Having access to the same information does not mean everyone has read it. For instance, you have access to Nintendo's message to shareholders about Pokemon GOs impact on their financials, yet you do not appear to have read it. And if you have read it, then there's an even bigger problem here somewhere, because it does not at all support the claims you are making. Here, take a look:

https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2016/160722e.pdf

Yes, the bar is set so low, even failures and missteps are considered good news, we know.

The stock drop today is not because of investor's "cashing in" on a stock that has doubled, its about Nintendo's incompetency (which of course has been their theme this generation). For today, they will not be able to leverage any of Pokemon Go's success. Those are Nintendo's words, not some investor.


Nintendo did not do itself any favors but not announcing any future revisions to sales or profits which tells me that the supposed halo effect that Pokemon Go was supposed to have is not that extensive. The game has been out for 20 days, that is good enough time to revise 3DS hardware and software up if those were going to ride the wave of Pokemon Go's success.

I did read it and my claim is that the sell off in the stock was not attributable to simple profit taking but from Ninteno's statement from Friday that the impact of Pokemon Go is limited and there was no change to future guidence based on it, which they outlined in their statement.  Anything else I outlined was my own assumption based on that statement.

Yes because Pokemon Go has been such a failure...

Excellent. I want to illustrate the current stage of the argument.

Assumption #1: "It's about Nintendo's incompetency"

What? How do you get that from Nintendo clarifying the ownership structure and means of accounting for financials related to Pokemon Go?

The initial run up of the stock, to me, was that Nintendo's involvement in Pokemon Go would be a lot greater.  With their statement on Friday, we now know that their involvement is limited, hince the sell off.  The incompetency comes in that they were not able to capitalize more from a game that is, according to sources, the largest mobile game in history and bringing in 1.6 million dollars a day in revenue in the first 20 days.

Assumption #2: "For today, they will not be able to leverage any of Pokemon Go's success"

Can you clarify what you mean by "leverage any of Pokemon Go's success"? Their statement says "Because of this accounting scheme, the income reflected on the Company’s consolidated business results is limited.". That does not in any way imply that they can't leverage any of Pokemon Go's success. Quite the contrary, saying that the impact on the consolidated business results is limited basically directly states that there is an impact, hence they are even leveraging it directly. However, furthermore, they are leveraging it indirectly. We have data from the UK that confirms that 3DS games have received tremendous boosts after Pokemon Go's launch. The entire Pokemon game catalog on the 3DS has more than  doubled in week on week sales after the game launched, and other 3DS titles have reappeared in the UK chart. Which brings us to

By 'for today, they will not be able to leverage any of Pokemon's Go success' im talking about the present, here and now, and in the hear and now Nintendo is not benefiting from Pokemon Go in a way that would cause a 100% rise in its stock, its only benefiting on a limited basis.  My statement doesnt say anything about the future.  My mention of the halo effect from Pokemon Go directly answers your UK question.  I said that even with the halo effect in place, it didnt warrant Nintendo to change their forecast on Friday, it doesnt say they will not do it Wednesday or later in the quarter when more time passes.

Assumption #3: "not announcing any future revisions to sales or profits which tells me that the supposed halo effect that Pokemon Go was supposed to have is not that extensive."

First of all, their statement literally said that they had already taken into account the positive effect of Pokemon Go in their forecast. Explaining why it seemed high at the time they gave it... so why would you expect them to raise them now, when they've already factored it in? Secondly, see above paragraph about what we know about the umbrella effect Pokemon Go has had on the 3DS and its games catalog.

The first 20 days of pokemon go release did not make Nintendo revise any hardware or software numbers even with the halo effect in.   If the halo effect is greater as time goes by, then I will stand corrected, as of now it hasn't happened.  Also they couldnt have taken account of the positive effect becaue the device they are using the gauge it, pokemon go plus, is not even out yet, it releases July 31st.  If the game is the runaway hit it is and more people than they initially thought buys the device, then they would not have accurately accounted for the positive effect of Pokemon Go.

If you read it, I'm telling you that your assumptions that you have outlined based on it are silly. If all you had said was that it wasn't due to profit taking, but because of the statement they issued where they explained that the impact would be limited, then yeah, but there was a lot more that doesn't appear to have taken into account the info that's there.

Its also funny how a lot of users here thinks that Nintendo should  go full mobile. VGChartzers are awesome :)