750
CEO Bobby Kotick will leave Activision Blizzard on January 1, 2024 | Schreier: Kotick will depart after 33 years, employees are "very excited." (arstechnica.com)
submitted 2 years ago by [M, B] to c/technology@lemmy.world
100 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

CEO Bobby Kotick will leave Activision Blizzard on January 1, 2024 | Schreier: Kotick will depart after 33 years, employees are "very excited."::Schreier: Kotick will depart after 33 years, employees are "very excited."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 86 points 2 years ago* (3 children)

That entirely depends on your expectations of a company CEO

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/ATVI/activision-blizzard/stock-price-history

I can’t think of a company that wouldn’t hire someone with this kind of stock performance over 30 years.

The issue is really that consumers just keep spending money on things that they hate.

If they didnt do that, Bobby would have been gone a long long time ago

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 35 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I think you're right. I'm pointing moee to his leadership and how he has allowed sexism and other bad behavior to go on without any consequences. He even told an assistant that he would have her killed.. https://www.pcgamer.com/more-shocking-activision-blizzard-revelations-bobby-kotick-once-told-an-assistant-he-was-going-to-have-her-killed/

    He might earn himself and the stockholders a lot of money.. But in my eyes he's a great example of why I don't like capitalism, but that is another discussion tho!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 26 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    He’s obviously a terrible human being, I think you have to be to be a wildly successful CEO.

    But those are the people who are best at running companies. I wouldn’t be good at it, because I’m not a piece of shit

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago* (3 children)

    That's what sucks about capitalism. We're allowing thhattype of trash to run it.

    Wow I'm very anti capitalist today!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    ATVI's stock performance only looks impressive if you don't compare it to anything. Here's a graph comparing ATVI to ONEQ, which is an ETF that tracks the NASDAQ composite index. If anything, ATVI has been slightly underperforming the market average for most of Kotick's tenure as CEO.

    To see what "outperforming the market" looks like, compare ATVI to NVDA. NVDA's stock has increased 16,000% in the 15 years that Kotick has been CEO of ATVI.

    Or to see some video game company stocks that have outperformed the market, compare ATVI to TTWO (Take Two) or CCOEY (Capcom).

    From a purely financial perspective, Kotick was middling at best. He deserves no plaudits. There were plenty of other NASDAQ companies that outperformed the market during the time he was CEO of ActiBlizz, including other video game companies.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Take two is three times smaller via market cap and Capcom is 8 times smaller, just saying looking at stock price alone doesn't tell the full picture.

    Activision has also done multiple stock splits over the last 30 years.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Stock price charts account for all splits/reverse splits, so it wouldn't be a factor when comparing price over time.

    I agree with the first point though. Even just performing slightly below the market with such a massive company would make Kotick very desireable as a new CEO, unfortunately. Maybe some corps would not be fine with his reputation, but I doubt he will struggle to find a position in a new board room.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    The stock price itself does account for it in the charts, but it doesn't speak to the market cap aspect.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The charts are in percent, not dollars. It doesn’t matter that Capcom is 8 times smaller if investing $1 in it still yields a higher return on investment.

    Also, Take Two may be smaller, but… Grand Theft Auto.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Not true, because of stock splits

    Also all I'm looking at is market cap, it doesn't matter what games you like from them lol

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)
    1. That’s not how stock splits are documented. The historical price per share is retroactively divided. Otherwise you’d see the share price suddenly drop by 50%…
    2. Market cap by itself is not an indicator of performance. If I invest $1 billion in a company and it’s worth $1.1 billion 10 years later, is that a better or worse return than investing $1 million in a company that’s worth $2 million 10 years later?
    3. I’m not a particularly big fan of GTA. I mentioned it because it’s the most profitable entertainment product ever created.
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Nah because you're fundamentally misunderstanding what "investing 1 million" would mean after a stock splits happens.

    I do this shit for a living lol

    Also profit doesn't directly translate to a higher stock price, as there are various other aspects (rational and not rational) that can move a stock up or down.

    Here's an example, using your invested a million starting point, for simplicity we'll say we bought in 1 share for $1 so we have 1m shares.

    Price rises to $2, our position is now worth 2m, simple.

    Stock does a 1:4 split, we now have 4m shares with a purchase price adjusted to $0.25 that is now trading at only $0.50 but our position is still worth $2m

    Stock moves back up to $2 after some time, our position is now worth $8m

    Another stock split 1:2 this time, putting us at 8m shares and stock price is back at $1, still $8m position.

    Stock moves back up to $2 after some time, our position is now at $16m

    On a chart it won't look like the stock has increased all that much, yes they do get adjusted for splits as you mentioned but that alone still doesn't really speak to how stock splits effect your gain/loss when held since they continue to grow at a faster rate, higher shares outstanding generally means harder stock price to move since it effects the market cap so much more.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    I understand stock splits completely, and I now see that you do too.

    Looking at the charts again, they do not measure what I initially thought they did. I thought each line represented profit (investor profit, not company profit) as a percentage of the original investment. I did not realize that the lines to not meet at 0% at the earliest time all three stocks could be purchased on the market.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Most consumers just don’t care or don’t know at all who Bobby Kotick is. Call of Duty is so popular, but the people that follow the market or the game industry well enough to know the people behind games aren’t that many.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent