It sounds like Pachter is biased in his predictions. I can't verify this, but that is the feeling I get.

Uh. He works for Wedbush Securites.

Do you know what people do at companies like Wedbush Securities? They advise clients on the performance and risk of various companies.

Nintendo is a high-risk business. It has two lines of business worth any decent money, and both of those lines of business are under massive pressure from market forces. Japan is also a company that exists in Japan, and is under massive macroeconomic pressures as well.

Perhaps Nintendo will emerge from it all unscathed. My personal belief is that it will. But if I was to advise an investor whether or not to slam $100 million down on the company? Yeah, I would mention the risks too.

Pachter's biggest mistake is speaking to the public about all this. Investment is an incredibly complex style of business.

Really? Even when he looks like an idiot? Is he that desperate for attention or just oblivious?

True story - the only people that think he's an idiot are consumers. Not his customers.

Wedbush is actually one of the most successful market analyst firms out there.

His other mistake is his choice of words. When he mocks the fans, and constantly uses hyperbole to get his incorrect point across, it looks bad. When he could easily say "It's a big risk to invest in Nintendo right now" (True from April to August 2011) to "HAHAHAHAHAH SCREW U NINTENDO YOU PLUMMIT NAO" (false), it looks bad.

And yes, I realize I just used his method of speaking to argue against it

And I"m not saying he's an idiot considering he's still afloat, but I'm willing to say he looks completely stupid when he keeps making extreme predictions that turn out against him. If predictions were a game at the casino, he'd be bankrupt within a few minutes.

No. His other mistake is that he's not very good at articulating to the masses.

BTW you can't prove his incorrect. There is no way on this planet that you're able to prove that Nintendo is not a risky company to invest in.

He's actually correct. As I said, he's just hopeless at articulating complex ideas for people who don't understand investing.

And I"m not saying he's an idiot considering he's still afloat, but I'm willing to say he looks completely stupid when he keeps making extreme predictions that turn out against him. If predictions were a game at the casino, he'd be bankrupt within a few minutes.

No, he would be walking out of the casino without putting any money on the table.

He's suggesting people might not want to invest in Nintendo.

I never said it wasn't risky. It probably still is, and you could probably easily make as much money investing in some other company since I doubt Nintendo will grow to huge proportions like the Wii's first years for a long time.

I'm saying he fails at word choice, which he does, or he's just foolish, because several times he has made predictions that turned against him.

And no, he's not correct. Perhaps he's correct whenever he says "You shouldn't invest in Nintendo due to the risk factor" but he's constantly been wrong about the company going under. Like, every month he's wrong.

That casino bit was a bit of an odd comparison. I'm saying that if his predictions were all a bet (like every time he made a prediction he put $10 into a slot machine), he'd be bankrupt cause all his predictions turned out to be wrong. I'm not talking about calling Nintendo a risky business, I'm talking about making claims such as "Nintendo is doomed cause the Wii U has a stupid name" or "The Vita will rip away half of Nintendo's market share"

I take everything Patcher says, and convert it to the absolute opposite. Works 90% of the time

I understand how investing in Nintendo could be risky, but to completely dismiss it seems absurd.

@bulby1994: haha, maybe that's the reason people still listen to him then :3

Find me a single investor, market analyst, or anyone involved in future thinking who is right 100 per cent of the time.

You people seem to think that just because Pachter gets it "wrong" at times with Nintendo (not really wrong, though, since risky investments sometimes pay off and at other times companies outperform what could be reasonably expected of them) then he's always wrong. What do you think he does with the other 99% of his time when he's not speaking about Nintendo to the public?

I understand how investing in Nintendo could be risky, but to completely dismiss it seems absurd.

If you're an investor, your best bet is to stay the hell away from almost every Japanese company, especially those in consumer spaces.

Aside from Rakuten, NTT Docomo and a couple of Japanese banks who are well placed in South East Asia, the entire country is an economic basket case.

That last part is the key. If you couldn't tell, I was joking when I asked why he hates Nintendo, hence me asking if Miyamoto killed his father. I apologize if I gave the impression I actually think he's biased, it was mostly sarcasm, his big mistake is exactly that, he speaks to the public about these "predictions". That's what makes him a laughing stock. If he kept his professional opinions in his business and out of the public eye, perhaps it'd be easier to take him seriously. Maybe he's good at his job, but it doesn't change the image that he's built for himself. It doesn't change that he gives the impression that he may seem to be biased against some companies. I'm not saying he necessarily is, but these predictions should stay between him and his clients. Not only do some of them make him look like a buffoon to the general public, but future clients would know of all the time's he's been wrong. And, even if he does get it right a lot, mistakes can be more noticeable.

I've only heard his stuff posted on gaming sites, so obviously, I'm a bit one-sided here. Obviously many analysts will get it wrong (that's why they're predictions) but all I've seen out of him is his predictions over gaming. Which have all been constant hyperbolic negativity that always turn out wrong. By wrong, I mean Nintendo is still afloat, the Vita is pretty much a failure and COD is still attracting loads of gamers, probably moreso then a subscription would.

He's probably right about investments, but he's not wording it like a warning about investing. Instead, he words it like he believes Miyamoto will shoot himself in the face every sales quarter.

There is a vast difference between saying "investing in Nintendo is incredibly risky and I recommend against it" and "the Nintendo Wii U will lose all third party support in a year". Yes, that probably is his biggest problem, his choice of words, but he's taking high risks in these statements, he's banking all or nothing when he says such extreme predictions.

The day when this man's importance to the press is lost will be a great one. That's all I'm saying.

This. His wording is the biggest problem. He's very extreme in his wording instead of realistic. This is what makes him seem so ridiculous.

In a nutshell, you're saying that he may be a professional, but he doesn't act like one, right?

At least publicly, yes.

That last part is the key. If you couldn't tell, I was joking when I asked why he hates Nintendo, hence me asking if Miyamoto killed his father. I apologize if I gave the impression I actually think he's biased, it was mostly sarcasm, his big mistake is exactly that, he speaks to the public about these "predictions". That's what makes him a laughing stock. If he kept his professional opinions in his business and out of the public eye, perhaps it'd be easier to take him seriously. Maybe he's good at his job, but it doesn't change the image that he's built for himself. It doesn't change that he gives the impression that he may seem to be biased against some companies. I'm not saying he necessarily is, but these predictions should stay between him and his clients. Not only do some of them make him look like a buffoon to the general public, but future clients would know of all the time's he's been wrong. And, even if he does get it right a lot, mistakes can be more noticeable.

The reason that Nintendo fans don't like him is because Nintendo fans have an emotional attachment to their toys, and Pacther's analysis of Nintendo's business is seen as a personal attack, when in reality it's nothing more than a professional opinion.

The guy actually reads the market better than anyone gives him credit for. It's not his fault that Nintendo somehow pulled some magic out and beat the trends.

I've only heard his stuff posted on gaming sites, so obviously, I'm a bit one-sided here. Obviously many analysts will get it wrong (that's why they're predictions) but all I've seen out of him is his predictions over gaming. Which have all been constant hyperbolic negativity that always turn out wrong. By wrong, I mean Nintendo is still afloat, the Vita is pretty much a failure and COD is still attracting loads of gamers, probably moreso then a subscription would.

Nintendo has managed to beat back the trend. It was the most valuable company in Japanese consumer electronics for a time because the rest of the market is collapsing around it. It would have been grossly irresponsible to take a wild guess that Nintendo is not heading in the same direction.

In other words, it is surprising that Nintendo has achieved so much, from a market perspective. Investors shouldn't be gambling on surprises.

The Vita is dead when it actually dies. Sony's rhetoric is that it's a long-term product investment. Just like the PSP is. Investors (and analysts such as Pachter) don't go judging products from the immediate position in the market. They look at it from a long-term point of view. If Sony is confident the product has a long-term success curve ahead of it, and the data backs that up, then Pachter is right to assume success.

Call of Duty is singlehandledly rebuking the entire market trend towards subscriptions, microtransactions and low-priced content. Great for Activision, but bad for market confidence. No analyst in his/ her right might would assume that Call of Duty's success will continue into the long future. If you look at Activision beyond Call of Duty, there isn't much backing it up. And so no analyst in his/ her right mind would recommend confidence in Activision.

All an analyst can do is read a market and make recommendations about the dominant trends. A company pulling off a miracle doesn't prove the analyst incorrect.

So, being wrong doesn't make him wrong? That doesn't make any sense. Perhaps he just underestimated the company or the consumers' demand.