Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst
1
2
3
LastLast
  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by smrund View Post
    Businesses over a certain size in the USA are required to go public.
    Cargill, 3rd largest private company in the world. American. I am guessing the 1st and second are american too but I am not sure. Cargill is a gigantic company rivaling most public ones.

    Going public is really about finance options.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Afrospinach View Post
    Cargill, 3rd largest private company in the world. American. I am guessing the 1st and second are american too but I am not sure. Cargill is a gigantic company rivaling most public ones.

    Going public is really about finance options.
    As already noted in thread, Cargill is the largest private company in the US. Koch Industries (and now) Dell are 2 and 3.

    What are the other 2, if Cargill is the 3rd largest?
    Quote Originally Posted by xanzul View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    So if the states get together and work with the Legislative Branch to write an amendment to the federal constitution, you think the Judiciary (SCOTUS) could strike it down for being 'unconstitutional'?
    Uh...yes. Absolutely.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    As already noted in thread, Cargill is the largest private company in the US. Koch Industries (and now) Dell are 2 and 3.
    I'll also just note that Cargill's revenue was something like 25 times what Blizzard's was (including Activision).

    Let's all ride the Gish gallop.

  4. #24
    Surprised no one has stated the obvious yet, Blizzard is most certainly private. They're not the same company as "Activision Blizzard". That title was given by Vivendi a while back to umbrella all of their game developer subsidiaries simply because they could. Both Activision and Blizzard didn't merge, and they were still their own two business entities.

    Parent:

    • Formerly Vivendi - publicly traded


    Subsidiary:

    • Activision Blizzard - publicly traded


    Subsidiaries of subsidiary:

    • Activision - publicly traded
    • Blizzard - private
    • Whole bunch of other developers - some private, some public
    i7-4770k - GTX 780 Ti - 16GB DDR3 Ripjaws - (2) HyperX 120s / Vertex 3 120
    ASRock Extreme3 - Sennheiser Momentums - Xonar DG - EVGA Supernova 650G - Corsair H80i

    build pics

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by glo View Post
    Surprised no one has stated the obvious yet, Blizzard is most certainly private. They're not the same company as "Activision Blizzard". That title was given by Vivendi a while back to umbrella all of their game developer subsidiaries simply because they could. Both Activision and Blizzard didn't merge, and they were still their own two business entities.

    Parent:

    • Formerly Vivendi - publicly traded


    Subsidiary:

    • Activision Blizzard - publicly traded


    Subsidiaries of subsidiary:

    • Activision - publicly traded
    • Blizzard - private
    • Whole bunch of other developers - some private, some public
    My guess behind the reason no-one stating the obvious would be because if what you listed is the obvious it is incorrect. As a separate company Blizzard does not exist, if is not registered with the SEC nor does it file accounts with them, Blizzard is a division, albeit an important division, of ATVI.

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    My guess behind the reason no-one stating the obvious would be because if what you listed is the obvious it is incorrect. As a separate company Blizzard does not exist, if is not registered with the SEC nor does it file accounts with them, Blizzard is a division, albeit an important division, of ATVI.
    In short, you can't truly be a private subsidiary of a publicly traded company, as all of its assets are reported by the parent, and it's beholden to the parent.

    Let's all ride the Gish gallop.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by belfpala View Post
    In short, you can't be a private subsidiary of a publicly traded company, as all of its assets are reported by the parent, and it's beholden to the parent.
    That's like saying your company is publically traded but your wait staff is private.

    Or a large corporation that is publically traded has a private marketing department.
    Quote Originally Posted by xanzul View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    So if the states get together and work with the Legislative Branch to write an amendment to the federal constitution, you think the Judiciary (SCOTUS) could strike it down for being 'unconstitutional'?
    Uh...yes. Absolutely.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    As already noted in thread, Cargill is the largest private company in the US. Koch Industries (and now) Dell are 2 and 3.

    What are the other 2, if Cargill is the 3rd largest?
    You know I just can't find a list. It is possible that today Cargill actually is the largest in the world as that was a pretty old statistic. I will find out who the other 2 are or were soon.

  9. #29
    The Lightbringer GKLeatherCraft's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    3,835
    Quote Originally Posted by belfpala View Post
    Greed is the point of business, at its core. Essentially, "I will make this product or provide this service and charge more than it cost me so that I can write myself a paycheck." That's what it's about.

    Altruism comes in, also. "I will charge more than what this cost so I can also pay other people to help me do it."

    The question of greed is at what point it becomes excessive greed.
    No, greed is not the point of business, Making money is the point of business, Don't use a word if you don't even know the actual meaning of it. Hint:
    NOUN

    [MASS NOUN]
    Intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food:

    Wanting to make money, is not the same as being greedy for money.

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    My guess behind the reason no-one stating the obvious would be because if what you listed is the obvious it is incorrect. As a separate company Blizzard does not exist, if is not registered with the SEC nor does it file accounts with them, Blizzard is a division, albeit an important division, of ATVI.
    Hugely incorrect. I suggest researching what the SEC is and how it's only tied to publicly traded companies before citing it into your logic.
    i7-4770k - GTX 780 Ti - 16GB DDR3 Ripjaws - (2) HyperX 120s / Vertex 3 120
    ASRock Extreme3 - Sennheiser Momentums - Xonar DG - EVGA Supernova 650G - Corsair H80i

    build pics

  11. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    That's like saying your company is publically traded but your wait staff is private.

    Or a large corporation that is publically traded has a private marketing department.
    Pretty much.

    "Hey guys, my restaurant is publicly traded now! Buy shares! Oh, don't look at the janitor, he's a private company."

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Gobra View Post
    No, greed is not the point of business, Making money is the point of business, Don't use a word if you don't even know the actual meaning of it.
    Read to the end of that post, please.

    Let's all ride the Gish gallop.

  12. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    That's like saying your company is publically traded but your wait staff is private.

    Or a large corporation that is publically traded has a private marketing department.
    Quote Originally Posted by belfpala View Post
    Pretty much.

    "Hey guys, my restaurant is publicly traded now! Buy shares! Oh, don't look at the janitor, he's a private company."
    Completely broken logic. Employees have no relation to a founded company.

    Quote Originally Posted by belfpala View Post
    In short, you can't truly be a private subsidiary of a publicly traded company, as all of its assets are reported by the parent, and it's beholden to the parent.
    Blizzard doesn't need to report anything. They do so (and did with vivendi) because they agreed to for the benefit of their parent. There's a metric fuckton of private companies that do not share their earnings with the public, regardless if a parent company owns a stake.

    EDIT: If you honestly don't understand how businesses and subsidiaries work, and don't think Blizzard is a "real" company, you should probably let them know. They seem to be confused about it themselves!

    http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/company/about/
    i7-4770k - GTX 780 Ti - 16GB DDR3 Ripjaws - (2) HyperX 120s / Vertex 3 120
    ASRock Extreme3 - Sennheiser Momentums - Xonar DG - EVGA Supernova 650G - Corsair H80i

    build pics

  13. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by glo View Post
    Hugely incorrect. I suggest researching what the SEC is and how it's only tied to publicly traded companies before citing it into your logic.
    Are you suggesting that a wholly owned subsidiary of a public company is somehow privately held? Or that when buying shares of the parent company you aren't somehow buying investment in the subsidiary? Or perhaps that economic performance and expectations about the subsidiary aren't discussed/presented on the shareholders call, or that they aren't included with SEC filings?
    Quote Originally Posted by xanzul View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    So if the states get together and work with the Legislative Branch to write an amendment to the federal constitution, you think the Judiciary (SCOTUS) could strike it down for being 'unconstitutional'?
    Uh...yes. Absolutely.

  14. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by glo View Post
    Hugely incorrect. I suggest researching what the SEC is and how it's only tied to publicly traded companies before citing it into your logic.
    Fair enough I thought it was similar to Companies House in the UK and held all company registration details but it would appear that is done on a state by state basis. However this does not change the fact that you were incorrect and Blizzard are not a separate entity from Activision and all accounts are filed under the ATVI banner.

  15. #35
    The Lightbringer GKLeatherCraft's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    3,835
    Quote Originally Posted by belfpala View Post
    Pretty much.

    "Hey guys, my restaurant is publicly traded now! Buy shares! Oh, don't look at the janitor, he's a private company."

    - - - Updated - - -



    Read to the end of that post, please.
    The part where you're still wrong? Yep, I see it, it doesn't matter when "Greed becomes excessive greed" Because they are not being greedy, Again, please learn the word, before using it if you don't know the meaning

  16. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by glo View Post
    Completely broken logic. Employees have no relation to a founded company.



    Blizzard doesn't need to report anything. They do so (and did with vivendi) because they agreed to for the benefit of their parent. There's a metric fuckton of private companies that do not share their earnings with the public, regardless if a parent company owns a stake.

    EDIT: If you honestly don't understand how businesses and subsidiaries work, and don't think Blizzard is a "real" company, you should probably let them know. They seem to be confused about it themselves!

    http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/company/about/
    Err... I work for a large corporation, that has over 70 discrete operating units (with discrete names and reputations). Each of those is a part of the larger publically traded company, and there is a single SEC 10-k filed for the corporation as a whole (as there was for Acti/Blizz, and now for Vivendi or whoever is buying them, I've not been paying attention).

    Each subsidiary acts as a relatively independent company, and has 'about us' pages a lot like Blizzards. None the less, as part of the whole publically traded company, they are just a piece of that large publically traded company. The idea that a wholly owned subsidiary of a public company is somehow private is amazingly wrong.
    Quote Originally Posted by xanzul View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    So if the states get together and work with the Legislative Branch to write an amendment to the federal constitution, you think the Judiciary (SCOTUS) could strike it down for being 'unconstitutional'?
    Uh...yes. Absolutely.

  17. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by smrund View Post
    Businesses over a certain size in the USA are required to go public.
    That is nonsense. You can stay private if you want, you aren't forced to sell off stock options.
    "Privilege is invisible to those who have it."

  18. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    Are you suggesting that a wholly owned subsidiary of a public company is somehow privately held? Or that when buying shares of the parent company you aren't somehow buying investment in the subsidiary? Or perhaps that economic performance and expectations about the subsidiary aren't discussed/presented on the shareholders call, or that they aren't included with SEC filings?
    1. Blizzard is not wholly owned, never have been. Where are you getting this information?! Are you honestly under the assumption that no one at Blizzard owns a stake in the company? Lol.
    2. The SEC cares little about companies that have nothing to do with issuing securities. Feel free to enlighten yourself to how the business world works: http://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/qasbsec.htm
    3. Of course if you invest in a publicly traded company, you are investing in their own investments. Pretty simple logic, doesn't change the fact that Blizzard is a company.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    Err... I work for a large corporation, that has over 70 discrete operating units (with discrete names and reputations). Each of those is a part of the larger publically traded company, and there is a single SEC 10-k filed for the corporation as a whole (as there was for Acti/Blizz, and now for Vivendi or whoever is buying them, I've not been paying attention).

    Each subsidiary acts as a relatively independent company, and has 'about us' pages a lot like Blizzards. None the less, as part of the whole publically traded company, they are just a piece of that large publically traded company. The idea that a wholly owned subsidiary of a public company is somehow private is amazingly wrong.
    Would make sense if Blizzard was wholly owned. They're not. Are you aware of the differences between partial stakes in private business, controlling stakes and wholly owned subsidiaries?
    i7-4770k - GTX 780 Ti - 16GB DDR3 Ripjaws - (2) HyperX 120s / Vertex 3 120
    ASRock Extreme3 - Sennheiser Momentums - Xonar DG - EVGA Supernova 650G - Corsair H80i

    build pics

  19. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by glo View Post
    1. Blizzard is not wholly owned, never have been. Where are you getting this information?! Are you honestly under the assumption that no one at Blizzard owns a stake in the company? Lol.
    2. The SEC cares little about companies that have nothing to do with issuing securities. Feel free to enlighten yourself to how the business world works: http://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/qasbsec.htm
    3. Of course if you invest in a publicly traded company, you are investing in their own investments. Pretty simple logic, doesn't change the fact that Blizzard is a company.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Would make sense if Blizzard was wholly owned. They're not. Are you aware of the differences between partial stakes in private business, controlling stakes and wholly owned subsidiaries?
    Yea I'm not going to teach you how this works. Every single publically traded company has to file with the SEC. Blizzard isn't a discrete company, it is a division of Activision Blizzard, which is publically traded.

    Your utter ignorance on this matter while you tell me to 'englighten myself' is hilarious though. Keep it coming.
    Quote Originally Posted by xanzul View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    So if the states get together and work with the Legislative Branch to write an amendment to the federal constitution, you think the Judiciary (SCOTUS) could strike it down for being 'unconstitutional'?
    Uh...yes. Absolutely.

  20. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by glo View Post
    1. Blizzard is not wholly owned, never have been. Where are you getting this information?! Are you honestly under the assumption that no one at Blizzard owns a stake in the company? Lol.
    2. The SEC cares little about companies that have nothing to do with issuing securities. Feel free to enlighten yourself to how the business world works: http://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/qasbsec.htm
    3. Of course if you invest in a publicly traded company, you are investing in their own investments. Pretty simple logic, doesn't change the fact that Blizzard is a company.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Would make sense if Blizzard was wholly owned. They're not. Are you aware of the differences between partial stakes in private business, controlling stakes and wholly owned subsidiaries?
    Blizzard was acquired for $6.75 million by Davidson and Associates in 1994, they have since been sold to several different owners before eventually ending up being owned by Vivendi in 1998. In 2008 Vivendi sold Blizzard and their other gaming studios to Activision in a reverse merger where Activision paid for the purchase with a 52% stake in the new company Activision Blizzard. Blizzard are an asset of ATVI and do not exist separately.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •