Gnawkz

I agree the concept works in theory, but it was being practiced by Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac prior to their bailout.

The biggest problem with this logic is the assumption these companies will make money on a forward basis to utilize those carryforward losses as tax write offs in the future. ONLY if profits are made can these assets be realized.

But if the FI does not make money in the near or mid-term future (since the fees associated with mortgage servicing, packaging, securitization, etc. were a huge part of the profit), then essentially these writeoffs cannot be considered an asset.

In addition, I do not think it is a good idea to treat these assets as a capital as it would make the Capitalization ratio utterly worthless. If people are asking for their money, you cannot give them a piece of paper saying these are our losses that can be used to offset ur income and pay less taxes.

EA’s bid extension was actually expected. FTC’s request for more information and Take 2’s un-willingness to comply sorta of foretold this.

It makes no sense for EA to raise the bid unless the FTC has given it the full blessing. EA is not going to walk as extending the bid 4 times means it DESPERATLY wants Take 2.

If EA raise the bid now … and the FTC says no, wasted effort. So therefore it only makes logical sense to wait, until the government finally gets around to finishing the review.

But in the end this is still a prediction. It might have been blind luck and he just happens to make the more correct guess ... 6 out of 10 times.

In the end, to seriously look at whether or not his comments holds merit, we need to analyze how many of his comments have so far been true about the merge ... and in this case NONE.

Thats the key in ur argument, once they buy Take 2 ... everyone knows they need Take 2 without it they are a dying company.

We dont want the company to disappear, just to become small enough to understand that rehashing is not the way to go.

The movie license is pure profit. Lets do some math for everyone.

http://www.forbes.com/technology/2006/12/19/ps3-xbox360-costs-tech-cx_rr_game06_1219expensivegames.html

Based on Forbes calculation for revenue breakup of who gets what from a game ... the publisher and distributer gets 1.5% or for Take 2, 3% since they are both.

So a $60 game would make Take 2 $1.80 per game sold.

If the BioShock Movie license was sold for $10 Million + 10% Gross Revenue of movie (Halo Movie Deal), then we are looking at the equivalent of 5.5 Million games shipped ...

If BioShock Movie was $25 Million with no royalty payments, then that is equivalent of ~14 Million units shipped.

This is pure money. This is more than EA has made for the last 3 quarters. This is worth a lot since it is pure money, and if BioShock does well, then the sequel is gonna cost a lot more.

I agree w/ Vasilis and John. It can be seen that its because the low volume therefore the high price.

The XPS has the more volume so Dell is able to charge the same amount.

With their budget line, volume is what makes them money, without it, price goes up.