[QUOTE="ragrdoll21"][QUOTE="Eltroz"][QUOTE="ragrdoll21"][QUOTE="Eltroz"][QUOTE="ragrdoll21"][QUOTE="ZebethOrZebes"]This is System Wars not Corporate Wars.Eltroz

[QUOTE="DXGreat1_HGL"][QUOTE="Kestastrophe"][QUOTE="DXGreat1_HGL"]

Better yet, ignore people like you that act like you know everything.

Actually, an investor would want Sony to start rethinking their gaming division, because if you take away the losses, they would have more money which is what they invest for anyways. You think they want to run a charity?

 

Kestastrophe

Actually, losses in the present have virtually no bearing on investor's decisions. What investors, or rather the managers at Sony, care about is the net present value of projects or divisions. If the net present value of the gaming division is greater than or equal to 0, then investors would want the company to invest in gaming because it creates value. I can explain in further detail if anyone wants.

Ypu know this because you've talked to each individual investor, right?

No. I know this because I have a Master's degree in business.  

 Oh OK, so some idiot professor that has probably never invested money in his life said so, that explains it...

[QUOTE="Eltroz"][QUOTE="ragrdoll21"][QUOTE="Eltroz"][QUOTE="ragrdoll21"][QUOTE="Eltroz"][QUOTE="ragrdoll21"][QUOTE="ZebethOrZebes"]This is System Wars not Corporate Wars.ragrdoll21

Oh OK, so some idiot professor that has probably never invested money in his life said so, that explains it...

DXGreat1_HGL

Self-owned. PhD > You

Anyways, the entire basis of your argument is that "losses are bad", so people shouldn't invest in a company that has losses. If you did know anything about business, you would know that the objective of puclicly traded companies is to create shareholder wealth (in the shareholder model anyways). The creation of shareholder wealth, regardless of the current earnings level, is the driving force behind valuation.

Furthermore, if you knew anythign about investing, you would know that the price to earnings ratio is not a reliable source for guaging the market's perception of share value. Instead, it is the price to book ratio that indicates the market's long-term perception of share value. Why is this? Because earnings can be an abberation. Thus, non-recurring losses play a very small role in valuation. GTFO

[QUOTE="DXGreat1_HGL"]Watching cows post in this thread proves they know nothing about business or investing.SergeantSnitch

Let me tell you the funny part. He has a ps3 on his display pic :lol: its like damn i cant afford this thing but i'll keep a pic of it :lol:

Sony shares reach 5-year high

The electronics giant's stock hit its highest level since 2002 at the close of the Tokyo Stock Exchange today.  

[QUOTE=".."]

PlayStation 3 manufacturer Sony received a welcome boost today, after an HSBC analyst upgraded its shares from 'neutral' to 'overweight,' reports Bloomberg.

The company's stock closed up 4.1 percent on the Tokyo Stock Exchange at 6,940 yen (approx $57), the highest price since June 12, 2002. The five-year high followed a report at the end of play on May 18 by HSBC Securities' Carlos Dimas, who raised the investment rating of the company, citing higher profitability and stronger earnings in the LCD TV business.

Last week Sony announced that its game division had made a $914 million loss for the first quarter of 2007, primarily due to production of the PlayStation 3 at "strategic price points," although Bloomberg reports that the company predicted net income would double in the fiscal year ending March 2008.

Other analysts, including Mizuho Investors Securities' Mitsuhiro Osawa, have also raised their assessments of the company during the past week. arabi_89

DISCUSS...

See how silly that is even though its true. 

This is System Wars not Corporate Wars.ZebethOrZebes

Lol but anything goes in system wars *cough dumb wars*. 

[QUOTE="DXGreat1_HGL"]

Oh OK, so some idiot professor that has probably never invested money in his life said so, that explains it...

Kestastrophe

Self-owned. PhD > You

Anyways, the entire basis of your argument is that "losses are bad", so people shouldn't invest in a company that has losses. If you did know anything about business, you would know that the objective of puclicly traded companies is to create shareholder wealth (in the shareholder model anyways). The creation of shareholder wealth, regardless of the current earnings level, is the driving force behind valuation.

Furthermore, if you knew anythign about investing, you would know that the price to earnings ratio is not a reliable source for guaging the market's perception of share value. Instead, it is the price to book ratio that indicates the market's long-term perception of share value. Why is this? Because earnings can be an abberation. Thus, non-recurring losses play a very small role in valuation. GTFO

QFT!

you know these blind fanboys try to make something good into bad in any possible way! if he is that good at business i dont think he would be staying here posting. its just like he is putting himself in a worse situation.

In other News Microsoft states they have 30 Billion in cash reserves and anticipates 5+ billion in net income in each of the next 4 quarters.  Discuss.

See how silly that is even though its true. 

Danthegamingman

its silly... how about 1002468 lemmings + sheep flooding SW with sony losses 1 Bn$ and its going out of business ...etc I think this clarifies things for misinformed people ;)

"S0ny iz t3h 0ut of bizznes. they r t3h fa1l!!1! No PS4 LOLz!"

People forget that SONY is a hardware electronics giant. The fact of the matter is as long as SONY has money, there will always be a new playstation on the horizon.

DA_B0MB

Except they have shareholders, and if they keep losing money in a market, the shareholders will force them to leave 

[QUOTE="DXGreat1_HGL"]

Oh OK, so some idiot professor that has probably never invested money in his life said so, that explains it...

Kestastrophe

Self-owned. PhD > You

Anyways, the entire basis of your argument is that "losses are bad", so people shouldn't invest in a company that has losses. If you did know anything about business, you would know that the objective of puclicly traded companies is to create shareholder wealth (in the shareholder model anyways). The creation of shareholder wealth, regardless of the current earnings level, is the driving force behind valuation.

Furthermore, if you knew anythign about investing, you would know that the price to earnings ratio is not a reliable source for guaging the market's perception of share value. Instead, it is the price to book ratio that indicates the market's long-term perception of share value. Why is this? Because earnings can be an abberation. Thus, non-recurring losses play a very small role in valuation. GTFO

I totally agree with you and I'm honored to read your clarification.

to bad my stock in sony has PLUMITED over the past 20 years

2000 dollars down the drain 

I"ve always supported Sony's TV division...

ssbfalco

You may want to stop. Sony TV's that were built in the late 90's and after have been of lower quality. It is a sad sad day when your 10 year old Sony 36 inch tube goes out,  while the 20 year old 27 inch RCA keeps chugging along. (Has happened to 3 people that I know)

to bad my stock in sony has PLUMITED over the past 20 years

 

2000 dollars down the drain

viralhunter

Sony traded at $10 in may of 1987, it at $57.31 today 

[QUOTE="Kestastrophe"][QUOTE="DXGreat1_HGL"][QUOTE="Kestastrophe"][QUOTE="DXGreat1_HGL"]

Better yet, ignore people like you that act like you know everything.

Actually, an investor would want Sony to start rethinking their gaming division, because if you take away the losses, they would have more money which is what they invest for anyways. You think they want to run a charity?

 

DXGreat1_HGL

Actually, losses in the present have virtually no bearing on investor's decisions. What investors, or rather the managers at Sony, care about is the net present value of projects or divisions. If the net present value of the gaming division is greater than or equal to 0, then investors would want the company to invest in gaming because it creates value. I can explain in further detail if anyone wants.

Ypu know this because you've talked to each individual investor, right?

No. I know this because I have a Master's degree in business.

Oh OK, so some idiot professor that has probably never invested money in his life said so, that explains it...

[QUOTE="DXGreat1_HGL"]

Oh OK, so some idiot professor that has probably never invested money in his life said so, that explains it...

Kestastrophe

Self-owned. PhD > You

Anyways, the entire basis of your argument is that "losses are bad", so people shouldn't invest in a company that has losses. If you did know anything about business, you would know that the objective of puclicly traded companies is to create shareholder wealth (in the shareholder model anyways). The creation of shareholder wealth, regardless of the current earnings level, is the driving force behind valuation.

Furthermore, if you knew anythign about investing, you would know that the price to earnings ratio is not a reliable source for guaging the market's perception of share value. Instead, it is the price to book ratio that indicates the market's long-term perception of share value. Why is this? Because earnings can be an abberation. Thus, non-recurring losses play a very small role in valuation. GTFO

 Nope Street Smarts >> Book Smarts anyday.  Make up all the garbage you want, your PHD pinhead is teaching you that crap because he couldn't own a successful business in the real world. Hand me his PHD and I'll use it for toilet paper...

That profit dosent have anything to do with their gaming department.

[QUOTE="ssbfalco"]

I"ve always supported Sony's TV division...

Warfust

You may want to stop. Sony TV's that were built in the late 90's and after have been of lower quality. It is a sad sad day when your 10 year old Sony 36 inch tube goes out,  while the 20 year old 27 inch RCA keeps chugging along. (Has happened to 3 people that I know)

[QUOTE="Kestastrophe"][QUOTE="DXGreat1_HGL"]

Oh OK, so some idiot professor that has probably never invested money in his life said so, that explains it...

DXGreat1_HGL

Self-owned. PhD > You

Anyways, the entire basis of your argument is that "losses are bad", so people shouldn't invest in a company that has losses. If you did know anything about business, you would know that the objective of puclicly traded companies is to create shareholder wealth (in the shareholder model anyways). The creation of shareholder wealth, regardless of the current earnings level, is the driving force behind valuation.

Furthermore, if you knew anythign about investing, you would know that the price to earnings ratio is not a reliable source for guaging the market's perception of share value. Instead, it is the price to book ratio that indicates the market's long-term perception of share value. Why is this? Because earnings can be an abberation. Thus, non-recurring losses play a very small role in valuation. GTFO

Nope Street Smarts >> Book Smarts anyday. Make up all the garbage you want, your PHD pinhead is teaching you that crap because he couldn't own a successful business in the real world. Hand me his PHD and I'll use it for toilet paper...

Self owned because Anything >> Ignorance.

It must be that new fangled empirical research. Were you born in the 1930's or are you just an advocate for misinformation?

[QUOTE="Onizuka36"]lol, last week lemmings were coming out of the woodwork and saying Sony is doomed and will be going bankrupt soon. Anybody want to admit they are now owned to the max?arabi_89

:lol: exactly! when it comes to sony *bad news* Lemmings, sheep : sony is doomed no more ps4 no more this that, the ps3 is going to be discontinued...etc

When good news come *lemmings, sheep wear the thick black eye glasses and walk past it or this is system wars not company wars or...etc

"lemmings, sheep wear the thick black eye glasses and walk past or this is system wars not company wars"  that reminded  as if some geeks walked out of their chemical lab that just exploded :lol: LMAO!!! So true dude.

[QUOTE="Kestastrophe"][QUOTE="DXGreat1_HGL"]

Oh OK, so some idiot professor that has probably never invested money in his life said so, that explains it...

castlevaniaX

Self-owned. PhD > You

Anyways, the entire basis of your argument is that "losses are bad", so people shouldn't invest in a company that has losses. If you did know anything about business, you would know that the objective of puclicly traded companies is to create shareholder wealth (in the shareholder model anyways). The creation of shareholder wealth, regardless of the current earnings level, is the driving force behind valuation.

Furthermore, if you knew anythign about investing, you would know that the price to earnings ratio is not a reliable source for guaging the market's perception of share value. Instead, it is the price to book ratio that indicates the market's long-term perception of share value. Why is this? Because earnings can be an abberation. Thus, non-recurring losses play a very small role in valuation. GTFO

I totally agree with you and I'm honored to read your clarification.

I 2nd the ownage kids should not talk when adults are talking. 

[QUOTE="DXGreat1_HGL"]

Oh OK, so some idiot professor that has probably never invested money in his life said so, that explains it...

Kestastrophe

Self-owned. PhD > You

Anyways, the entire basis of your argument is that "losses are bad", so people shouldn't invest in a company that has losses. If you did know anything about business, you would know that the objective of puclicly traded companies is to create shareholder wealth (in the shareholder model anyways). The creation of shareholder wealth, regardless of the current earnings level, is the driving force behind valuation.

Furthermore, if you knew anythign about investing, you would know that the price to earnings ratio is not a reliable source for guaging the market's perception of share value. Instead, it is the price to book ratio that indicates the market's long-term perception of share value. Why is this? Because earnings can be an abberation. Thus, non-recurring losses play a very small role in valuation. GTFO

In all my years at SW, I have never seen anyone owned so bad before.

If I were you, I would just wave the white flag, DXGreat1_HGL. 

[QUOTE="viralhunter"]

to bad my stock in sony has PLUMITED over the past 20 years

 

2000 dollars down the drain

MetalContra

Sony traded at $10 in may of 1987, it at $57.31 today

i must have gotten the stock in 1989, but last time I checked I lost money

hmm...maybe i need to take another look at it