• Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.

Discussion (VGC) Saudi Arabia has reportedly increased its stake in Nintendo again

Smart buy after the recent dip. Probably won't get much lower.
 
Dcubed said:
Nintendo really should consider more share buybacks while they’re in a position of strength.

They’re quite vulnerable right now and the SA Fund are clearly looking to wrestle more and more control…
Click to expand...
As far as I can tell the Saudi's haven't really "wrestled" control away for anything, they just seem to want to be a decent sized minority owner with a finger in every pie.
 
Oh well. SA buying shares repeatedly clearly shows they have the intention of owning a considerable part of Nintendo. I hope not, but I better preprare to see the little progress we had lately in representation and diversity go down the drain.
 
Leo said:
I hope not, but I better preprare to see the little progress we had lately in representation and diversity go down the drain.
Click to expand...
are they really beholden to a 7% owner? can't they just make their gay squid game and tell them to sell if they don't like it?
 
I'd be surprised if 7% would even grant you the right that Nintendo suits listen to what you want to say.

Ultimately, this is the downside of a public traded company, anyone can buy shares.

Maybe someone can add to this, but i believe that a majority of Nintendo shares are in private hands, so it would be really difficult for anyone to gathere a controlling share.
 
Ah, another thread where people that don't know how shares and the stock market work panic about nothing.

A quick recap of concepts:
-Publically traded shares of a company are exchanged in third party stock exchanges. Nintendo has absolutely no say on who buys their shares, because they have been bought off other private investors.
-You need to have a significant percentage of shares of a company to be able to influence any of it's decisions. 7% shares means you get 7% of available votes on decisions, which means you'd still need another 43% of votes to really control anything.
-Most of Nintendo shares are actually held by Nintendo and trusted private investors especially to prevent anyone from getting a controlling stake on them.
-Stock holders don't actually get to micromanage what games contain or deal with.
 
Leo said:
Oh well. SA buying shares repeatedly clearly shows they have the intention of owning a considerable part of Nintendo. I hope not, but I better preprare to see the little progress we had lately in representation and diversity go down the drain.
Click to expand...
This is not what's been happening with SNK, and they are fully owned.
 
PIF has been increasing their shares across the board (Capcom also just jumped 1%), this isn't Nintendo specific.

Current holdings;

EA: 5.8%, #2 shareholder
Activison: 5.84%, #3
Take-Two: 6.8%, #3
Nintendo: 6.07% #2
Capcom: 6.19%, #3
Square Enix: 4.32%, #6
Koei Tecmo: 5.3%, #5
Embracer: 8.1%, #2
Nexon: 9.49%, #2
NCSoft: 9.6%, #2
 
Tangerine_Cookie said:
Ah, another thread where people that don't know how shares and the stock market work panic about nothing.

A quick recap of concepts:
-Publically traded shares of a company are exchanged in third party stock exchanges. Nintendo has absolutely no say on who buys their shares, because they have been bought off other private investors.
-You need to have a significant percentage of shares of a company to be able to influence any of it's decisions. 7% shares means you get 7% of available votes on decisions, which means you'd still need another 43% of votes to really control anything.
-Most of Nintendo shares are actually held by Nintendo and trusted private investors especially to prevent anyone from getting a controlling stake on them.
-Stock holders don't actually get to micromanage what games contain or deal with.
Click to expand...

Did anyone here said anything that contradicts your points?

I don't need to be lectured about how the stock market works, if you're referring to my post, I said that there is tendency of SA buying more and more shares, 7% doesn't give them control over anything, but that number keeps increasing. I didnt' say it's a problem now, but could be in the future if the tendency holds true.

And shareholders can't micromanage games, but that doesn't mean they have no influence over the general direction of the company as whole, and "refrain from dealing with LGBTQ topics" is just an example of a general direction that absolutely could be pushed by shareholders.

Now other members are saying that SA might not be interested in exerting any control more than they're just happy to own a part of a lucrative company and that might be true, but it also might not be, or it might be true for a while and no longer be at some point. No one knows. In that uncertainty, I just preferred they weren't buying those shares and that's the sentiment I was trying to express.
 
Last edited:
Raccoon said:
at what point can the PIF stop the gay squids? what number do they have to hit?
Click to expand...

If they hit 51%, which they mathematically can't, they technically could.

It's unlikely they even would if they could hit the magic number because they are in more for the money than anything else, and you don't fuck with a business that still gives you money.
 
Leo said:
No, but they keep increasing their share. SA obviously is interested in having more control.
Click to expand...

I doubt it.

Quick math with FAKE numbers.

SA has a $1T Sovereign Wealth Fund. This is broken into 10 separately manage $100B mini funds.

One of those mini funds holds 20 different companies, and wants each of those companies to represent a fixed % of that $100B.

Nintendo is one of them, with a 5% target (AKA hold $5B of Nintendo at all times). Nintendo has a market cap of $50B, so they own 10%.

Nintendo price drops 20%, meaning their holding drops to $4B of $99B. Nintendo market cap is $40B.

In order to get back to that 5% target within their own portfolio, they buy $1B more Nintendo.

Saudi Arabia now owns 12.5% of Nintendo.



Again, these numbers are fake, and there's a lot more math & research in real life, but the point is to demonstrate that this can happen without any explicit attempt in having more control. It's just a rebalance after a price drop. Nintendo's price has been downward for the last 12+ months, so they would need to increase their holdings in order to meet their own internal targets.
 
Even if they don't have control over what Nintendo does, it's the owners that make money (in dividends) from its success, i.e. from you and me buying video games. It's not something you can affect, but it matters.
 
0
k9np6ambpew71.jpg

> tomodachi 3 comes out
> still can't be gay
> nintendo says the saudis made them
> mfw
 
This isn't a ploy to have control of what a company outputs, they are in this to make a shit ton of money from successful endeavours. They are doing everything they can to diversify away from oil.
 
Dcubed said:
Nintendo really should consider more share buybacks while they’re in a position of strength.

They’re quite vulnerable right now and the SA Fund are clearly looking to wrestle more and more control…
Click to expand...
Nintendo owns a controlling share in their own company, they can’t be bought out.
 
Dcubed said:
Nintendo really should consider more share buybacks while they’re in a position of strength.

They’re quite vulnerable right now and the SA Fund are clearly looking to wrestle more and more control…
Click to expand...
Vulnerable how? Nintendo is a majority owner. Saudi Arabia could get 49% and it still wouldn't matter
 
0
Saudi Arabia just wants more money. They don't give a shit about managing video game companies, come on now lol
 
0
You have been banned for two months for continued insensitive posting despite feedback from prior infractions. This is an inclusive, international forum. -PixelKnight, Harina, Derachi
First Bowser and now the gerudo taking over too?
 
Dcubed said:
Nintendo really should consider more share buybacks while they’re in a position of strength.

They’re quite vulnerable right now and the SA Fund are clearly looking to wrestle more and more control…
Click to expand...
??? Please enlighten me as to how they're vulnerable.
 
0
Raccoon said:
at what point can the PIF stop the gay squids? what number do they have to hit?
Click to expand...
Ok so I just googled "what is gayest number" and apparently it's 57.

Soooo ... I guess 58%. Whew!!

===

So based on some informative posts in this thread, the situation breaks down essentially to "Sovereign Wealth Fund is long on gaming sector".

And wow, Koei-Tecmo is in there (thx Fiendcode ☕). They gotta be the smallest of those companies.

Honestly curious what their criteria is in selecting gaming companies? For instance, no Sega or CDPR?

And in particular, no Sony or Microsoft?

I guess for the latter, they are too ginormous, revenue largely skewed away from gaming, and perhaps already accounted for in another sub-fund.

With Sony tho I've been under impression that lions share of profit come from the gaming sector these days.
 
With how Nintendo has been treat Metroid recently, I would invest in them too if I could.
 
0
Luggage said:
Can they actually have a lot of influence over Nintendo?
Click to expand...
Incredibly unlikely given how Nintendo operates. Nintendo owns a lot of their own shares, and a significant number of private investors are trusted by the company.
 
0
Saudi's play of investing in entertainment has been really interesting

They have obviously been doing it with sports, but it's so interesting to me the angle they want to take is influence in various forms of entertainment
 
0
Leo said:
Did anyone here said anything that contradicts your points?

I don't need to be lectured about how the stock market works, if you're referring to my post, I said that there is tendency of SA buying more and more shares, 7% doesn't give them control over anything, but that number keeps increasing. I didnt' say it's a problem now, but could be in the future if the tendency holds true.

And shareholders can't micromanage games, but that doesn't mean they have no influence over the general direction of the company as whole, and "refrain from dealing with LGBTQ topics" is just an example of a general direction that absolutely could be pushed by shareholders.

Now other members are saying that SA might not be interested in exerting any control more than they're just happy to own a part of a lucrative company and that might be true, but it also might not be, or it might be true for a while and no longer be at some point. No one knows. In that uncertainty, I just preferred they weren't buying those shares and that's the sentiment I was trying to express.
Click to expand...
Shareholders do not vote directly on creative output, even board members don't really have such a finite say in it unless they're actively employed in such a role outside the boardroom. And last I checked, the Board was full and has only one outside director, who had to be nominated and win his seat through shareholder election and meet Tokyo Stock Exchange criteria to be considered.

So the only means to direct ANY of Nintendo's creative output just by owning shares is close to zero possibility and will likely continue to be, since they would likely never be able to put forward a candidate for the BoD that would win a vote if they are there solely to push an ideological opposition to their content, especially because no one outside the corporate entity itself can hold more than 33.3% of a Japanese company by law, as more than that amount demands a tender offer to engage in a hostile takeover and achieve majority ownership.

You can be mad that Nintendo products enrich Prince Bonesaw, but there's no need to create a situation that won't happen.
 
Last edited:
thoughthaver said:
those fuckers already have more money than god why do they need to invest on nintendo
Click to expand...

Because they have money now, but they want to have money in the future.

It's a reasonable assumption to think a significant part of their current profits come from crude oil, which is on its way out relevance wise with the push for electric cars and renewable energy. Which means that profit driver is gonna dry up over time.

Thus, given people that have money tend to want to keep having money, they are diversifying into different markets with the money they have.

Not saying it's good or anything, or defending it, but it does make sense financially.

Shiba said:
Hmmm, makes me rethink of ever touching a Nintendo product again.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you go do that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


Back
Top Bottom