You assume you have almost no knowledge on the issue but keep doing meaningless math to prove Nintendo is safier or have more armor? If you don't know what you are talking about it's better to just say you don't know.

As far as I know USA always wanted to swallow the world economy and MS in 90's were already quite big. But what does that have to do with Sony problems? MS never caused much trouble to Sony besisdes maybe pushing them to bad decisions on PS3 (which I doubt, they would probably release the same HW independt of MS being or not in the market) or having to drop the price to fast and losing money (Sony usually drops HW price fast, but yes I can see MS pressure being a decisive ingredient here).

I've said before that I'm not at all an expert and if any business majors see any faulty reasoning in my logic, I want them to correct me.

With that said, what is meaningless about my math?

You can answer that yourself, what meaning you expect on "assets/employee" calculation?

I would dare say that in fact having more employees would make government more prone to bail out the company making it harder for sony to bankrupt than Nintendo, even more when sony acts in a lot more fields and work in technology evolution instead of only making games.

You think Nintendo can have 20 consecutive failed generation in both fields they have products and nothing would really happen?

And you still complain of people that think Sony is in a better situation because Playstation is in a strong position or that Nintendo is in a bad situation because 3DS underperformed and WiiU plummeted?

Sony is back in the black if that was what you mean by recovered from those losses.

That's a pretty weird definition of recovery though. The damage of those 4 billion losses will be just as big regardless of how much money you make later. The most reasonable way to talk about recovery is if they've recovered their ability to make an (equal sized) profit as before their financial troubles, and in that sense, Sony has pretty much recovered.

Does it matter though? Sony is a bigger company, has more cash and assets and is now controlling their liabilities even more through their restructuring. As long as they're back to profiting, Sony can stand on its own because they could.

Nintendo on the other hand can't because their audience is dwindling because of smartphones.

Miss read the year. But okay that would make 4 generations... Do you think having 5 failed generations would make failed financials? Or do you expect nintendo to survive 20 years by making bigger and bigger bloppers?

Sony survived 10 years of financial problems, but it wasn't exactly all their products failing in the market, was much more failure on administrating costs.

Or do financial problems come on a vaccum? Or I should say you want to put things only in a light that make you satisfied?

Yes... when you say you recovered a company for some it seems like you have to have recovered all the losses in the past (they ignore the past is the past... unless they wanted to go further back and add also the profits and say that after losing 4,5B the company wasn't having problems)

More like Amiibo has helped bridged themselves to a bit of a profit.

So yeah they are failed products.

I know the answer. Both are failures when one will sell less than 50% the predecessor and the other only 15%. They are making profits not only because of amiibos but because the R&D were already paid during Wii and DS era. And it isn't like they are making large profits, and even more they are profiting on their SW. But if they keep failing on HW and their SW having increased cost because of generational leaps but lower market to sell you can see then losing a lot of money. If you preffer to ignore all of that no problem, doesn't matter mine or your opinion the reality will stay the same.