CMH: That comparison doesn't hold water.
Many modern companies are totally serviced oriented or deal in "information" and not assets. In a loose definition, I would put Enron and Atari in the same category. Neither own oil wells or assets (with the additional benefit of low overhead as you point out). Additionally, as you suggest in your post, companies with large cap assets is a way for a company to have something to fall back on.
If people hate every software program released by Atari, Atari's financial performance will sink like a heavy stone just like Enron did. The only thing Atari "owns" would be copyrights, trademarks, etc. to software programs (unless they have diversified into other industries - I don't really know that). Enron had contracts, financial relationships, etc. Both are paper assets. The difference is that Atari, or the companies it bought, have produced software which people like - which the consumer or investor has confidence in.
Obviously, people lost confidence in Enron, for very good reason. Stock price is a crude indicator of confidence, due to investor evaluation of the company - and it fell from record highs to worthless very quickly. The problem with Enron was illegal activities, false reporting, etc. which distorted the true financial view of the company. This is what distorted an investor's evaluation of the strength of Enron.
I believe reviewing Theseus' posts would be worthwhile. He works in that industry after all. But even a step further back would worthwhile... the reason for this thread is to discuss the future of the Civilization franchise in light of Atari's financial performance. Strong company + strong demand for Civ games = new, full featured Civ 4. I believe that is the line of this discussion.
Not trying to be funny, but talking about French and Japan bullet trains, the mafia, the Catholic church, etc. just aren't on topic. I'm with Vince, mrmitchell, et al on this - Ming has been very gracious for whatever reason, but it's really up to us to help keep to the rules and spirit of this site.
Many modern companies are totally serviced oriented or deal in "information" and not assets. In a loose definition, I would put Enron and Atari in the same category. Neither own oil wells or assets (with the additional benefit of low overhead as you point out). Additionally, as you suggest in your post, companies with large cap assets is a way for a company to have something to fall back on.
If people hate every software program released by Atari, Atari's financial performance will sink like a heavy stone just like Enron did. The only thing Atari "owns" would be copyrights, trademarks, etc. to software programs (unless they have diversified into other industries - I don't really know that). Enron had contracts, financial relationships, etc. Both are paper assets. The difference is that Atari, or the companies it bought, have produced software which people like - which the consumer or investor has confidence in.
Obviously, people lost confidence in Enron, for very good reason. Stock price is a crude indicator of confidence, due to investor evaluation of the company - and it fell from record highs to worthless very quickly. The problem with Enron was illegal activities, false reporting, etc. which distorted the true financial view of the company. This is what distorted an investor's evaluation of the strength of Enron.
I believe reviewing Theseus' posts would be worthwhile. He works in that industry after all. But even a step further back would worthwhile... the reason for this thread is to discuss the future of the Civilization franchise in light of Atari's financial performance. Strong company + strong demand for Civ games = new, full featured Civ 4. I believe that is the line of this discussion.
Not trying to be funny, but talking about French and Japan bullet trains, the mafia, the Catholic church, etc. just aren't on topic. I'm with Vince, mrmitchell, et al on this - Ming has been very gracious for whatever reason, but it's really up to us to help keep to the rules and spirit of this site.
Comment