Schreier: EA goes $20 billion in debt as part of its buyout, could mean mass layoffs/more aggressive monetization

LectureMaster

Has Man Musk



EA is officially going private as part of a $55 billion dollar deal led by Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund, private equity firm Silver Lake, and Jared Kushner's investment firm Affinity Partners. The deal will be partially financed by EA taking on $20 billion in debt – and as the industry wonders how the publisher will deal with that financial burden, BioWare fans in particular are terrified of what might await the beloved RPG studio in the future.

"The transaction will be funded," a press release explains, "by a combination of cash from each of PIF, Silver Lake, and Affinity Partners as well as roll-over of PIF's existing stake in EA, constituting an equity investment of approximately $36 billion, and $20 billion of debt financing fully and solely committed by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., $18 billion of which is expected to be funded at close."

You may have heard about leveraged buyouts funded by private equity in the past, and this is essentially how they work. An investor, or group of investors, puts up some amount of cash to buy a company, while the rest of the purchase price is funded through debt taken on by that company. In grossly simplified terms, once the deal closes, EA will have a $20 billion mortgage on itself.

No one yet knows precisely how EA will pay off that debt, but other leveraged buyouts have often been swiftly followed by money-saving efforts that, well… calling them "aggressive" would be a substantial understatement. As Bloomberg reporter Jason Schreier notes on Bluesky, the EA deal "could mean mass layoffs, more aggressive monetization, and other big cost-cutting measures."


Mass Effect 5

(Image credit: BioWare)
EA's success is propped up by massive franchises like its annual sports games, but the company also owns no shortage of beloved IP. Would the risk of another Titanfall happen when there's $20 billion in debt to pay off? Would a new Skate, whatever issues it might have, ever have been greenlit?

But nobody's more frightened of the possibilities than BioWare fans. The beloved studio has produced some of the most beloved RPGs of all time – the likes of Baldur's Gate, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, Mass Effect, and Dragon Age – but it hasn't had a bonafide hit in years. Finally getting to launch a single-player RPG last year seemed like a victory, but Dragon Age: The Veilguard underperformed financial expectations.

"It's over, Commander," as one thread on the Mass Effect subreddit laments, and you'll find a lot of similar sentiments in other comment threads across the internet. The general feeling among fans seems not to be fear about what might happen to BioWare with those financial concerns in mind – they're acting as if the studio is already dead, that Mass Effect 5 is already canceled, and they're mourning accordingly.
 
The mood at EA studios right now
Kirby GIF
Comedy Central Oops GIF by Cartuna

danny wood falling off the bed GIF by Rock This Boat: New Kids On The Block
Fall Trip GIF by Big Brother
 
Hopefully Respawn doesn't get gutted. Out of all of their studios that is the one who's output over the years has been consistently great. Bioware has all the amazing IPs, but damn have they had duds over the past few years.
 
Hopefully Respawn doesn't get gutted. Out of all of their studios that is the one who's output over the years has been consistently great. Bioware has all the amazing IPs, but damn have they had duds over the past few years.

I think Respawn should be fine.

Bioware is the one that should be worried.
 
I pray (not really) for the moment when clowns like Jason start talking seriously (like actual journalists) about all the bullshit that has been going on in gaming, without weird agendas or narratives.

Yep! And the truth is, he has the technical ability to do just that. But I imagine the money to continue with the narratives pay more.
 
Well, I guess it's not common to borrow money for huge buyout like this.

My man Musk also borrowed 13 billion when he bought Twitter.

The final structure of the sale will be dependent on market conditions at the time of the launch, the people added.

Recently, debt investors have been clamoring for new deals, seeking riskier forms of debt as credit spreads narrow across the market.

Any high yield-rated transaction comes with a fair amount of risk, especially one of this size. The last big leveraged buyout was Elon Musk's $44 billion acquisition of Twitter Inc., in 2022. That left a group of banks led by Morgan Stanley stuck with about $13 billion that they finally sold off their balance sheets earlier this year.
 
So, i suppose we're not going to talk about how such a company can go in debt for a cool 20 billion dollars?

To fund the 55bn buyout, 20bn of debt financing needs to be raised by the investors. That means EA (or the entity that takes on EA) will be on the hook for that 20bn debt. Before this buyout, EA had less than 2bn of debt.
 
To fund the 55bn buyout, 20bn of debt financing needs to be raised by the investors. That means EA (or the entity that takes on EA) will be on the hook for that 20bn debt. Before this buyout, EA had less than 2bn of debt.
I am not sure i get it.
So the buyers are willing to pay 55 billions but in the process EA has to pay 20 billions back? Or something?
 
If the Saudis bought it to strip the IP, watch out.

If they bought it to put Ronaldo in Titanfall 3, then I think they will actually get a quality of life improvement.

At the very least I can't imagine them not auctioning unused IP.

It's time to put all valuable assets to work in the IP dept, no matter who is developing it. That is money left on the table. Get the older IPs back into the hands of developers.
 
Last edited:
I mean if they exert any creative influence I think it's safe to assume there definitely won't be any more Barve incidents in future BioWare games 🤣
 
Spoke with a few coworkers today that are still at the office and they are scared as to what's about to happen. They know the layoffs are coming but don't know who is getting the ticket. Sucks
 
WTF?

What's the gain for EA in all this? I don't understand this deal.
25% premium on stock price when announced

Everyone who owns EA shares is going to get paid

Also the Saudis have infinity money and aren't afraid to lose it for years on strategic goals. See Lucid Motors for more information
 
Last edited:
Crazy that this is happening.

Given all the devs they've destroyed this is a fitting punishment for their rampant greed.
 
Last edited:
By EA having 20b debt, they mean after the buyout, the new owners will have 20b debt, because they borrowed money for the purchase.
Miles708 Miles708 see above. This is why.

EA cost 55bn in a private leveraged buyout.

To finance this, part of the amount was equity (investors putting up cash or equivalents) and the rest (in this case 20bn) is debt financing. Borrowd funds, which need to be paid back with interest.

It's actually common in leveraged buyouts as it lets the buyers reduce how much equity (cash they personally provide) they need to commit.

The lenders are clealry convinced that EA's cash flows (from its games, live services, subscription revenue, etc.) are strong enough to support that debt service burden.

If not, expect layoffs and aggressive in-game spending push (MTX, Season passes, DLC etc).
 
Last edited:
EA already had $2B of debt, which are included in these $20B. They added $18B. EA had $6B in gross profit last year, and they kept increasing every year since many time ago. Meaning, they added 3 years of gross profit as additional debt.

Meaning, they can return it in 5 or 7 years or so making no changes and not even noticing it, even assuming their profit would stop growing now.

This isn't a leveraged buyout of a company that needs to be fixed/optimized, it already is very healthy. They may have a simgle 'small' layoff to throw the DEI department and maybe some professor out of the window and cut a bit of additional fat (I'd say less than 5% of their workforce), but other than this I don't expect big changes.

Miles708 Miles708 see above. This is why.

EA cost 55bn in a private leveraged buyout.

To finance this, part of the amount was equity (investors putting up cash or equivalents) and the rest (in this case 20bn) is debt financing. Borrowd funds, which need to be paid back with interest.

It's actually common in leveraged buyouts as it lets the buyers reduce how much equity (cash they personally provide) they need to commit.

The lenders are clealry convinced that EA's cash flows (from its games, live services, subscription revenue, etc.) are strong enough to support that debt service burden.

If not, expect layoffs and aggressive in-game spending push (MTX, Season passes, DLC etc).
In this case, out of the $55B paid in cash for the acquisition, the investors pay $36B and the bank (JP Morgan) pays $20B, which will be a debt to be paid with part of EA's profit across some years, often 5-10 years. In this case pretty likely with 5 would be enough.

What's the gain for EA in all this? I don't understand this deal.

A guy who already owned 10% of EA (3rd largest shareholder) made an offer to the rest of shareholders to buy their 90% of the company, paying for each company stock 25% more than they were worth in the market.

They accepted, so bought the company. And also decided to make it private, keeping it away of the stock market because that guy basically has infinite money and doesn't need external investment.

In addition to get rid of the pressure and risks of being in the stock market, now EA will have access to a ton of money when needed plus synergies with other companies of the investors, which include but aren't limited to Scopely, SNK, ESL, EVO, Dell, Unity or Stripe.
 
Last edited:
By EA having 20b debt, they mean after the buyout, the new owners will have 20b debt, because they borrowed money for the purchase.

Miles708 Miles708 see above. This is why.

EA cost 55bn in a private leveraged buyout.

To finance this, part of the amount was equity (investors putting up cash or equivalents) and the rest (in this case 20bn) is debt financing. Borrowd funds, which need to be paid back with interest.

It's actually common in leveraged buyouts as it lets the buyers reduce how much equity (cash they personally provide) they need to commit.

The lenders are clealry convinced that EA's cash flows (from its games, live services, subscription revenue, etc.) are strong enough to support that debt service burden.

If not, expect layoffs and aggressive in-game spending push (MTX, Season passes, DLC etc).


Thanks, now i get it.
Essentially this guys bought something with money they do not currently have, and the workers will likely pay for the debts these sharks made because they purchased EA with money they didn't have to begin with.

Am i understading this correctly?
High level finance surely looks like lots of fun.
 
Last edited:
Man….. thank god when that moment came in my life many years ago on if I should work in the video game industry, I listened to a relative and went in an entirely different direction. Married well and retired early.
 
This will be the end of EA. Too much debt for how much money they actually make. They only made 1.2 billion last year, the debt payments alone will eat all of their profit. Funny that they bought all these companies and ran them into the ground and then someone is doing it to them. I think you'll see anything that wasn't a major money maker being cut.

The only chance this has is if the new ownership fixes the problems they've had for 20+ years and figures out a way to monetize all of their dead IP that has some big potential upside (C&C, Jade Empire, Knights of the Old Republic, etc). Like if they were to make KOTOR 3 turn based similar to BG3 with the same story based decisions as KOTOR 1, you might be able to make a crapload of money without a huge investment.
 
WTF?

What's the gain for EA in all this? I don't understand this deal.
There are huge benefits to going private. EA could theoretically take in more diverse projects and make less profit on them and not really care.

The money they make is not under a microscope in the same way. They don't need to publish reports or give guidance.

The downside is they can't offer more shares to generate cash.
 
Top Bottom