You said: "Sony's troubles were not unexpected, but I think I might hop onboard at some point. "

Then you said: "Logically if you think that they have hit the rock bottom, you should at least consider to invest since the only way is up. :) "

So you might hop on board because the only way for Sony's stock is up.

Then: "Nintendo has not hit the rock bottom yet, of course."

You said "yet", that means you clearly think Nintendo can only go rock bottom, thus why you won't invest. What's strange is that Nintendo is in a waaaayyy better position than Sony, so by your logic you should also invest in Nintendo.

Wth is this shit?

Wrap your mind around this.

I said that they haven't hit the rock bottom yet, which means that they will go down. I did not in any way say that they are not going to come up from that, which is what you claim that I have said. They will hit the rock bottom and then go up, got it? When they hit the rock bottom in my opinion, it is a time when I will consider ntdoy as an option. Just like Sony.

If I think that a company stock will be going down, I won't be investing on it. How does that sound?

You don't understand logic, so why even bother to argue about it.

Yes Enron had an extremely healthly stock during the 1990s but the company spent the better part of a decade masking any revealnt information about what was really going on inside the company.  Once the bits and pieces started to filter through, that was all it took to take down the company.

The type of channel checks on a company like Nintendo (or any game/toy maker) is easier so analyst can easily refute what they say.  Enron's business was so complex, they only had Enron's word to go buy.

Wait, so regardless of the company you will invest in that company when they hit rock bottom? You are going to be a really bad investors. I think you are the one here that doesn't understand logic...

Do some short sales if you think it's going to go down.

Don't pay much attention to what investors do. The majority of them are short-sighted and poorly informed, relying on the likes of Michael Pachter to advise them. People who do little more than guess themselves (just a little more educated guess).

Investors actions do not necessarily reflect the value of a company.

I wouldn't say they pay much attention to analysts ...

Part of the reason there are so many people pushing unsophisticated investors to put their money into stocks is related to the old saying "A fool and his money are soon parted". While you should probably be looking to buy and hold onto a stock for (at least) a couple years before you sell it, and be looking for a return of 5% to 10% a year, most unsophisticated investors are using the stock market as a get rich quick scheme and looking to get a 50% return every few months.

While a person can do well by looking for companies that are appropriately valued (or undervalued) that are likely to see the fundimentals improve over the next several years, most unsophisticated investors don't take this approach; they look to ride the rollercoaster of sentiment and time the peaks and the valleys, but it is very difficult to do this and most people lose a lot of money trying.

Seriously runqvist? You wouldn't invest in a company with huge cash reserves but you would in a company with huge debt? Glad you're not my financial advisor. NTDOY up 2% last night, glad I didn't sell as soon as possible yesterday!

http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/7974?countrycode=JP

Where is the 2% coming from?

Here:

http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/7974:JP