Activision's stock price tanked from ~$85 per share down to ~$40 per share prior to announcing their lay offs. Some arguments will be that stockholders should be less skittish and more willing to accept that stability is more important than beating last year. To stop treating everything as if it's a doomsday scenario for their stocks. I'm doing a paper on how it is unethical for a business to lay off employees while simultaneously boasting about "the best year in company history" (especially with that claim being said three years in a row). The reasoning is because this is an arbitrary and spurious decision geared solely to satisfying fickle, skittish, and often clueless stockholders rather than (1) the CEO just cutting their own pay for perceived failures that really had no consequence behind failing and (2) composing a plan to actually fix the problem(s) causing their stocks to drop instead of shooting for a "short term profits > long term gains" mentality.
However, I acknowledge I largely dismiss the role of a 50% plummet in stock price when comparing what Nintendo did in response to the catastrophe that was the Wii-U and referring to the Nintendo having faced "an actual financial woe, unlike Activision". What parts do you feel have validity and what do you feel need some polishing or shows ignorance to the situation Activision is in?
Submitted March 21, 2019 at 04:28PM by LuciditySam https://ift.tt/2HzoKxl
