Wii U sells 400k units in US in first week.
Wii U retail impressions?
- Thread starter BRiT
- Start date
Ninjaprime
Regular
33% better than Wii in its first week, but clearly all the fanboys and graphics wh0res are correct in their assumption of its failure...
33% better than Wii in its first week, but clearly all the fanboys and graphics wh0res are correct in their assumption of its failure...
That's incorrect. Wii sold 600k in it's first 8 days.
Wii sold 300k last week.
Yeah. Early on with limited availability, sales don't mean a great deal. XB360 sold less in its first week I think. In those cases the eBay value is more indicative of demand I believe. At first i thought 400k wasn't many, but in this age of multimillion selling iOS device headlines, I guess I've lost perspective.
I can never understand why Americans think stock price has anything to do with real whole foriegn companies. Apple has over a billion dollars of cash, regardless of current or future stock price.
Oh and some reviewers hate the wii-u for strange reasons; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B6bLSg9BkQ&hd=1
Oh and some reviewers hate the wii-u for strange reasons; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B6bLSg9BkQ&hd=1
What difference does it make if the company is foreign or not? Market cap tends to track cash - debt, which is the value you're interested in. I assumed Laa-Yosh was afterall talking about cash they could reliably spend.
You will find that they have indeed lost a bunch of cash in the last few years and AFAIK their current value is similar to what the had when the Gamecube was released.
How does this 400k number stack up to other recent console launches? Also, anyone know the weekly sales of PS360? Sites like joystiq used to publish sales numbers every week, but apparently these are now secret or something, as I haven't seen any such info posted there for years, literally.
Exophase said:
First of all the "fell like a cliff in 2008" is not due To the wii but due to the FINANCIAL CRISIS WHERE EVEY SHARE IN THE WORLD PRETTY MUCH DROPPED 50% . Similarly the raise prior to the crisis was during one of the greatest boom markets of all time.
That being said, they have been underperfoming the markets in 2011.. That doesn't necessarily translate to anything (it could but I cba to check their annual Report) about the wii because :
2. Always Compare a stock to an index, or even better it's closest peers(Sony, microsoft, ea games) as what matters is relative performance (stocks are highly correlated due to general market sentiment). Then you need to adjust for dividends which in nintendos case is roughly 4% annually. Then adjust for share issues (stock pice doesnt mean anything it's the market cap (stock price *shares outstanding) and ofcourse enterprise value which is market cap + debt).
Since market cap is a function of enterprise value - debt, anyone can simply lever up a company and the share price will fall. Especially If you use that cash to pay out dividends instead of investing it.
4.. A share price doesn't necessarily indicate if the financial performance is good or bad. It only indicates whether or not the company is beating market expectations. Compare Microsoft stock price with earnings reports. Or better yet, exxon mobil. Plenty of times have it been a year of growth on all accounts but stock price
fell!
It can also indicate that the risk premia has increased and valuation multiples as a result is lower.. The charts attached are not adjusted for dividen yield not share issues as I don't have Bloomberg at home
Attachments
Last edited by a moderator:
Nintendo's stock falling is not ONLY due to that. A lot of companies recovered afterwards, or at least partially. Nintendo just kept dropping.
So you want to talk about the Wii's performance specifically then? Do you want to deny that Nintendo started selling far fewer units, and that the sales gap between Wii and the other two current gen consoles closed considerably?
So you want to talk about the Wii's performance specifically then? Do you want to deny that Nintendo started selling far fewer units, and that the sales gap between Wii and the other two current gen consoles closed considerably?
Exophase said:
No I'm just saying that looking at a share price alone is stupid. I mean fell like a
Cliff in 2008 is a fairly dumb statement as everything fell.
That being said I also believe Nintendo is doing worse and worse...
However with respect to the stock price comments. Nintendo fell 30 something percent in 2009, their best ever year in terms of p&l. ( I cannot see cash flows or detailed p&l as I'm on my iPhone ) Which IMO is a proof that shareprice is a ridiculous metric by itself.
Last edited by a moderator:
Why is it a dumb statement just because everything fell then? It's still relevant. And I wasn't speaking locally, I was referring to their performance since then.
I'm sorry if you think that looking at the share price is stupid (really do you have to insist on such language?), but I think it pretty roughly mirrors their sales performance history. I don't know what P&I is though.
I'm sorry if you think that looking at the share price is stupid (really do you have to insist on such language?), but I think it pretty roughly mirrors their sales performance history. I don't know what P&I is though.
Exophase said:
It's a dumb statement because you attributed the share price fall in 2008 to wii sales when it was only due to the crisis..
Share price in general is not a relevant metric because 50-60% of the volatility in any firms stock is explained by the general market development. In layman terms that means i the market crashes, even the best company in the world falls like a brick.
therefore a poor performing stock doesn't necessarily imply anything, and which is why you should at least look at a share price development relative to an index or other peers. .
Further like already said, the share price by itself has no meaning whatsoever, and has to be adjusted for shares outstanding, dividends and debt. Also as I said earlier, share price development is much about beating market expectations than delivering financial performance. just look at any hyped share since opening of the new York stock exchange you have had it stocks during the late 1990 that showed red numbers but continued growing into astronomical sizes.. There are also plenty of companies that do well financially but share price development is flat because the market expected them to perform in line with current trends and therefore the valuation already reflected the strong performance.
A simple example is when Exxon gives financial guiding for YE2012. Let's say that they guide 15% growth + 30% ebit margin. If they deliver only 10% growth and 30% margin, market cap will fall ( thus share price falls if all thins are equal) even though they did well
If you wanna talk about poor performance just look at their p&l over the last couple years...
.
Last edited by a moderator:
We are cyborgs, and must remember that. Lots of our knowledge no longer exists in our heads, but over the net. Google "business P&L" and recover the knowledge that it's "profit and loss".
Arwin said:
That is always dependent on industries. In many cases improving your margins is tougher than growing sales. For instance an already optimized production line, while it can always improve, could be very costly to upgrade...
Tbh I care the most about ebitda..
Similar threads
