I hid with this uncomfortable ipod battery up my ass for two years. Then, after seven years, I was sent home to my family. And now, little man, I give this ipod battery to you.
Just for your information: Sony is several times bigger than Microsoft
Say what?
By Assets? Sony = $63bn / Microsoft = $60bn; By Market Capitalisation? Sony = $47.5bn / Microsoft = $301bn;
As these are the 2 main criteria with which to judge corporate "size", I would say that there is not much between the two from an "assets" point of view. But typically, Market Capitalisation is the common statistic for "size"...which would weigh heavily on the side of MS, if anything (doubly so, given the dubious nature of asset-valuation methods utilised in Japan).
And, BTW, the last Financial Times Global 500 survey of companies placed Microsoft 5th and Sony 69th.. Furthermore notable tech companies such as Texas Instruments, Hewlett Packard, Sun Microsystems and IBM placed higher than Sony.
And Sony can concentrate on consumer electronics, while MS is busy competing in 100 different markets.
Ermm....in which market exactly does Sony enjoy the same domination as MS does in the software industry? And - in fact - you will find that Sony's activities are much more diverse than MS's.
The amount of securities debt Amazon is carrying is far more than the total value of the company.
The debt is accounted for in the "value" of the company's stock and, therefore, the value of the company. Remember, the debt raised is used to finance assets...it is not raised for nothing. It could be easily argued that the burden imposed on profitability by the amount of interest repayments made each year is more important than the nominal amount of debt on the balance sheet.
Now for the fun bit: when push comes to shove, bondholders get paid before stockholders
Erm...of course they do. Stockholder = owner. You are implying that a business owner may borrow money, and when things go wrong he should get the cost of his investment back before he repays external creditors. For example...I buy a store for $100 and borrow a further $100 from the bank to purchase inventory etc. Business is bad, inventory devalues, and my business fails. You think I should get my $100 back before the bank gets theirs? Obviously not.
the securities amazon.com has issued are trading at very low rates
The "rates" paid on bonds are, as someone else pointed out, related to the perceived risk in owning the bonds. If I were to choose to invest in a risky company, I would expect a higher rate of interest to compensate me for assuming a higher degree of risk. Alternatively, I could invest in a more financially stable company and get a smaller return.
The market thinks there's a good chance that Amazon will not be able to cover the interest payments on those bonds in the long term...This makes Amazon.com a risky buy
Risk is relative. Risk = uncertainty/volatility of financial return (amongst other definitions). And if the market as a whole thought that there was a realistic chance that Amazon couldn't service debt going forward, the company's stock would be worth basically nothing. There will be winners amongst the dot coms; Amazon is more than likely to be one of them.
What a whining pathetic statement to make. So...using your logic..if your dialup charges were, say, a ridiculous $100USD per month, you would cease your whinging (or, as you suggest, go without service) if someone were to point out that they don't even have dialup?
Take a tip...move out of the cave you obviously inhabit
Slashdot Mirror
I hid with this uncomfortable ipod battery up my ass for two years. Then, after seven years, I was sent home to my family. And now, little man, I give this ipod battery to you.
ROFLMAO. Now, this is funny.
I was stunned because I didn't know that the character map existed -- and I have a PhD.
"and I have a PhD"....hahaha.
That is truly funny.
The only viable solution is to turn to online news from alternative sources, perhaps the BBC, etc
Forget the BBC. Their online tech-news, in particular, can be so bad it makes the CNN report look positively professional.
Why are so many tech reporters on the major news services such numb-nuts?
Are you sure your numbers are for Sony Global? Those look like the Sony US numbers.
:
C .h tml
:
3 e6 7d/www.sony.co.jp/en/SonyInfo/IR/financial/fr/2002 -1-25/pdf/18balance.pdf
Sure. They are Global and Consolidated.
Check this for the Global 500
http://specials.ft.com/ft500/may2001/FT36H8Z8KM
and this for Sony's own Financial Information releases
http://a1420.g.akamai.net/7/1420/6626/ff57efb29
Just for your information: Sony is several times bigger than Microsoft
Say what?
By Assets? Sony = $63bn / Microsoft = $60bn;
By Market Capitalisation? Sony = $47.5bn / Microsoft = $301bn;
As these are the 2 main criteria with which to judge corporate "size", I would say that there is not much between the two from an "assets" point of view. But typically, Market Capitalisation is the common statistic for "size"...which would weigh heavily on the side of MS, if anything (doubly so, given the dubious nature of asset-valuation methods utilised in Japan).
And, BTW, the last Financial Times Global 500 survey of companies placed Microsoft 5th and Sony 69th.. Furthermore notable tech companies such as Texas Instruments, Hewlett Packard, Sun Microsystems and IBM placed higher than Sony.
And Sony can concentrate on consumer electronics, while MS is busy competing in 100 different markets.
Ermm....in which market exactly does Sony enjoy the same domination as MS does in the software industry? And - in fact - you will find that Sony's activities are much more diverse than MS's.
Well spoken, Bungi.
Maybe you should have added a "Lamer Disclaimer".
The amount of securities debt Amazon is carrying is far more than the total value of the company.
The debt is accounted for in the "value" of the company's stock and, therefore, the value of the company. Remember, the debt raised is used to finance assets...it is not raised for nothing. It could be easily argued that the burden imposed on profitability by the amount of interest repayments made each year is more important than the nominal amount of debt on the balance sheet.
Now for the fun bit: when push comes to shove, bondholders get paid before stockholders
Erm...of course they do. Stockholder = owner. You are implying that a business owner may borrow money, and when things go wrong he should get the cost of his investment back before he repays external creditors. For example...I buy a store for $100 and borrow a further $100 from the bank to purchase inventory etc. Business is bad, inventory devalues, and my business fails. You think I should get my $100 back before the bank gets theirs? Obviously not.
the securities amazon.com has issued are trading at very low rates
The "rates" paid on bonds are, as someone else pointed out, related to the perceived risk in owning the bonds. If I were to choose to invest in a risky company, I would expect a higher rate of interest to compensate me for assuming a higher degree of risk. Alternatively, I could invest in a more financially stable company and get a smaller return.
The market thinks there's a good chance that Amazon will not be able to cover the interest payments on those bonds in the long term...This makes Amazon.com a risky buy
Risk is relative. Risk = uncertainty/volatility of financial return (amongst other definitions). And if the market as a whole thought that there was a realistic chance that Amazon couldn't service debt going forward, the company's stock would be worth basically nothing. There will be winners amongst the dot coms; Amazon is more than likely to be one of them.
What a whining pathetic statement to make. So...using your logic..if your dialup charges were, say, a ridiculous $100USD per month, you would cease your whinging (or, as you suggest, go without service) if someone were to point out that they don't even have dialup?
Take a tip...move out of the cave you obviously inhabit