Honest question do you think we're in twilight of this current generation?

[68soul]

Ail said:

Avinash_Tyagi said:
While PS3 will probably do better in 2009 than 2008, the idea that Wii has peaked is an assumption, as 2010 for Wii could be stronger than 2009 and 2008, in which case it wouldn't have peaked, so yes you are assuming.

Your analogy doesn't work, a dividend is a payment paid out to shareholders, out of a portion of profits, you retain the share, but also receive the payment, this is the benefit of profit, the only concern fo Nintendo, albeit a small one is that investors could get upset with the falling stock price, if it became an issue, Nintendo could always issue a dividend payment to its shareholders. However considering Nintendo's position relative to its competitors this is not really a concern. A bond is a different financial tool, a bond is an issuance of debt, not really a concern for Nintendo considering their large cash reserves.

So you would rather have Nintendo share that are down 53% off their peak and pay a paltry 2.8% dividend ( that's what they paid in 2008)

or Amazon shares that are up 50%  over the same period.

 

If you bought 100$ worth of Nintendo at the beginning of 2008 you have roughly 50$ or so now.

If you bought 100$ worth of Amazon at the same time you have about  150$ ( but no dividend payed to you).

 

Oh and Nintendo makes about 2-3 billion$ of profit a year, Amazon makes 600 million of $ a year of profit....

 

Heck if you bought Microsoft share at the time you bought your 100$ of Nintendo, you still would have 80$ or so...( and the share is climbing the last 6 months, Nintendo isn't..)

And if you bought Sony shares you still would have 55$ or so....

 

Yes, but if you thought the Wii and the DS were gonna be HUGE success back in 2006, just like me, and bought some shares back then, they went up 400% to 500% in two years... and now are back to 200%-250% "only", mainly due to the global recession...

Nintendo's profits used to be very stable for a long time: a little more or a little less than 1 billion each year for almost 25 years, with no loss ever... it changed in 2007, 2-3 billions... and then in 2008, 4-5 billions... even if they go back to "only" 2-3 billions this year, it's always way better than the average profits of a company that has always been considered as one of the most safe investment on Earth...

I hope you don't study economics, or don't want to be trader, because you really should learn first...

Back to the topic, i still don't agree with most of the statements made by Ail and by Avinash_Tyagi: i think you're both wrong...

But as i've already posted nearly all my own "arguments" before in this thread, i won't do a copy/taste or won't waste my time: your discussion could be endless, and useless anyway, as we won't agree, and you won't agree with each other...