go up. Not because the company is restructuring to something new, but because that is what people are told is how it works. Layoffs raise the stock prices. So you hear about layoffs you run to try to get the price before it rises more.
Re:"Business People" (Score:4, Interesting)
The stock market is insane. I never understood why the market would shoot up or down in a matter of hours based on some transient event. I blamed it on the stupidity of traders and their shortsightedness. That isn't completely wrong but then I read about our favorite people, hedge fund traders, having to make large short-term profit to stay alive. (It would be better if they all disappeared, I think, but that's another discussion.)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Well, I won't dispute the market is insane, but the huge money is made on short-term variance ("derivatives"), not long-term tendencies. So, the more it floats, the more money "the right people" makes.
Which actually means the market is a travesty that should be replaced by something else that only operates in the long term, but there you have it.
Re: (Score:2)
Hedge fonds are usually extremely long term fonds.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A company lays off people the stocks go up.
Layoffs are a sign that a company is finally getting a grip on out-of-control expenses, and they usually happen long after they are obviously needed. The stock rise would only be irrational if layoffs did not result in rising profits, but they usually do. If you really believe investors are irrational, you can short the rising stock and get rich when it collapses. When that happens, please come back here and post a picture of your yacht.
Re: (Score:2)
This is how you exploit the market. If looking at this history and financials of the company the layoff looks like desperate flailing before the fall you can target your strategy more specifically and have a much larger yacht.
Re: (Score:2)
What in the world do you think a stock price means in the context of "rational"? The price of a stock is the last price that the stock was traded for.
That is, if the price goes up or down, that means that someone actually owned shares, and sold it to someone else looking to buy. Why would someone want to buy a stock? A stock is a share of ownership, including the capital owned by the company (machinery, contracts, and IP), plus the expected payouts to the owners (shareholders) over the course of the company
Re: (Score:3)
The stock market isn't rational.
^^^ This is the single most important thing you can learn about the market if you intend to invest in stocks.
The market isn't rational, it has virtually no predictable cause and effect, and it's subject to the whims of forces beyond anyone's ability to forecast.
Re:"Business People" (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't know who gave this analogy:
The stock market is like a bet on the outcome of a beauty contest.
You see all the beauties, and probably can easy pick your favourite, however: you have to bet whom the jury will choose.
Betting who the jury will choose, is a complete different thing than deciding which is the most beautiful or agreeing with friends at a table about the three most beautiful ones.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the Keynesian beauty contest [wikipedia.org]:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Layoffs increase profitability.
They increase short term profitability, only because operating costs go down. And of course, if you reduce force, you are less poised to execute so it's *only* short term since next quarter your deliverables will again be scaled to your workforce.
Even if you look at it like the company trimming the fat, the fact they are structured to allow the fat to develop in the first place is a bad thing. How many companies come back from a "reduction in force" to become profitable? Some do, most don't. It's usually a
Re: (Score:3)
Curious if you bought Cyanongen, Inc (or whatever it's called)?
Nope. I have evaluated trading, and have found that it's not for me. I did it for a few months, and didn't like the results. Compulsive reading, trouble sleeping, and a return of 10% per month wasn't worth it. It's so much easier to get a good salaried job and put 10-20% of that in mutual funds. The stress is zero. And the returns match the market. It might delay the date at which I can retire completely, but I'll certainly live longer.
I have a friend making good returns playing the news. Wait for s
Re: (Score:2)
In some ways but it does correct itself.
The thing is an unregulated market will correct itself but it will experience massive highs which everyone will love than massive drops with could put people in the poor house or dead. So if unchecked people could be putting a lot of money in a failing business until it fails, once it fails it had corrected all the over investments.
However that is economic theory. Real life has real people who need to make it in the world. So there needs to be a moderating force. Regu
Re:Niantic Sux (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
More than my previous games ever got for updates.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I'd stay away from pokemongo but that's just me.
"Pokemongo only pawn in game of life." [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Retail investing should be banned. Unwashed masses should only be allowed to by index funds.
Wow - this has to be the stupidest thing I have ever seen.
Please lets start with a few problems:
1. Please define Unwashed Masses and give a definition that will show who is in/out of the group that isn't allowed to trade
2. Please define index fund - separate an index fund from something like Magellan which is one of the larges funds in the world, but is far from an index fun
Now that we have that out of the way, explain how making choices for myself should be made unlawful? Are you going to ban the lotte