shouldn't this thread be in the gaming thread? wtf has this got to do with Sony? its about all 3 consoles so it should be in gaming thread or the sales thread

MARCUSDJACKSON said: fortune 500? microsoft 35 gamestop is ranked higher than sony and nintendo  hey wait? sony's bigger because they are involved in more. microsoft second and nintendo becase they are in less indutries. and yes they are to big to fell but they arn't stupid. they won't need a bailout!!!! (wii move ur blocking natal) ha ha ha

My error, MS is at 35 (revenue), top 5 (profit). I was looking at an earlier year. Sorry.

 

 

 

 

Grimes said: Dioxinis said: sony has $230 billion in assets microsoft has $77 billion in assets Nintendo has 1.8 trillion yen in assets thats roughly 19 billion dollars in source:wikipedia sony is huge GM had over $300 billion in assets at the time of its demise, for all the good it did it. BTW, I'm not saying Sony is GM. Just pointing out how useless stating assets are without context.

but of course but i was simply answering the topic hahaha he wasnt very specific

Pipedream24 said: @ Rvdondapc 1. Since you are an employee, you can't turn a profit, you earn a wage. 2. I'm not arguing that profits are a way to measure how large a business is. I was just refuting leo-j's blanket statement he made earlier in the thread. 3. My whole argument is that based on how the investment community views the size of a business (Market Cap). Sony is the smallest by this measure. If people diasgree with how the business world perceives the size of a company...I don't know what to tell you. 4. Would you call Berkshire Hathaway a small company?

1. it's just semantics no need to argue this point.2. Fair enough. I guess I was doing the samething to your out of context(from my perspective) blank statement. 3. Market Cap is one way to determine a company size but like all measures it has it's flaws. There is no one thing that can be used to measure the size of a company. The main flaw being that each time a company pays out a dividend it is paying out a portion of the company's earned value. Sony has a long history of paying dividends compared to those companies. If a company does not pay out a dividend and keeps all of it's profits this money's value is continuously compounded by investments made by the company on behalf of this money. Another flaw is that market cap is perceived value and based on potential value rather than current value. Is Sony or Nintendo a bigger company? I don't know. I mean going by market value there are faux companies that don't even exist or have value that could potentially have higher market caps than actual profitable companies. 4. Berkshire Hathaway is a huge company. However if it had paid a quarterly dividend for the past 30 years it's stock price wouldn't be even close to where it is now. I'm not saying if it paid a dividend it would be a shit company or something, but it's market cap would be much smaller. 

RVDondaPC said: Pipedream24 said: @ Rvdondapc 1. Since you are an employee, you can't turn a profit, you earn a wage. 2. I'm not arguing that profits are a way to measure how large a business is. I was just refuting leo-j's blanket statement he made earlier in the thread. 3. My whole argument is that based on how the investment community views the size of a business (Market Cap). Sony is the smallest by this measure. If people diasgree with how the business world perceives the size of a company...I don't know what to tell you. 4. Would you call Berkshire Hathaway a small company? 1. it's just semantics no need to argue this point.2. Fair enough. I guess I was doing the samething to your out of context(from my perspective) blank statement. 3. Market Cap is one way to determine a company size but like all measures it has it's flaws. There is no one thing that can be used to measure the size of a company. The main flaw being that each time a company pays out a dividend it is paying out a portion of the company's earned value. Sony has a long history of paying dividends compared to those companies. If a company does not pay out a dividend and keeps all of it's profits this money's value is continuously compounded by investments made by the company on behalf of this money. Another flaw is that market cap is perceived value and based on potential value rather than current value. Is Sony or Nintendo a bigger company? I don't know. I mean going by market value there are faux companies that don't even exist or have value that could potentially have higher market caps than actual profitable companies. 4. Berkshire Hathaway is a huge company. However if it had paid a quarterly dividend for the past 30 years it's stock price wouldn't be even close to where it is now. I'm not saying if it paid a dividend it would be a shit company or something, but it's market cap would be much smaller.

 

Nintendo is the company that has been giving substantial dividends lately. Microsoft also has a small dividend. Sony gives no dividend.

I really don't see what dividends have to do with anything. Some of most successful companies give dividends, others do not.

The question was ... Which company is larger? The answer is clearly Sony. They have more market reach / assets . They make the least amount of profit currently, but like anything when you have your hands in 100 different pots, you eventually will strike gold and that is the reasoning for this. If Sony gets certain aspects of it's business on track, they clearly have great earning potential due to their sheer size.

Microsoft clearly is in the best position of the big three. They have relatively healthy margins and also have a good amount of assets but not so many that they are getting burnt in many areas like Sony. They are the second largest company and sit in the middle of Sony and Nintendo but sit in an ideal spot to expand a bit but remain pretty constant and stable with a stranglehold over the PC market.

Nintendo is the most financially responsible company, but without a doubt the smallest company of three. They really don't have nearly the same amount of assets as MS or Sony. They are the most suspect to a sudden downturn in business severely hurting them due to their size due to their lack of assets. Although their small footprint aids them in the regard that they can avoid the chaos that Sony has subjected itself to by being involved in 1000 different venues.

Sony has been paying a dividend since 1983. It paid it's last dividend in September of 2008.
Nintendo started paying a dividend in 2002 and hasn't paid one since 2006.
Microsoft started paying a dividend in 2003 and continues to pay a dividend to this day.

A dividend of 10 cents paid 20 years ago is much more valuable than a dividend of 10 cents 2 years ago. If each company had held on to their 10 cent dividend, the first company's dividend would be worth a few dollars in today's value while the second company's would be worth maybe 15 cents.

i would say if ur just talking about money then microsoft are bigger. however in terns of the game industry then sony hav alot more very high level studios than microsoft (not sayin microsoft hav none)

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.

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.