Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

My posts · My subscriptions
  

  Previous versions of Jon Guilbault's message #11112797 « Sony and Panasonic in trouble? »

  

Jon Guilbault
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Sony and Panasonic in trouble?


rattymouse wrote:
If Sony's situation were well off, their debt would be AAA. It's not and what's more, it is not even close to that.


I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to point out that you have no idea how corporate debt is rated. If their situation was "well off" they'd have AAA status? Most countries don't have AAA status... Japan, the country in which Sony and many of its competitors are located doesn't have AAA status! China doesn't have AAA status. The only corporation I can think of off the top of my head with a AAA rating these days is Exxon. Up until recently, Exxon was the largest company in the world in terms of asset value. (EDIT: And before some pedant jumps down my throat, I know there are a bunch of others. This is off the top of my head. There aren't many; that's the point.)


Junk bonds, despite the terrible sound name, are simply bonds which traditional banks are prevented from investing in. Banks are only allowed to make extremely safe investments. Many municipal bonds have junk status. The vast majority of corporate debt issuance world wide is in junk bonds, and many healthy and successful companies issue bonds rated junk (<BBB by S&P for example) for years and years and thrive.

That's not to say Sony is thriving. It's certainly not. But there's a lot of opinions that are complete BS being thrown around here.


AAA? Show me any of Sony's competitors that issue bonds rated at AAA, i.e. are "well off" according to your standards. I don't think they exist. As for non camera companies. Off the top of my head, last I checked, IBM isn't AAA. Berkshire Hathaway isn't. Pfizer isn't.

Grumble, grumble. Sorry for the rant. Onto the wild and rampant forum speculation.



Nov 13, 2012 at 03:03 AM
Jon Guilbault
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Sony and Panasonic in trouble?


rattymouse wrote:
If Sony's situation were well off, their debt would be AAA. It's not and what's more, it is not even close to that.


I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to point out that you have no idea how corporate debt is rated. If their situation was "well off" they'd have AAA status? Most countries don't have AAA status... Japan, the country in which Sony and many of its competitors are located doesn't have AAA status! China doesn't have AAA status. The only corporation I can think of off the top of my head with a AAA rating these days is Exxon. Up until recently, Exxon was the largest company in the world in terms of asset value. (EDIT: And some pedant jumps down my throat, I know there are a bunch of others. This is off the top of my head. There aren't many; that's the point.)


Junk bonds, despite the terrible sound name, are simply bonds which traditional banks are prevented from investing in. Banks are only allowed to make extremely safe investments. Many municipal bonds have junk status. The vast majority of corporate debt issuance world wide is in junk bonds, and many healthy and successful companies issue bonds rated junk (<BBB by S&P for example) for years and years and thrive.

That's not to say Sony is thriving. It's certainly not. But there's a lot of opinions that are complete BS being thrown around here.


AAA? Show me any of Sony's competitors that issue bonds rated at AAA, i.e. are "well off" according to your standards. I don't think they exist. As for non camera companies. Off the top of my head, last I checked, IBM isn't AAA. Berkshire Hathaway isn't. Pfizer isn't.

Grumble, grumble. Sorry for the rant. Onto the wild and rampant forum speculation.



Nov 13, 2012 at 03:03 AM
Jon Guilbault
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Sony and Panasonic in trouble?


rattymouse wrote:
If Sony's situation were well off, their debt would be AAA. It's not and what's more, it is not even close to that.


I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to point out that you have no idea how corporate debt is rated. If their situation was "well off" they'd have AAA status? Most countries don't have AAA status... Japan, the country in which Sony and many of its competitors are located doesn't have AAA status! China doesn't have AAA status. The only corporation I can think of off the top of my head with a AAA rating these days is Exxon. Up until recently, Exxon was the largest company in the world in terms of asset value.


Junk bonds, despite the terrible sound name, are simply bonds which traditional banks are prevented from investing in. Banks are only allowed to make extremely safe investments. Many municipal bonds have junk status. The vast majority of corporate debt issuance world wide is in junk bonds, and many healthy and successful companies issue bonds rated junk (<BBB by S&P for example) for years and years and thrive.

That's not to say Sony is thriving. It's certainly not. But there's a lot of opinions that are complete BS being thrown around here.


AAA? Show me any of Sony's competitors that issue bonds rated at AAA, i.e. are "well off" according to your standards. I don't think they exist. As for non camera companies. Off the top of my head, last I checked, IBM isn't AAA. Berkshire Hathaway isn't. Pfizer isn't.

Grumble, grumble. Sorry for the rant. Onto the wild and rampant forum speculation.



Nov 13, 2012 at 02:59 AM



  Previous versions of Jon Guilbault's message #11112797 « Sony and Panasonic in trouble? »