In his opening argument, Jeff pointed out that I'm a lawyer. That's true. As a lawyer, I tend to think of these duels as more than an exercise in wordplay. We're putting companies on trial here, and you, the jury, get to issue the final verdict: Is Electronic Arts
Now, Jeff makes a strong case that EA is a better company than Activision
Granted, granted, and granted again. But none of that is relevant to whether EA stock is itself a good investment.
The "bull" plays the role of prosecutor here. He's got to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that investing in Electronic Arts will earn you profits sufficient to justify passing up, say, the security of a guaranteed 3.4% return from an "Orange" savings account at ING Bank
In contrast, all I have to do is emphasize the reasonable doubt that EA's stock will beat the savings account. I've already shown you how EA stock sells for at least a 22% premium to its true value. The logical conclusion is that, over time, far from beating the savings account's 3.4%, EA's stock will actually decline until it reaches its true value.
I've shown you my math. I've given you the link to double-check it if you like. So let me close by paraphrasing the late, great Johnnie Cochran:
EA's numbers don't fit. You must acquit.
But, wait! You're not done. This is just a quarter of the Duel! Don't miss Rich's bearish beginning, Jeff Hwang's bullish argument, and Jeff's final word. When you're done, you're still not done. You can vote and let us know who you think won this Duel.
Fool contributor Rich Smith does not own, nor is he short, shares of any company named above. If he did (or was), The Motley Fool would require him to tell you so. We're sticklers about things like that. For instance, we're obliged to remind you that EA and Activision areMotley Fool Stock Advisorpicks.