That's a bad explanation though. There's no reason to use higher leverage in order to increase ROE or EPS because that comes at the price of making equity riskier.

http://friendly-finance.blogspot.com/2009/12/homemade-leverage.html

Again, the main reason why a firm would want to leverage is to get the benefits of the debt tax shield. The interest you pay out is deductible.

Unfortunately, Sony has no taxable income to shield, and even if they did recently, they have so much NOL's they'll use that first.

You guys have to consider the fact that Sony is expecting lots of cash inflow from PS4. They have a compelling case to refinance their debt and to survive into the couple of years.

So even if I didn't understand half of what was written in the posts above I was on the right track, that companies can benefit from having debt.

So loans/debt is not always used just for investment, it's often also used as an instrument to decrease taxes.

@Akvod

The problem with your logic at least in regards to your last statement is this. Past performance should be given a great deal of weight when predicting future performance. In this case the previous console actually lost Sony a considerable amount of money. You shouldn't confuse current profitability with overall profitability. The current console has lost Sony billions of dollars, and stands little chance of recouping those losses.

While it is understandable that Sony might think they have divined a way to be profitable while introducing a newer console into the next generation. It would be the height of idiocy for them to imagine that they are assured of making a killing on such a product. Especially considering the fact that the dynamics at play in the current generation which they are losing will remain largely unchanged. Except for the fact that both their competitors will be leaving the current generation stronger then they arrived. Whereas Sony will be leaving much weaker then they arrived.

That said I am going to say something that is probably going to make you uncomfortable. Given the financial straits the company finds itself in today. It would be strategically unsound of them to carry forward with the development of a new console. While it does offer up high rewards it also carries with it a high risk. Another repeat of the current generation would bankrupt Sony, and that isn't a exaggeration. They couldn't sustain a two or three billion dollar loss on top of other losses.

If Sony is projecting big gains for the future of their games division. Then the only logical conclusion is that they are going to avoid the majority of the risk. While increasing their consumer base. That would speak to Sony becoming a dedicated software developer rather then a console manufacturer. Like I have said I wouldn't be altogether happy with that outcome, because it would deprive me of my daily dose of drama that the Sony fans on these forums provide.

That isn't to say that I wouldn't be the first to post a Borg link when such news came out on these forums. Am I the only one that misses the old you will be assimilated lines.

Well, you don't want to just have debt for the sake of decreasing taxable income. That'll be simply stupid.

What you want to do is that if you need to get financing, it's better to use debt rather than equity due to the tax shield. Debt doesn't really create value, but it simply allows shareholders to claim more of that value, rather than Uncle Sam (if you're in the US).

I'm not claiming if Sony has a good case or not. I'm not a financial analyst and even if I was, I would have to... you know... research in order to see if Sony has a case. But I could definetly see Sony making a case. And if you want to have a debate on whether or not it's compelling or not, I don't feel I'm qualified to make that call, and to be honest, nor are you.

Bit of a cop out.

Not really. Let me ask you, have you spoke to anybody from Sony's management?

@Akvod

That would be like taking on Satan as a spiritual adviser. At best you would get their side of the story, and at worst all you would get is spin. Neither of which would likely be the truth. After all do you know anybody who would say on the record that they have a gut feeling that their company is going to implode in a year. Even if you think that you are going to be unemployed in a year. You don't just come out and say it. Unless your looking to move it forward by getting yourself fired.

That said your commentary was basically a double negative, or was it a triple or quadruple negative. Firstly you say your not a expert, and then offer up your expert opinion. How can you say that Sony can make a case if you don't know the facts. Secondly you once again wave your credentials of not being a expert, and then offer up a expert opinion that I am not a expert. How would you know that seeing as your are not a expert.

Okay fun time is over. Any lay person is qualified to render a informed verdict. No special knowledge is required. Sony is a publicly traded company, and as such we have access to their financial statements, their contracts, their copyrights, their patents, and even their tax returns. So it isn't like there is a grand mystery here. There is really a good amount of evidence to work with. Juries have sentenced people to death with less information.

If you feel your inadequately informed that is fine, and it is good of you to admit. However that doesn't mean that others in this community are equally uninformed. Many here have spent years getting well versed with how Sony has operated, and the current disposition of the company. In a nutshell a lot of us are far from being babes in the woods.

My point is that Sony has a potential future cash inflow. That's all my original point was, and Sony can make an argument as to why people should invest in them. And people can have different conclusions.

But to judge whether or not they have a case, you're going to need a good guess as to what their margins are going to be, sales (which will be based on projected market share for an entire new line of consoles x size of the next gen console market), other sources of revenue, their cost of capital, etc.

And that's pretty fucking hard. Especially for a brand new console gen. where you're essentially starting from scratch, and there can be so much volatility. And as much as people make fun of analysts like Pachter, doing projections are complex. And that's ignoring the fact that Sony is a conglomerate with multiple businesses that may be doing well or unwell.

So I just get irritated when I see people like you writing some kind of wordy liberal arts essay ("That would be like taking on Satan as a spiritual adviser.", really?)

Give me some numbers. Give me some projected numbers. Give me some details, or at least a back of the hand calculation and then I'll listen. Otherwise, I'm going to think you're just talking out of your ass.

1. Anyone can make a argument, but not everyone should be taken seriously. The problem is that Sony has almost no credibility. They consistently over estimate their performance. Even when they project a loss, and that isn't ever a exaggeration on my part. I honestly can't recall if Sony has even met, or beaten any of thier last twenty quarterly forecasts. I know for a fact they haven't met their last five yearly forecasts. By the way potential is a fairly vague term.

2. You are actually severely overstating your case. While it is true you need a working knowledge of the subject. You don't need a Microscope to parse out the trends, or to plug in basic variables. For examples sake you don't need to know the location of every single lightning bolt to know where a storm is likely to hit, or about how much rain it is going to deliver to the ground. Yeah sure every lightning strike has a effect on the storm as a whole, and their cumulative effect can be significant, but it doesn't change the fundamental fact that the Earth rotates, and storms have to obey that rule of motion.

3. Has it occurred to you that Pachter just isn't very good at his job. That his predictions often fail not, because the situation is chaotic, but because he hasn't considered the correct data. There isn't necessarily a good substitute for instincts when it comes to human behavior. Hell there isn't a good substitute for real dispassionate observation. I suspect he is guilty on both accounts. Don't assume what the media assumes. Which is that he is eminently qualified to deliver any kind of rigorous verdict on anything. There are those on these forums that routinely outperform him.

3a. As for Sony being a conglomerate. You do understand that Sony's almost obsessive insistence on reinvigorating their core business is actually defeating that well crafted argument you think you just made. Sony is routinely selling off divisions and holdings that are actually profitable. That is in fact how they are able to sell them. That said the divisions routinely losing money are not offset by the few areas where Sony is actually making money, and those divisions that routinely lose money. Lose Sony a lot of money. Sony is funneling money into money pits. It doesn't take calculus to see where that is going to lead.

4. Well thank you I think. I try to write in a way that is both amusing and informative. There isn't anything wrong with good craftsmanship. Look you have to understand something. Your coming into a conversation that has been going on for five years or more. A lot of us here have been digesting the information as it comes in, and disected just about everything we have gotten our hands on. A lot of us have a real good working knowledge. That said if you want me to go to the trouble of compiling a detailed synopsis that will take me all of twenty hours to create. I really want to know a few things.

Are you genuinely interested in understanding these things? Would you be willing to contribute to a lengthy discussion? Do you feel you would have anything substantial to contribute? Look I would be more then happy to do this, but if my history on these forums has taught me anything it is this. The more time you put into something the less you get out. Flamebait can generate twenty page threads, and serious analytical threads can drop off the front page with all of half a dozen replies. So I guess I am asking you if your just going to waste my time with this, because it is a discussion that I take seriously. If so it probably won't be soon on my end. I will need a couple free days when I have nothing better to do, and that could be a few weeks down the road.