Corporate Health of Sony, Nintendo and MS

[DonFerrari]

KLAMarine said:

DonFerrari said:

KLAMarine said:

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?

You can answer that yourself, what meaning you expect on "assets/employee" calculation?

My "assets/employee" calculation was in response to Eddie_Raja's constant bringing up of Sony being able to survive "disaster" better than Nintendo. In response, I calculated how much each company has in reserve to keep their workforce employed. As one can see, Nintendo can afford to keep each one of their employees longer than Sony in part because they have much less employees on the payroll.

That is if my reasoning is sound: again, I'm no business major.

DonFerrari said:

I would dare say that in fact having more employees would make government more prone to bail out the company making it harder for sony to bankrupt than Nintendo, even more when sony acts in a lot more fields and work in technology evolution instead of only making games.

That's a big if. I don't recall the Japanese government jumping in to help Sony when it sold off its Vaio line or when it reported huge losses in the mobile phone business.

The probability of a company surviving isn't equal to the probability of keeping everyone employed this is why your math on that wasn't meaning much.

Japanese government didn't jump to sabe a branch (and they sold it, didn't just bombed it), which is different from saving a company as a whole. And perhaps Sony didn't run for help like American banks have done to save their screw ups and make money while draining the population