DonFerrari said:
| KLAMarine said:
I'm not messing with you. The fact that I bothered to do the math to support my statements will attest to that.
Eddie_Raja said:
Your math clearly showed that Sony is worth more money overall.
|
Eddie_Raja said:
SpokenTruth said:
I think the issue here is that you are looking at absolute values and he's looking as at ratios and percentages.
If that is the case, you are both correct in from those viewpoints. The question then becomes, which viewpoint is actually a better indicator of corporate health and how well they could weather problems?
|
Which is why I have said several times that absolute value is more important in the case of disaster - that is one my main points. Having the best Ratios is nice for investor meetings, but when the shit hits the fan what matters is how long can you survive hardship while you steer your company back on course. Sony's (Too?) massive size allowed them to sell off nearly endless pieces of their business when some of their divisions were going through hard times. If Nintendo were to be hit anywhere near as hard they would go bankrupt very quickly.
|
Sony has more employees than Nintendo. If we divide "armor" by employee size, we get the following:
Nintendo:
$17.4 billion / 5,000 = $3,480,000 per employee
Sony:
$22.1 billion / 130,000 = $170,000 per employee
What do you make of this? Who do you think might be able to hold onto their workforce for longer during times of crisis?
I certainly know who I'd rather work for.
|
You assume you have almost no knowledge on the issue but keep doing meaningless math to prove Nintendo is safier or have more armor? If you don't know what you are talking about it's better to just say you don't know.
|
I've said before that I'm not at all an expert and if any business majors see any faulty reasoning in my logic, I want them to correct me.
With that said, what is meaningless about my math?
