nanarchy on 15 January 2013
| Dodece said: What is baffling me, and is causing me a modest amount of concern. Is the fact that Sony built or bought this building in the past two years. When they were already well aware of their financial situation. Look I agree with Sony selling assets to restructure, and I have largely agreed with the restructuring they have been going through for the past six or seven years. This is absolutely not a recent phenomena. I have to wonder if Sony still hasn't come to terms with its own situation. Look the fact of the matter is this building ought not have existed in the first place for Sony to sell. They wouldn't need to be doing this. If they had leased a building in the first place, and in the mean time they would have had more ready cash available. They might have had more money laying around for strategic acquisitions, or paying back loans, or even getting better terms on loans, or on their bond offerings. Even if Sony ends up breaking even. Money that could have worked for them ended up not working for them. Anyway this has to be said. The net result of Sony's wheeling and dealing has been losses. I don't honestly know why Sony feels so utterly compelled to spend money they got from selling just to continue buying. It almost feels like a chronic double down. Even when they break even, or take a small win. They always fritter away the gains on another acquisition. I am interested to see if history is going to repeat itself again. All that usually ends up happening is Sony still lose money, an actually has less stuff to sell off the next year. |
The building opened 2 years ago, so add another 2 or 3 years at least for planning and building and the investment for this probably dates back at least 5 years or more.
