Forums - Sony Discussion - Sony To Post $2 Billion+ Loss

FiliusDei said:
Zekkyou said:
FiliusDei said:

All of Sony is worth less than 18 billion. It is quite possible for the ps brand to be 5b.

$18b is their market cap, not their linear worth.

That is the price the market says it is worth. Sony has about 150billion in assets but has about 130b in liability. If you were to buy sony, you would pay around 18-20 billion maybe a little more. I have no idea what the value of the ps brand is and that would include IPs, studios etc.

I also have no idea what the comparison would be between XB and PS brands value.

If anyone has the info please enlighten us!

I would think the PS is worth more than XB because of all the somy owned studios and IPs.


Xbox were evaluated at 23B, and you say PS should fetch more, but you also said PS brand is worth 5B, so you were quite lost...

On the methodology to determine the Xbox brand worth see this.

foxtail said:
DonFerrari said:

Quite possible... it baffles me that MS during X360 times (without Gears being theirs) the brand was 25B but people saying Sony in entirety were worth less.

And you know how they came up with all those pointless valuations for the Xbox brand, all they did was use a simple revenue multiple (price-to-sales) that used Nintendo as the benchmark.  

It all depended on how much Nintendo's stock sold for times its trailing 12-month revenue then applied to Xbox revenue estimates.  The higher that multiple was on Nintendo's end, the higher value they could say the Xbox was worth.  

It's a simple and erroneous calculation that has little basis in the reality of the situation.  Nintendo shouldn't be used to determine the value of Xbox because they are too different and using multiples gives us a shortsighted view.

Well we can both agree it was bad made evaluation... because if we would evaluate PS brand worth based on earning using Mojang (350M but sold for 2.5B) then PS Brand would be worth like 75B.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network
kowenicki said:
DonFerrari said:
BeElite said:


moronicism runs rampent in the world.


And quite often they pretend to be quite smart and reliable, with respectable credentials.

You didnt get back to me on those figures you had showing gaming to be more profitable than financials recently and being a major financial contributor to Sony Corp always.

Guess you realised how wildly wrong you were.

No worries.

 

And I guess you said it wasn't necessary, and I said I probably read wrong...

But yes, you felt it was necessary to bring it for some sactisfactition since you are pretty much disregarded in all the other parts of the site for completely oblivious prediction, discussion and incapacity to say you were wrong.

Guess you could also learn to read so you could see I said I was possibly wrong on the financials having ever had a loss for a quarter and as I SAID about 20 times, PS was doing GOOD profit numbers in the last quart. I NEVER, and I will repeat NEVER said they were a major contributor... and if you had the trouble to read the thread you will see myself saying the same to a lot of people... PS losses and earnings weren't never a deciding factor (or hold much weight) in sony final numbers... even if we consider PS3 as a whole losing something between 4-5B (or as some account, all the profit PS1 and 2 had made) it was spread in like 10years, but sony had quite sometimes lost almost that much in a single year... but yes, keep guessing wrong and trying to fell superior to think you are any better than anyone.

And also not sure why you quoted this convo, because also haven't said I had credentials in financials or pretended to be reliable, and quite sure haven't named or quoted you in here... have you by any chance think you were being mentioned in this? Why would that be?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

DonFerrari said:

Xbox were evaluated at 23B, and you say PS should fetch more, but you also said PS brand is worth 5B, so you were quite lost...

On the methodology to determine the Xbox brand worth see this.

foxtail said:
DonFerrari said:

Quite possible... it baffles me that MS during X360 times (without Gears being theirs) the brand was 25B but people saying Sony in entirety were worth less.

And you know how they came up with all those pointless valuations for the Xbox brand, all they did was use a simple revenue multiple (price-to-sales) that used Nintendo as the benchmark.  

It all depended on how much Nintendo's stock sold for times its trailing 12-month revenue then applied to Xbox revenue estimates.  The higher that multiple was on Nintendo's end, the higher value they could say the Xbox was worth.  

It's a simple and erroneous calculation that has little basis in the reality of the situation.  Nintendo shouldn't be used to determine the value of Xbox because they are too different and using multiples gives us a shortsighted view.

Well we can both agree it was bad made evaluation... because if we would evaluate PS brand worth based on earning using Mojang (350M but sold for 2.5B) then PS Brand would be worth like 75B.

I see where you're going but it wouldn't work that way since Mojang wasn't a publicly traded company so you couldn't calculate with a revenue multiple.  

One reason I think Bloomberg shouldn't have used Nintendo to measure the Xbox brand value using multiples is because a large portion of Nintendo's revenue comes from it's handhelds and Xbox doesn't compete in that space.  Again multiples are too simple.



Soundwave said:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=896186

Looks like another year of massive losses at Sony. Not good. Apparently the smartphone division is not doing too well. 


the smartphone division would do way better if they advertised and made them available on all carriers stateside.  i wanted a Z3 but could get one easily for AT&T  so i gave up and got a G3 instead.



foxtail said:
DonFerrari said:

Xbox were evaluated at 23B, and you say PS should fetch more, but you also said PS brand is worth 5B, so you were quite lost...

On the methodology to determine the Xbox brand worth see this.

foxtail said:
DonFerrari said:

Quite possible... it baffles me that MS during X360 times (without Gears being theirs) the brand was 25B but people saying Sony in entirety were worth less.

And you know how they came up with all those pointless valuations for the Xbox brand, all they did was use a simple revenue multiple (price-to-sales) that used Nintendo as the benchmark.  

It all depended on how much Nintendo's stock sold for times its trailing 12-month revenue then applied to Xbox revenue estimates.  The higher that multiple was on Nintendo's end, the higher value they could say the Xbox was worth.  

It's a simple and erroneous calculation that has little basis in the reality of the situation.  Nintendo shouldn't be used to determine the value of Xbox because they are too different and using multiples gives us a shortsighted view.

Well we can both agree it was bad made evaluation... because if we would evaluate PS brand worth based on earning using Mojang (350M but sold for 2.5B) then PS Brand would be worth like 75B.

I see where you're going but it wouldn't work that way since Mojang wasn't a publicly traded company so you couldn't calculate with a revenue multiple.  

One reason I think Bloomberg shouldn't have used Nintendo to measure the Xbox brand value using multiples is because a large portion of Nintendo's revenue comes from it's handhelds and Xbox doesn't compete in that space.  Again multiples are too simple.

Well any "simplistic" calculation would give this kind of bizarre flaws... Why didn't Bloomberg gone for Sony Marketcap and made the same assumption, because that would also mix useless things... I quite believe they used a more positive number to put their analysis (and I'm not that far from believing 23B would be a fair price to pay on the whole Xbox brand) just said that it was obtuse to say Sony in whole is worth less than Xbox brand while PS brand is far more valueable than Xbox brand.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:

Well any "simplistic" calculation would give this kind of bizarre flaws... Why didn't Bloomberg gone for Sony Marketcap and made the same assumption, because that would also mix useless things... I quite believe they used a more positive number to put their analysis (and I'm not that far from believing 23B would be a fair price to pay on the whole Xbox brand) just said that it was obtuse to say Sony in whole is worth less than Xbox brand while PS brand is far more valueable than Xbox brand.

Sony as a whole isn't worth less than the Xbox brand, that much should be clear to everyone.  And PS could likely be more valuable than Xbox with what they've built up over the years.  But since the Xbox and PS brands don't have detailed information on their gaming sectors alone that specifically includes their "balance sheets" (assets and liabilities) and "statements of income" (sales, profits and losses) it's hard to put a tangible value on them.  Though in a market value setting the 2 brands could be worth a lot more than what's on paper, which would be as much as the highest bidder would be willing to pay for them (Xbox or Playstation).



foxtail said:
DonFerrari said:

Well any "simplistic" calculation would give this kind of bizarre flaws... Why didn't Bloomberg gone for Sony Marketcap and made the same assumption, because that would also mix useless things... I quite believe they used a more positive number to put their analysis (and I'm not that far from believing 23B would be a fair price to pay on the whole Xbox brand) just said that it was obtuse to say Sony in whole is worth less than Xbox brand while PS brand is far more valueable than Xbox brand.

Sony as a whole isn't worth less than the Xbox brand, that much should be clear to everyone.  And PS could likely be more valuable than Xbox with what they've built up over the years.  But since the Xbox and PS brands don't have detailed information on their gaming sectors alone that specifically includes their "balance sheets" (assets and liabilities) and "statements of income" (sales, profits and losses) it's hard to put a tangible value on them.  Though in a market value setting the 2 brands could be worth a lot more than what's on paper, which would be as much as the highest bidder would be willing to pay for them (Xbox or Playstation).

Agree with you on everything...

At least for PS brand you have for almost all years(for some you need some magic, or counting sold units and SW, for the years they merged with other department... but in some cases the next year they were demerged and if you look for the previous year in that statement you will have the individual number) the balance sheet to make some guess... Xbox have some other devices together making it harder to analyze...

And yes, if any investor were to seriously entertain the idea of buying the brand they would have to fork quite some cash, I wouldn't throw out the possibility of 50B-100B (seeing as MS is willing to pay 2.5B for a one hit dev because of the use they can do of the IP, they wouldn't let the brand go for pocket change, even more when they have serious cash already, even if they decided to cut the gaming division I don't see they selling it for less than the supposed 23B or 25 marketcap... for Sony the value of the brand, one of the few still strong, relevant and profitable would make them not wanting to let go, if they can hold a money drain like tv and vaio for 10 years, you can imagine how attached they are to their products so they looking for buyers is hard to imagine, and to take it out of sony by proposal I think Sony would want enough money to really reestruturize Sony and make they go back to bussiness).



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

NewGuy said:
If MS offered Kaz Hirai 4 or 5 Mojangs, i.e. 10 - 12 billion cash for SCE and all of its studios and associated brands, do you think he should take the offer? I think he should.


i dont want to take sides in here but MS wouldnt buy SCE, there shareholders wont buy a company in financial crisis. They will only buy something if they need it to compete (Nokia Phones) or they see future profits (Minecraft). MS are a Software company, they dont need there own hardware, they made it rich because they supplyed the software to other brands like Sony.