KLAMarine said:
|
Eddie_Raja said:
Not sure why you keep denying that the massive size of Sony/MS gives them armor.
|
Because WHEN YOU DO THE MATH using OP's figures, you'll see Sony's armor is not as thick as you think.
Let's do the math using the following formula:
cash and short term investments + assets - liabilities - debts = "armor"
Nintendo:
$7.6 billion + $11.3 billion - $1.5 billion - $103,000 = $17.4 billion
Sony:
$15.7 billion + $132 billion - $107.6 billion - $18 billion = $22.1 billion
Microsoft:
$96.5 billion + $176.2 billion - $96.1 billion - $7.5 billion = $169.1 billion
As one can see, Sony's "armor" is much much closer to Nintendo's "armor" than to Microsoft's "armor". Microsoft's "armor" is huge compared to Sony's "armor", they're not even comparable.
With that said, the problem for Sony is that Sony is a much larger company than Nintendo. Sony employs about 130,000 people ( http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/csr_report/employees/info/ ) while Nintendo employs about 4,000 to 5,000 ( http://www.numberof.net/number%C2%A0of%C2%A0nintendo%C2%A0employees/ , https://www.macroaxis.com/invest/ratio/NTDOY.PK--Number-of-Employees ).
Sony has more people on the payroll than Nintendo, they have more wages to pay, more facilities to pay for but only have about $4.7 billion more in "armor" than Nintendo and about $147 billion less "armor" than Microsoft.
The reasoning above is why in my opinion, Sony is the weakest among the three.
I'm not a business major so my opinion is rather worthless and if any business majors reading this post detect faulty reasoning in my logic, please let me know.
|
