[Annelies]

Originally Posted by GregoryRasputin They aren't saying that Sony's products are junk, they are saying financially they are junk and regarding Fitch, when they lower your credit rating to junk, you are in trouble.

They can take their ratings, dust them off, stick them sideways and stick it straight up their candy asses!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

[Nimation]

Originally Posted by GregoryRasputin They aren't saying that Sony's products are junk, they are saying financially they are junk and regarding Fitch, when they lower your credit rating to junk, you are in trouble.

hmm... I know but I don't see the difference.
Is there someone or something to rate this fitch itself?

[GregoryRasputin]

Originally Posted by Nimation hmm... I know but I don't see the difference. Is there someone or something to rate this fitch itself?

Not sure, but here is a quote from Wikipedia:

Fitch Ratings, dual-headquartered in New York and London, was one of the three Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations (NRSRO) designated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in 1975, together with Moody's and Standard & Poor's. It is considered one of the "Big Three credit rating agencies" (Standard & Poor's, Moody's Investor Service and Fitch Ratings). [3] The firm was founded by John Knowles Fitch on December 24, 1913 in New York City as the Fitch Publishing Company. It merged with London-based IBCA Limited in December 1997. In 2000 Fitch acquired both Chicago-based Duff & Phelps Credit Rating Co. (April) and Thomson Financial BankWatch (December). Fitch Ratings is the smallest of the "big three" NRSROs, covering a more limited share of the market than S&P and Moody's, though it has grown with acquisitions and frequently positions itself as a "tie-breaker" when the other two agencies have ratings similar, but not equal, in scale.

Source

[marty370]

Originally Posted by GregoryRasputin Not sure, but here is a quote from Wikipedia: Source

Bond issued by companies whose credit ratings are below investment grade, and generally given a bond rating of BB or lower by bond rating agencies. Bond ratings higher than BB are possible, though, through overcollateralization. To attract investors, junk bonds pay a higher interest rate than Investment Grade bonds and are regarded as speculative investments, because the bond issuers either are unknown in the market or are well-known companies that are highly leveraged. The bonds pay higher yields because the credit risk is greater than in investment grade issues. Junk bonds are frequently issued by companies to finance a Leveraged Buyout a transaction in which investors acquire a company by issuing new debt, using the company's assets as collateral. The takeover debt is retired by selling assets or is paid off from company cash flow. Also called high-yield bond.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/high-yi...#ixzz2D609eAOF

The reasons associated with the credit risks are not single but many and are mostly related to the performance of the issuing corporation in the previous days. It has been observed that the issuers of the Junk Bonds have been some of the biggest corporates namely, IBM and General Motors. At a certain point of their business journey these corporations too had a poor credit rating. In United States of America, the companies having a revenue of more than thirty five million dollars come under the poor credit rating and hence have to pay a higher compensation package to the investors of its bonds. It has also been observed that most of the companies in USA (almost 95%) having revenue more than the thirty five million dollar mark also have a credit rating equal to BB or below. Hence the bonds issued by them too come under the category of Junk Bonds. Thus the bond yield in case of such Junk Bonds are also quite higher. Some of the recent household names of the corporate sector such as the Duracell or Time Warner also have a poor credit rating and are able to issue only the Junk Bonds.

http://www.economywatch.com/bonds/types/junk.html

So some of the biggest brands have at sometime had JUNK BOND status.

A few years back both APPLE & IBM were on the verge of going bankrupt, now look at both companies after restructures. Sony have been going thru aggressive restructuring the last 2 years, they will bounce back. They have even been diversifying, investing in new up and coming fields(medical equipment), been one.

[hellsing9]

Sony Releases Stupid Piece Of **** That Doesn't ****ing Work - YouTube

Never get's old.

If you see the big picture, most of big companies are trying to fix their compass without trying to lose so much money.

[devil hunter]

I'm asking you guys to think of why would sony of all the sudden was aggressive to hackers especially to those who were close/published hacking data. Gaming companies are losing to handles/smart phones and they barely keep it up with the current market, on top of that, nowadays, developing games take lot of time , and it costs much, then of all the sudden pirated games are running on ps3, and thus companies are losing even more cash. In addition, think of what had happened to THQ, and many others, even capcom is suffering.....

To be honest guys, sony doesn't deserve all the crap, especially, what had anonymous done to them...

Such group should be halted immediately and proper actions should be taken, they already had hacked countries....

People still take it as a joke!.

Regards and sorry for my bad English.

[oPolo]

Maybe it's too late for Sony by now... Although I am not sure about that part... But regardless, maybe it can teach other big companies some lessons about how important it is, to have a good relationship with the customers. I think the hate from the people that Sony have shat on has spread to people that don't even know why to hate them.

It's fun, I at one point see them as someone with a quality brand and quality goods when you buy from them, and at the same time, I see them as dicks that treat customers badly and are the worst greedy ****s.

Anyway, to sum up, they have dun goofed themselves by the way they has been treating customers and people in general.. I wonder what will happen with the PS3 if Sony in maybe 2 years went down though...
************* [ - Post Merged - ] *************

Originally Posted by devil hunter I'm asking you guys to think of why would sony of all the sudden was aggressive to hackers especially to those who were close/published hacking data. Gaming companies are losing to handles/smart phones and they barely keep it up with the current market, on top of that, nowadays, developing games take lot of time , and it costs much, then of all the sudden pirated games are running on ps3, and thus companies are losing even more cash. In addition, think of what had happened to THQ, and many others, even capcom is suffering..... To be honest guys, sony doesn't deserve all the crap, especially, what had anonymous done to them... Such group should be halted immediately and proper actions should be taken, they already had hacked countries.... People still take it as a joke!. Regards and sorry for my bad English.

You should perhaps consider the statistics in the other consumer areas such as music, movies and litterature.
Statistics in those area have shown that generally pirating doesn't hurt the sale of games. The ones that pirate are people that usually would not have bought the game anyway, and they end up doing PR/spreading the word to people that would otherwise not have bought the game, but know ends up buying it.

And regarding the PSN breach. It was unfortunate for all the users/customers of PSN. Really, they did not deserve it. But Sony really ****ing did.
Reasons?
(1) They sold the PS3 as a computer system or whatever to people and then ends up taking those features away, pissing off people in the process by stripping them from things they had paid for.
(2) Every company of SUCH a size with SUCH a userbase on a service such as PSN that can not get the security right, deserves to be doomstruck. Do not get me wrong, security is a delicate matter. Nothing is really secure, its impossible to generate "one time pads" etc that are theoretically secure. But EVEN more so, given the dilemma of computer security never been completely secure, it just promotes even more the fact that they should have been responsible and at least stored the passwords of xxx MILLIONS users in a sensible way.

Edit: I would almost bet (only almost they were not this retarded ) that if we were to make a "Forgot Password" request on our PSN user, they would send us our old password in a mail so we could see it, which would mean they had stored it in plaintext.... So retarded as their security...
Ok, I know they did hash the paswords, so it wasn't stored in plaintext atleast.
But really... IIRC they was hacked through the use of SQL injection? Thats a ****ing joke too.

[bobross]

Originally Posted by OoZic Its sad to see, that one of the greatest ever company’s[Read More]

Obviously never worked for them

[pezao]

Originally Posted by OoZic Its sad to see, that one of the greatest ever company’s, has now been financially labeled R... [Read More]

friend. speak much of keys PS3, but so far has only advantage consoles 3.55.
The ps3 is still safe as ever ...

[concretecork]

Originally Posted by Annelies They can take their ratings, dust them off, stick them sideways and stick it straight up their candy asses! Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

That is the second time today i've heard you reference things going into peoples rectum regions.