Close
Report Comment to a Moderator Our Moderators review all comments for abusive and offensive language, and ensure comments are from Verified Users only.
Please report a comment only if you feel it requires our urgent attention.
I understand, report it. Cancel

Finance

Stock Ticker: Activision Blizzard

Thu 20 Oct 2011 6:55am GMT / 2:55am EDT / 11:55pm PDT
FinancePublishing

Bobby Kotick's pronouncements may infuriate gamers - but do they really delight investors, as is so often claimed?

Having covered the most valuable games company in the world, Nintendo, in the first instalment of this series a few weeks ago, let's now look across the Pacific to the second most valuable - Activision Blizzard.

In a sense, it's extraordinary that a third-party publisher could even come within knocking distance of challenging the valuation of a successful platform holder of Nintendo's stature. There are certain financial considerations to bear in mind with regard to that - not least of which is that Activision is listed on New York's technology-stock focused NASDAQ, whose investment culture is a world apart from that of Japan's markets - but it still stands as a testament to the sheer strength of the franchises on which Activision has built its business, being primarily Call of Duty and World of Warcraft.

Activision, in contrast to the companies I've focused on so far in this series, hasn't had a bad year at all. Its graph over the past year is a bit bumpy, certainly, but there's a clear seasonality to it. ATVI's valuation peaked towards the end of 2010 as the extraordinary success of Call of Duty: Black Ops became apparent, before falling off through spring and summer - only to begin an even sharper rise as autumn rolled in and excitement began to build around Modern Warfare 3.

1

That's where we stand now with Activision. The stock is trading close to $13, which would be the highest price it's reached since the financial crash of 2008. If last year's trend is repeated, though, it's likely to grow through the next couple of months as well, and some US analysts suggest that a price target of $15 is reasonable. That would actually bring Activision's stocks up beyond the levels it was trading at following the announcement in late 2007 of the merger with Vivendi (and thus, more importantly, Blizzard). The company's shares shot up at that time, and traded at around $14 for several months before heading skywards to roughly the $17 mark when the deal went through in July 2008.

For investors, NPD's headline figures are cold facts, and can't be healthy for Activision's share price.

Those gains were wiped out in the wake of the financial crisis, but three years later, Activision appears to be on the verge of returning to its pre-crash levels - a feat to which few companies in the games business can lay claim. To do so in the face of the constant flow of negativity surrounding retail game sales is even more impressive. Industry insiders know, of course, that much of the lost retail sales are instead flowing through digital channels (and that the rise of revenues from digital distribution, freemium, subscription and other such models probably even outweighs the decline of retail), but for investors, NPD's headline figures are cold facts, and can't be healthy for Activision's share price.

Yet it's worth noting that in spite of its steady performance (and the Buy ratings maintained by many analysts for the stock), Activision isn't entirely a stock market darling. In recent months, certainly, it's done very well indeed, but the reality is that for most of the past 12 months Activision has actually been underperforming the NASDAQ index on which it resides. The following graph is rather lenient to Activision, I should add - it covers exactly 12 months of data, so it starts in the mid-point of the publisher's seasonal rise. If you move the starting needle back only a few weeks, the percentages shift to show that the NASDAQ's rise in the closing months of 2010 actually significantly outperformed Activision Blizzard's. As you can see in the graph reproduced here, ATVI tumbled in the months after Christmas, while the NASDAQ remained fairly healthy until it fell off a cliff in early August, leaving Activision leading the market by the end of the graph.

2

What's going on here, then? It's clear that investors aren't exactly negative about Activision - if they were, you'd expect there to be a lot more movement in the stock, most of it downwards. However, something definitely constrained the price growth of the industry's biggest third-party publisher this year. Could it have been general negativity around the games industry in particular, as distinct from the tech sector as a whole (which is what the NASDAQ composite index effectively tracks)?

The straight answer is no - and here's where the figures get really interesting, and perhaps a little surprising. Activision Blizzard is the industry's 800 pound gorilla, and keeper of what are, right now, the two most valuable franchises in gaming in the form of CoD and WoW. It's got a CEO, Bobby Kotick, who's no stranger to controversy among gaming consumers for his forthright and often confrontational style, which is conventionally explained away as being "what the markets want to hear" - the idea being that Kotick as CEO is making decisions that aren't designed to please the gamers who buy his products, but rather to delight the investors who buy his shares.

Yet, if you stack Activision's share price performance over the past 12 months against its two largest US rivals in third-party publishing, this is what happens:

3

The contrast is stark. Activision is on a growth curve, but when you place it alongside its (smaller) rivals, its curve largely flattens out. Not only has it been mostly underperforming the NASDAQ, it's also been underperforming the companies whose business models most match its own - Electronic Arts and Take Two, long-established publishers who rely on sales of boxed software for the majority of their revenue.

Again, there are various financial and market-related aspects to take into account when looking at that graph. The first and most obvious is that EA and Take Two are smaller companies than Activision Blizzard: EA has a valuation around half that of its larger rival, while Take Two's market cap is around one-tenth that of Activision. As such, they're more inclined to be buffeted about by general market trends than the larger company would be, as is clearly visible especially in the huge slump that hits both companies in mid-August. You can see it on Activision's graph as well, but it's not very pronounced - by glancing back at the NASDAQ graph we can see that it's a general market drop, one which Activision's size nullifies to some extent but to which EA and Take Two alike are more vulnerable.

However, while considering that aspect might smooth out the lines on the graph somewhat, it doesn't alter the fact that EA and Take Two are dramatically outperforming the NASDAQ, while Activision has only nudged slightly ahead of the composite index in the past couple of months. Why is that?

The answer lies back in the most fundamental aspect of how markets work: they reward growth, and get excited about growth potential. Activision Blizzard operates the most successful and profitable massively multiplayer game in history, and remarkably manages to keep its subscription numbers well over 10 million even after so many years on the market. But WoW is a known entity, its parameters baked into ATVI's valuation already, its potential for growth fairly limited. Bioware's The Old Republic, on the other hand, could give EA several million dedicated MMO subscribers, a whole new business bringing a fresh cashflow to the publisher. It's easy to see which of the two things investors will be more excited about.

EA and Take Two are actively trying to create huge new franchises, and far from running off to find safe harbour with the likes of ATVI stock, the markets are rewarding their risk-taking

The same logic applies, for example, to the present high-profile spat between Battlefield 3 and Modern Warfare 3. Nobody with the slightest bit of insight doubts that Modern Warfare 3 is going to be the better-selling game - quite possibly matching its older siblings to join the ranks of the best-selling games of all time - but Activision always releases a massive Call of Duty game for Christmas. EA's challenge to the franchise promises to give Battlefield 3 a huge sales boost, even if it's unlikely to dent CoD's figures much in the process. Again, investors care more for EA's growth than for Activision's sustained but familiar success.

What the market data suggests, more than anything else, is that investors see Activision as extremely solid. There are some things that spook them a little - the high profile decision to put the Guitar Hero franchise to bed, and the negative press it attracted, for example. The publisher's inability to control Blizzard's release schedule also makes revenue projections very difficult, although given that the studio's perfectionism is a core part of its ability to keep on laying golden eggs, it's unlikely that many investors would want to see that particular aspect changed. Overall, Activision's share price weathers storms very handsomely (even the 2008 financial crisis) and shows solid if unexciting growth, focused around holiday quarters.

So is Kotick really delivering what the markets want, as he cuts an abrasive swathe through the specialist gaming sector time and again? Perhaps - for a certain section of the investment community, at least. Solid, slow-burning stocks are always extremely popular, for obvious reasons. On the other hand, though, there's some indication that the markets share the concerns of gamers and other commentators (myself included) regarding Activision's future product strategy, and the likelihood that it will struggle to build new "pillars" to join products like CoD and WoW. EA and Take Two, by contrast, are actively trying to create huge new IPs and franchises, and far from running off to find safe harbour with the likes of ATVI stock, the markets are rewarding their risk-taking and their growth potential.

The Old Republic could give EA several million dedicated MMO subscribers, a whole new business bringing a fresh cashflow to the publisher.

The core question about Activision remains unanswered, then. Kotick's talent and ability to exploit and monetise an existing franchise is unquestionable, but his strategy for finding new franchises to build up into pillars of his business remains to be seen. The firm's deal with Bungie may yet bear abundant fruit, of course, but in the meantime, while Activision's expert franchise-milking may be yielding record-breaking sales year on year, it's clear that some corners of the investment world wouldn't object to a bit more risk and bit more opportunity in the company's future plans.

12 Comments

Darren Stewart Videogame investor

52 17 0.3
Another excellent article, Rob - I'm really enjoying your "Stock Ticker" series.

Nothing in there that I would disagree with but I think it's also useful to look at the p/e ratings of your three example companies to get another view of how the market rates these stocks.

If you look at current year earnings forecasts (i.e. what the companies have told the markets they will earn) then approximately:
o Activision is valued at 16 times earnings
o Electronic Arts is valued at 30 times earnings
o Take Two is valued at 60 times earnings.

So, in terms of earnings growth it really backs up what you have said about the market believing that the earnings growth of those other competitors is likely to be far higher than Activision's. 16 times earnings isn't a "flat earnings growth" multiple so the market still believes (rightly or wrongly) that Activision will grow its earnings over the next few years but not to the same extent as the other two.

Mostly because of what you've said - COD and WoW earnings are both baked in to Activision's share price and it seems unlikely that either of those franchises are going to earn much more money than they currently do. Both have some serious competition coming up and WoW subscriber numbers actually fell recently for the 2nd quarter in a row.

What I think really spooks people about Activision is that beyond CoD and "Blizzard" (WoW, Starcraft, and Diablo 3 coming up) they have actually done a terrible job in managing and creating their ip. Tony Hawk - Dead. Guitar Hero - Dead. Blur - dead.

And what are they doing with their Marvel licences? Spiderman: Edge of Time - metacritic average about 60%, X-men Destiny about 50%. If you split off Blizzard (who pretty much are an autonomous unit) then all you have left from Activision themselves is CoD and a bunch of failing/failed franchises. That's probably the reason why their rating is so low compared to their peers. If there's any crack in CoD or WoW earnings then it will doubtless go much lower.

There's actually a thread on Activision at Bougafer which has a bit more detail.

http://www.bougafer.com - investing in the video games industry

Posted:3 years ago

#1

Klaus Preisinger Freelance Writing

1,137 1,176 1.0
Activision = Blizzard + Call of Duty + cheap license games

EA = owner of major selling franchises of every genre and constantly expanding. Not just into MMOs, but also into other new markets (e.g. The Sims on Facebook, a flood of games on iOS).

It is also worth mentioning that the quarterly report of Activision for Q2/2011 shows a net income of $335 million, however with a giant BUT attached to it. The giant BUT are the $319 million the WoW business generates as net income. If you adjusted the report for a world without WoW, the net income of Activision would drop to $16 million. Granted, during CoD season the net income is going up. EA, on the other hand, is far less dependent on individual titles.

Posted:3 years ago

#2

Thomas Dolby Project Manager / Lead Programmer, Ai Solve

340 292 0.9
Couldn't agree more with the article, Activision Blizzard don't seem to have any surprises up their sleeve at the moment. Kotick is just prodding the cash cows time and time again to get out as much as he can, and all I can see happening is him prodding one time too hard and have it all end in tears.

Posted:3 years ago

#3

Tommy Thompson Studying Artificial Intelligence (PhD), University of Strathclyde

110 0 0.0
Another interesting article. Like Darren I find these an interesting read.

It seems like Activision stock is now trapped within its own seasonal release schedule, with a handful of poor quality licensed games to keep them ticking over before the holidays (why Marvel continues to give them rights to their properties is a mystery to me). As was stated it's now a given that a new CoD will come out in the holiday season, and it seems that they're stock is dependant upon it. You wonder whether the failure to release a CoD in the expected quarter would have greater damage to stock price than the strength of the NASDAQ. I would be curious to see how these fluctuations may stabilise should the consumers interest in CoD wane.

Posted:3 years ago

#4

Andy Bastable Lead Programmer, Microsoft / Rare

12 22 1.8
You left Skylanders off of the analysis -- perhaps because it's not a "core" gaming brand? However, pre-orders are good, as are the metacritic scores. And, indeed, this was announced to investors as one of it's "pillars", particularly due to it's potential in a growth market (transmedia).

Might explain why the stock has been ticking up lately.

Posted:3 years ago

#5

Darren Stewart Videogame investor

52 17 0.3
Okay, you've got me. I didn't mention it because I didn't think it was their ip but....just taken a look and I think I may have got that wrong.

In which case, let's reserve judgement but it has reviewed pretty well so far. It didn't chart that well (#16 in the UK all format, not that high in the Amazon.com charts) so pre-orders can't have been that good but if momentum builds towards Thanksgiving/Christmas then this could be a real plus for them.

http://www.bougafer.com - investing in the video games industry

Posted:3 years ago

#6

Rick Ellis Tech Director, ArenaNet

15 0 0.0
Skylanders looks pretty cool, but I hardly see it as a "pillar"

Posted:3 years ago

#7

John Kauderer Associate Creative Director, Atari

33 5 0.2
I have a feeling MOW3 will under perform expectations with BF3 taking a big piece of the FPS pie. The hardcore is less than enthused about the loss of infinity ward and the legal cases that followed. BF3 gets the first drop beating the MOW release date by almost a month.

Not only that MOW3 launches only a few short days before Skyrim which this old wizard predicts will sell like hotcakes. Gamers on a budget will most likely opt for the first shooter to release and then move on to skyrim. MOW fanatics will still buy it so it will certainly sell big numbers, I just have a feeling it will sell less than Black Ops.

Sorry Activision. You still have Blizzard though!

Posted:3 years ago

#8
Gamers are (at least in forums) quite irate about CoD. If they put their money where their mouth is, CoD is set to repeat Guitar Hero's path to the last detail

-meteoic rise up

-new installment set to shatter the earth, all records

-sells well, but lots of people start feeling the whole thing is getting stale

-EA shows up with a competent, relatively fresh game in the same vein

-Activision ups the ante adding all the things EA's game has, through (paid) patches or through a new installment.

-both games live a mediocre existance for a while, fighting for uninterested gamers, milking it to the very drop before activision drops the whole thing.

Luckily, we won't have tons of plastic instruments clogging the landfills this time.

Posted:3 years ago

#9

Jeremie Sinic

43 18 0.4
@John Kauderer: Honestly, I feel sorry for so many games just because of Skyrim. This game is gonna eat up so many gamers' available gaming time that it's almost unfair for the other games :)
Honestly, if I had to release a game that might cater to the same demographics as Skyrim, I would really wait for a few more months.

Posted:3 years ago

#10

Rob Fahey Columnist, GamesIndustry.biz

76 190 2.5
I'm really not convinced that Skyrim's demographic has any notable overlap with the audience for MW3, or will have any major impact on its sales. Fans of the Elder Scrolls series (which includes a lot of gaming writers) consistently overstate the broad appeal of the franchise - those people whom it absorbs, it absorbs utterly, but its appeal to the more casually interested fans beyond that group is pretty limited. It'll be a big title this Christmas, certainly, but not one that any game outside of the "fantasy RPG" category needs to be worrying massively about.

Regarding Skylanders - it's a really interesting concept but it doesn't seem to have done anything significant at retail thus far. If they have plans to push it a LOT harder in the run-up to Christmas then perhaps it might start to drive the share price, but right now I very much doubt that investors have taken much of an interest in it.

Posted:3 years ago

#11

Lewis Brown Snr Sourcer/Recruiter, Electronic Arts

199 56 0.3
One thing I would note about Skylander, is a real lack of Marketing or maybe Im not in the right places to be exposed to it? Please feel free to prove me wrong.

Posted:3 years ago

#12

Login or register to post

Take part in the GamesIndustry community

Register now