What happend to the "Sony is going to buy Rockstar" rumor?

[ImJustBayuum]

Solid_Snake4RD said:

ImJustBayuum said:

Linkasf said:

Solid_Snake4RD said:

Linkasf said:

Solid_Snake4RD said:

Grimes said:

Sony does not have more money than Nintendo. Sony has more assets but has much higher debt and expenses. Nintendo has built a huge cash reserve over the past few years and has little debt and low expenses.

u really think a company like Sony with $250B ASSESTS has less money than a company with $19 assets.

 

sony didn't just survive their huge losses with PS3 just like that.they have a big big pocket full of cash.and they are gonna make alot now

Some people forgot about the financial crisis? They slashed thousands of workers so I don't think they'd be able to afford buying a game studio as big as R*.

they slashed workers cause they were restructuring,this has nothing to do with their ability to buy a company.it depends on the fact on whether it is good for the business or not

Exactly. Restructuring and cutting losses.

Restructuring (ie cutting losses) suggests that the company is in a bad financial position. Rarely during these kind of situation would a company like Sony buy significant entities (even if they predicted it will be a good investment). This is because they are in a position where they had no choice but to be conservative regarding material spendings as their going concern, ability to borrow etc are in fragile positions. ie they cannot afford to just go out and buy a company like R*.

BTW, Its not as simple as S.Snake4RD has put it "sony has 250 billion" assets, therefore they could afford to buy R* if they want. For example i assume a significant % of that 250b assets are inventory, because sony afterall is a inventory base company. Therefore their ability to generate cash depends if they sell iventory or not. The financial crisis has made difficult for companies like sony to sell inventories therefore affecting their revenue/cash reserves.

yeah posting a big definition shows nerdism.leave the words and try to understand what it means and works in the real world.just going by the words won't let you anywhere

restructuring can also be done as protection for the future.also many company can't normally offload people but during rescession it can as many other companies are.not saying this has anything to do with sony but for you that their are various ways it can used in.

 

why don't you understand,assets are not only tangible things,it can also consist of liquid cash.also assets do not mean inventory,inventory is just a part of it.and inventoty amounts for very low percentage of assets.inventory is just what you have produced and is in your backyard.it is just their before it ships out.a very low percentage of assets.

 

i am an accounting student.

 

assets mainly consist of cash,building,brand value and goodwill,machinery owned,patents and trademarks,factories,offices,bills receivable,etc.

 

and  if you are talking about alot of inventory from recession time in sony backyard,they reduced production too.not that they will produce at the same rate.

 

 

i never meant to say sony can do anything but some other poster said sony had nothing just because they were making a lose was just rubbish.lose can only be made on investment.

i agree sony being affected by the recession,but a big company like it alwasy has alot pre planned for any future problems.not like a family that when dad loses a job,we are doomed

lmfao...you are an accounting student..for reals???

- Restructructuring = is done primarily when the company is in financial distress or if they anticipate in the near future that they are going to be in financial difficulties..so my statement still holds - restructuring suggests that the company (sony) is in bad financial position now or they expect to in the near future, which therefore make it extremely dificult for them to make such huge investments.

- i know what assets are...current assets consist of inventory, cash, accounts receivable...blah blah...i was merely pointing out the nature of the company, that it is a inventory-oriented company, and simply point out the fact that at that point in time, these kind of companies' ability to generate their main source of revenue (cash + credit) will be greatly affected. And its funny how you mention brands + trademarks which are intangible assets ie extremely difficult to quantify. This is a major reason why the accounting standards dont recognise intangible assets (with the exception of goodwill). So why the hell do you keep arguing intangible assets to measure the companies ability to buy another company.

Secondly, no lending institution will accept the inclusion of intangible assets when calculating the firms ability to pay back their money. They are inefficient measure of security because they are extremely hard to quantify/measure and their value fluctuates frequently. So this would definitely not help sony acquiring funds needed to invest in another company.

-"inventory amounts for very low % of assets" = Inventory is a huge percentage of sony's current assets. youre a fucking accounting student for god's sake. All manufacturing & merchandise companies have huge inventory accounts constantly. It is likely that the company had a huge 'finish goods' inventory at that time because,  retailers (buyers) find it difficult to sell products therefore they cut back on their orders.Sure they can cut production, but that takes time to implement and to come into effect. eg jobs has to be cut, financial reports have to be analysed....etc these takes considerable effort &  time.By that time, there will be a huge unsold inventory and invenotory will likely become obscolete.

-That person whas technically right in respect to the topic & at that specific point in time. Sony cannot afford to buy R*

-I dont see where contingency planning helps out your argument. Is restructuring & reduce material spendings not part of the contingency planning.

PS.arent the accounting people the nerdiest bunch.lol.its your kind of language so dont be offended