LordChris915 said: waron said: Nintendo - 8,390bn yen in 2007 Microsoft - about 78mld$ worth in 2009 Sony - 6,540bn yen in 2007(currently 230bn $) Ninendo is the 2nd biggest japanese company that was only beaten by Toyota while whole sony didn't even make it to top 10 in 2007. remind me if i'm wrong but wasn't sony constantly in the red for the past 2 years while nintendo was making more profit in each quarter than SCE did on ps2 in its 10 year lifespan COMBINED. That is the case with companies that have large assets, when they lose, the lose big, but they will never go bust and when they start winning again, they win big! The recession has done alot of damage to Sony, but they expect to take damage, it will be a huge success for Sony if they can take less damage because it means that they will be in a better position when the world economy recovers! Nintendo are in a much more precarious position because while they are flying high now, their company is very small in terms of assets and is therefore less stable, they could make huge profits one year and huge losses the next!

While this may be theoretically true of small companies, Nintendo has only had a single quarter of loss in it's 121 years of operation and has never posted a full year loss.

While judging 'size' depends on how you look at it I'd be tending to put MS on top, Sony second and Nintendo third. Nintendo are however awesome at turning a profit, even in their worst years.

See the below taken from Neogaf: http://neogaf.net/forum/showpost.php?p=19625436&postcount=90

Note: this data is just comparing Nintendo with the respective games division of the other two so I'm not suggesting It can be used to argue that Nintendo is the bigger company, I've just included it for interests sake.

Y/E 1998 $902,811,090 $1,023,333,867 $1,926,144,957
Y/E 1999 $1,102,563,557 $1,301,350,000 $2,403,913,557
Y/E 2000 $722,738,949 $1,368,207,547 $2,090,946,497
Y/E 2001 -$449,776,290 $677,576,000 $227,799,710
Y/E 2002 $629,101,056 $895,872,180 -$1,135,000,000 $389,973,237
Y/E 2003 $935,569,253 $834,333,333 -$1,191,000,000 $578,902,586
Y/E 2004 $627,195,212 $993,161,303 -$1,337,000,000 $283,356,515
Y/E 2005 $419,888,799 $1,056,056,202 -$539,000,000 $936,945,001
Y/E 2006 $69,129,058 $774,478,055 -$1,339,000,000 -$495,392,887
Y/E 2007 -$1,970,923,859 $1,914,666,388 -$1,969,000,000 -$2,025,257,471
Y/E 2008 -$1,079,994,103 $4,322,637,887 $426,000,000 $3,668,643,783
Y/E 2009 -$664,313,787 $5,691,428,301 $169,000,000 $5,196,114,515

Y/E 10Q1 -$413,541,667 $420,843,750 $312,000,000 $319,302,083
Y/E 10Q2 -$653,333,333 $710,655,556 $375,000,000 $432,011,111
Y/E 10Q3 $210,629,750 $2,087,904,452 N/A N/A

Total
$387,078,407 $24,072,504,822 -$6,157,000,000 $16,004,049,028

Full Year Average
$103,665,745 $1,737,758,422 -$1,001,857,143 $914,270,499

Profitable Years
8 12 2 10

Non Profitable Years
4 0 6 2

Average in Loss Year
-$1,041,252,010 N/A -$1,251,666,667 -$1,260,325,179

Average in Profit Year
$676,124,622 $1,737,758,422 $333,000,000 $1,389,625,094

Grimes said: RVDondaPC said: Grimes said: RVDondaPC said: Grimes said: Some successful companies give dividends, others do not. Some bad companies give dividends, others do not. I don't really see how that is relevant to this argument. Because everytime a company pays out a dividend it is paying out a piece of value from the company which decreases the Market Cap of that company. If they did not pay out a dividend then the market cap of that company would be much higher than it is. There are plenty of successful companies that pay out dividends. If there was such a strong correlation, the market would adjust to it. The market does adjust for it. Everytime A company pays out a dividend the stock price drops that amount on the execution date for that given dividend. It can go up or down from there depending on all kinds of things, but the market does adjust for it. So if a company paid out a $.50 dividend on April 9th then at the open of the market on April 9th the stock of that company will be $.50 lower than where it was before the open of the market. Thus affecting the Market Cap value of that company. Whether the stock goes up or down after that adjustment depends on other factors, but the market does adjust for dividend pay outs.    That's not adjustment based on how people think the company will perform, nor does it have much impact on how a company operates. I just don't see how any of this is relevant to the discussion at hand. If there is any impact from dividends, it is miniscule compared to other factors such as innovation and sound management.

 

They were using Market Cap as the way to determine the size of a company. Do you even know how market cap is determined? It's the price of the stock times the number of shares. What I stated is a DIRECT effect on market cap because the stock price goes lower. You can't get any more direct than that. You only proved my point. That dividends don't have an impact on how a company operates(though it limits it's capital to invest) but it does have a direct impact on the Market Cap of the company. Thank you. 

hsrob said: LordChris915 said: waron said: Nintendo - 8,390bn yen in 2007 Microsoft - about 78mld$ worth in 2009 Sony - 6,540bn yen in 2007(currently 230bn $) Ninendo is the 2nd biggest japanese company that was only beaten by Toyota while whole sony didn't even make it to top 10 in 2007. remind me if i'm wrong but wasn't sony constantly in the red for the past 2 years while nintendo was making more profit in each quarter than SCE did on ps2 in its 10 year lifespan COMBINED. That is the case with companies that have large assets, when they lose, the lose big, but they will never go bust and when they start winning again, they win big! The recession has done alot of damage to Sony, but they expect to take damage, it will be a huge success for Sony if they can take less damage because it means that they will be in a better position when the world economy recovers! Nintendo are in a much more precarious position because while they are flying high now, their company is very small in terms of assets and is therefore less stable, they could make huge profits one year and huge losses the next! While this may be theoretically true of small companies, Nintendo has only had a single quarter of loss in it's 121 years of operation and has never posted a full year loss. While judging 'size' depends on how you look at it I'd be tending to put MS on top, Sony second and Nintendo third. Nintendo are however awesome at turning a profit, even in their worst years. See the below taken from Neogaf: http://neogaf.net/forum/showpost.php?p=19625436&postcount=90 Note: this data is just comparing Nintendo with the respective games division of the other two so I'm not suggesting It can be used to argue that Nintendo is the bigger company, I've just included it for interests sake. Y/E 1998 $902,811,090 $1,023,333,867 $1,926,144,957 Y/E 1999 $1,102,563,557 $1,301,350,000 $2,403,913,557 Y/E 2000 $722,738,949 $1,368,207,547 $2,090,946,497 Y/E 2001 -$449,776,290 $677,576,000 $227,799,710 Y/E 2002 $629,101,056 $895,872,180 -$1,135,000,000 $389,973,237 Y/E 2003 $935,569,253 $834,333,333 -$1,191,000,000 $578,902,586 Y/E 2004 $627,195,212 $993,161,303 -$1,337,000,000 $283,356,515 Y/E 2005 $419,888,799 $1,056,056,202 -$539,000,000 $936,945,001 Y/E 2006 $69,129,058 $774,478,055 -$1,339,000,000 -$495,392,887 Y/E 2007 -$1,970,923,859 $1,914,666,388 -$1,969,000,000 -$2,025,257,471 Y/E 2008 -$1,079,994,103 $4,322,637,887 $426,000,000 $3,668,643,783 Y/E 2009 -$664,313,787 $5,691,428,301 $169,000,000 $5,196,114,515 Y/E 10Q1 -$413,541,667 $420,843,750 $312,000,000 $319,302,083 Y/E 10Q2 -$653,333,333 $710,655,556 $375,000,000 $432,011,111 Y/E 10Q3 $210,629,750 $2,087,904,452 N/A N/A Total $387,078,407 $24,072,504,822 -$6,157,000,000 $16,004,049,028 Full Year Average $103,665,745 $1,737,758,422 -$1,001,857,143 $914,270,499 Profitable Years 8 12 2 10 Non Profitable Years 4 0 6 2 Average in Loss Year -$1,041,252,010 N/A -$1,251,666,667 -$1,260,325,179 Average in Profit Year $676,124,622 $1,737,758,422 $333,000,000 $1,389,625,094

Whether you put MS or Sony ontop depends on whether you value assets or capital, capital is all well and good so long as you have something to spend it on which will generate more capital, assets are great so long as they are making money, plus you have the added bonus of being able you use assets to aid other assets, something Sony has recently re-discovered.

I agree with your figures, however thir track record does not make them any less vulnerable, one or two bad consoles and it could all be over, the fact of the matter is, we probably would not be talking about Nintendo right now if it did not have such a good record!

According to wikipedia
Microsoft
Total Assets ▲ $77.888 billion (2009)[7]
Total equity ▲ $39.558 billion (2009)[
Employees 93,000

Sony*
Total assets ▲ $230.5 billion (2009)[citation needed]
Total equity ▲ $50 billion (2009)[citation needed]
Employees 180,500

Nintendo
Total assets ▲ ¥1.8 trillion (2009)[3] ($19.22 billion)
Operating income ▲ ¥555.263 billion (2009)[3] ($5.93 billion)
Employees 4,130 (2009)[3]

So Sony>Microsoft>Ninendo

Icyedge said: thranx said: nintendo has more cash reserves than sony. That is true only if you take the gaming division by itself. Im surprise so much person think Nintendo is bigger than Sony.

Nintendo I believe still has a larger market cap then Sony... market cap is actually how you decide the "size' of a buisness.

kowenicki said: freebs2 said: According to wikipedia Microsoft Total Assets ▲ $77.888 billion (2009)[7] Total equity ▲ $39.558 billion (2009)[ Employees 93,000 Sony* Total assets ▲ $230.5 billion (2009)[citation needed] Total equity ▲ $50 billion (2009)[citation needed] Employees 180,500 Nintendo Total assets ▲ ¥1.8 trillion (2009)[3] ($19.22 billion) Operating income ▲ ¥555.263 billion (2009)[3] ($5.93 billion) Employees 4,130 (2009)[3] So Sony>Microsoft>Ninendo   so we only use assets, equity and personnel Personnel is utterly irrelevant. Assets means nothing unless thsoe asests create income.  what about liabilities and profit margin/ratios? and your equity figures are old and miles off.   best question.... If you could own the entire company... which would you own?....for purely financial reasons.  Bottom of that list would be sony, least profits, least profitable and tightest profit margins.

This datas doesn't explain how the company is performing, but those are indicators of how a company is "large" in that terms the personel employed and the assets are a significant info. If you want to know how the companies are performing go check their balance sheets of the last 2-3 years....Of course Sony is a company I wouldn't rely on, in this period, but the volume of their business is reasonably larger than Nintendo and maybe even microsoft since they operate in many different markets.

RVDondaPC said: Grimes said: RVDondaPC said: Grimes said: RVDondaPC said: Grimes said: Some successful companies give dividends, others do not. Some bad companies give dividends, others do not. I don't really see how that is relevant to this argument. Because everytime a company pays out a dividend it is paying out a piece of value from the company which decreases the Market Cap of that company. If they did not pay out a dividend then the market cap of that company would be much higher than it is. There are plenty of successful companies that pay out dividends. If there was such a strong correlation, the market would adjust to it. The market does adjust for it. Everytime A company pays out a dividend the stock price drops that amount on the execution date for that given dividend. It can go up or down from there depending on all kinds of things, but the market does adjust for it. So if a company paid out a $.50 dividend on April 9th then at the open of the market on April 9th the stock of that company will be $.50 lower than where it was before the open of the market. Thus affecting the Market Cap value of that company. Whether the stock goes up or down after that adjustment depends on other factors, but the market does adjust for dividend pay outs.    That's not adjustment based on how people think the company will perform, nor does it have much impact on how a company operates. I just don't see how any of this is relevant to the discussion at hand. If there is any impact from dividends, it is miniscule compared to other factors such as innovation and sound management.   They were using Market Cap as the way to determine the size of a company. Do you even know how market cap is determined? It's the price of the stock times the number of shares. What I stated is a DIRECT effect on market cap because the stock price goes lower. You can't get any more direct than that. You only proved my point. That dividends don't have an impact on how a company operates(though it limits it's capital to invest) but it does have a direct impact on the Market Cap of the company. Thank you.

You are correct on that a stock will generally go down in value the day a dividend is paid, but you are forgetting that generally the same stock will go up before the ex-dividend date.  It kind of balnaces things out. 

Pipedream24 said: RVDondaPC said: Grimes said: RVDondaPC said: Grimes said: RVDondaPC said: Grimes said: Some successful companies give dividends, others do not. Some bad companies give dividends, others do not. I don't really see how that is relevant to this argument. Because everytime a company pays out a dividend it is paying out a piece of value from the company which decreases the Market Cap of that company. If they did not pay out a dividend then the market cap of that company would be much higher than it is. There are plenty of successful companies that pay out dividends. If there was such a strong correlation, the market would adjust to it. The market does adjust for it. Everytime A company pays out a dividend the stock price drops that amount on the execution date for that given dividend. It can go up or down from there depending on all kinds of things, but the market does adjust for it. So if a company paid out a $.50 dividend on April 9th then at the open of the market on April 9th the stock of that company will be $.50 lower than where it was before the open of the market. Thus affecting the Market Cap value of that company. Whether the stock goes up or down after that adjustment depends on other factors, but the market does adjust for dividend pay outs.    That's not adjustment based on how people think the company will perform, nor does it have much impact on how a company operates. I just don't see how any of this is relevant to the discussion at hand. If there is any impact from dividends, it is miniscule compared to other factors such as innovation and sound management.   They were using Market Cap as the way to determine the size of a company. Do you even know how market cap is determined? It's the price of the stock times the number of shares. What I stated is a DIRECT effect on market cap because the stock price goes lower. You can't get any more direct than that. You only proved my point. That dividends don't have an impact on how a company operates(though it limits it's capital to invest) but it does have a direct impact on the Market Cap of the company. Thank you.  You are correct on that a stock will generally go down in value the day a dividend is paid, but you are forgetting that generally the same stock will go up before the ex-dividend date.  It kind of balnaces things out.

I'm not talking about the stock price through out the day, I'm talking about the automatic drop in price equal to the dividend. Where the price goes from there depends. Some stocks shoot right back up by the end of the day, other stocks go down a lot further. But yeah the stock price on average balances out but it's balancing out at the same time that money is being sucked out of the company and given to stock holders. If the stock price is balancing out with that happening imagine what the stock price would do if that dividend money was kept by the company. The stock price would keep going up, increasing the market cap of that company. That's why companies like Verizon can keep cranking out big earning all the while their market cap goes up and down and in the long run has actually decreased over the past 10 years. It's because they keep dishing out big dividends. If Verizon didn't pay a dividend I would bet their stock price (and market cap) would be around double what it is now.   

Ok... I am going to say something very simple for the OP. If you ever want to know which company is "larger" (ie worth more). All you have to do is go to google.com/finance. Type MSFT - look at the Market Cap Column and that is the value of that company. THAT Market Cap is the intrinsic value determined by the consumer(us) to be the worth of that company. That includes there employees, their cash on hand, their intellectual properties, patents etc. This is priced into the valuation of the stock. So therefore in every respect it determines which company is larger/more valuable etc. So comparisons of employees have virtually no basis in which company is larger. You can have 10,000 employees generating 0 profit and 100 employees making $100 profit per employee, which one would you rather have?

SO on that basis.

(Microsoft)MSFT is the largest with a current market cap of 266.10BLN


Nintendo ie (7974 on the Tokyo exchange) current market cap of 3.89T, with the current exchange rate of 0.010723 usd - 41.7 BLN

Lastly we have Sony Corp (6758) current market cap of 3.44 - 36.8 BLN

So... MSFT > NINTENDO > SONY...

now if you just consider gaming divisions because "that is what is important" Nintendo is the largest, because the entire company is a gaming division.

According to wiki

Nintendo revenue - 1.8 trillion yen = $20 billion
Sony revenue - 7.7 trillion yen = $80 billion
Microsoft revenue - $58 billion.