Hyruken said:
M.U.G.E.N said:
Hyruken said:
logic56 said:
lol at all these armchair analyst, Sony has 155 billion in total assets and a yearly revenue of 86 billion, they're aren't going anywhere any time soon, they just spend to much because of being to bloated, and with almost no communication between the divisions only adds to the problem. They problem was a lack of focus with too many arms spread all over the place, as soon as Kaz gets a handle on the TV business and get all their core divisions to communicate with each other they'll be back in the black in no time at all. |
So your point is if you have assets and a revenue your alright? Maybe you need to look into companies that went bankrupt that were far bigger then Sony such as WaMu? They had over $300BN in assets and revenue of over $100BN but they went down. As did others like Enron.
What grates me more then anything is responses like this. The company has to be alright simply because it is ......... <----- enter your fav company here
Sony as a whole will not die but to quote Masaru Kato(Sony chief financial officer) "The situation is critical and we will carry out drastic reform. Nothing is sacred," Sony are going to have to appease the people they owe money to because if they don't they could pull the plug which has happened to thousands of companies and simply because it is .......<----- enter your fav company here. Doesn't mean it won't happen to them.
|
I'll just say this. I am not familiar with the wamu case but I can assure you Enron downfall is not even comparable to Sonys situation. Not even close. Bad example to use there
OT: really sucks big time. No one wonder such big job cuts happened and so much re-structuring is going on. Hope Kaz will be able to bring the company into profit soon
|
It isn't a bad example at all. The point he was making was that Sony is a big company which makes a lot of money and has huge revenues. And because of this is too big to fail. How the company fails is irelivent it is the fact that it can happen at anytime. Enron was one of the biggest companies in the world. Was voted the most inovative company for 6 years running (Apple now have that title). It made over $101BN a year before the inflated finances scandal became known. When you put that into contrast with Sony Losing $6BN last year alone it shows you my point of how big a company it was. And it went bankrupt. Obviously you can argue the way they went bankrupt is totally different to Sony's situation and it would be right. Fraud is different to honest mismanagement.
But no matter how you get to the "tipping point" the outcome will be the same. Increasing debt, less people to lend you money and weakening consumer faith in your product/service leading to your stock crashing and struggling to recover. That is the point Sony are at right now. If they don't turn it around within 12 months then they will probably reach that point of no return. At least not in the way people on here expect.
|
I think you are missing my point. Enron was a big company, yes. But the reasons for its downfall are much different that the situations and conditions surrounding sony now. Trust me, I had to do a research paper on the subject just a month or so back. All their profits, revenue, cash flows, contracts, all were filled with lies and misleading information. I'm not gonna get into the details here tho (the paper ended up being around 8 pages or so..that's after I cut down content to fit the word count requirements) I'm not disagreeing with you that big companies can and has fallen, which is absolutely true. No giant is invincible and Sony definitely have their work cut out for them. The main difference is unless the audit firm in charge is doing an absolute shoddy job, the situation is not comparable to Enrons. But I do agree with the underlining argument here, just not with that specific example
