The Communication Cube


No that's how much of themselves they own. They also own Bandai, Konami, Square ENIX, etc. I'm surprised not Sony.

1739368585591.png
 
Last edited:
How can one own oneself and that then only partially? How's "to own" defined for that?
:)
Factually: impossible to own oneself partially, one should own oneself fully or be no more.
But in the religion of capitalism, it's absolutely normal, after all one should sell oneself out. That's the meaning of capitalistic life.
In some religions, virgins are mothers, in others animals live again in other animals, in others warriors (apparently warriors should be hetero males) have wonderful females after dying, in capitalism things can own things, even themselves (or a bit of themselves).
It's always the same with mainstream religions: believe or make believe you believe.
 
:)
Factually: impossible to own oneself partially, one should own oneself fully or be no more.
But in the religion of capitalism, it's absolutely normal, after all one should sell oneself out. That's the meaning of capitalistic life.
In some religions, virgins are mothers, in others animals live again in other animals, in others warriors (apparently warriors should be hetero males) have wonderful females after dying, in capitalism things can own things, even themselves (or a bit of themselves).
It's always the same with mainstream religions: believe or make believe you believe.
In my mind, an organisation wouldn't own itself. It just would be owned - probably in part by the founders, by investors, by stock holders, maybe by some employees (bonus, incentive).
Does Nintendo now own 10.35% of 10.35% of 10.35% of 10.35% of 10.35% of 10.35% of 10.35% of 10.35% of 10.35% of 10.35% of 10.35% of 10.35% of 10.35% of 10.35% of 10.35% of 10.35% of 10.35% of 10.35% ... of 10.35% of 10.35% of 10.35% of 10.35% of 10.35% ... and so on of itself?
Or is more like 10.35% plus 10.35% of 10.35% plus 10.35% of 10.35% of 10.35% plus 10.35% of 10.35% of 10.35% of 10.35% ... and so on and so forth?
 
The way it's supposed to work is you get a job, pay off your mortgage, then think about what to do with your unspent income at the end of each month. You think about the products that you like, for instance you prefer Coca Cola over Pepsi. So you buy shares in Coca Cola, to help them with a bit of cash hoping they will grow (because they are better than Pepsi) and you then share in their profits. It's a win-win situation. And if you want out you can sell your shares any time on a market to the highest bidder and there are lots of rules so Coca Cola can't rip you off. It's all about fairness and sharing :cool:
 
They way I read it, Nintendo belongs to lots of people and entities. Since 10,35% belongs to itself, it means that Bandai Namco Holdings Inc. has 1,75% of Nintendo, which in practice (or in theoretical practice, theology is not my thing) is like
Bandai has 1,75% / (100% - 10,35%) = 1,95%. When Nintendo gives dividends it only gives 1,75% to those to Bandai, but since it gives 10,35% to itself, and Bandai has 1,75% of Ninendo, then it's like if Bandai had received 1,95% of dividends.
When they have to vote, the representative of Bandai has 1,75% of votes, and the the representative of Ninentdo has 10,75%, but in some way Bandai had 1,75% of the power to elect that representative of Nintendo, so it stil lhas somehow 1,95% of the vote.

Yes, it's murky. But it allows some moves. For example, you give shares to workers if they stay at the job for 5 years. If they don't then, in order for the employee to lose those shares (or the part that it should lose), someone has to acquire them, so it's possibly the employer itself, and it ends up owning part of itself.

In the end giving rights to juridical persons is a way to give more rights to some physical persons than others.

Of course I have no clue of what I'm speaking. If anyone was so fool as to follow my ramblings taking them for financial advice, I guess he'll be so fool as not having any money to invest already, so likely I'm doing no harm .
 
Yes, it's murky
Actually it's rather transparent. The major shareholder are publicly visible. So are assets, liabilities, board members, business divisions, profits, losses.. all reported regularly so there are fewer surprises. And they are audited so they can't lie. This is so people like you and me have confidence to invest in Nintendo. This is because they are traded on a public stock exchange. If there weren't they could do whatever they wanted, rip any investor off. Stock exchanges are for the people, if only we had spare cash to invest.... But the government fucked up the economy and made us poor.
 
Actually it's rather transparent. The major shareholder are publicly visible. So are assets, liabilities, board members, business divisions, profits, losses.. all reported regularly so there are fewer surprises. And they are audited so they can't lie. This is so people like you and me have confidence to invest in Nintendo. This is because they are traded on a public stock exchange. If there weren't they could do whatever they wanted, rip any investor off. Stock exchanges are for the people, if only we had spare cash to invest.... But the government fucked up the economy and made us poor.
Well, what you say sounds 100% true, but still one or more of the owners of Nintendo could be something that is not traded in any public stock exchange, and even if it seems to have many owners, most of them could in theory belong to someone.
I didn't say it was opaque, i just said murky. A can own part of B who owns part of C who owns part of A. Or it can be owned by someone today and someone else tomorrow. You may be doing business in the open but you are still doing business with unknown people.

I'm afraid if we had some cash to invest we'd be basically giving it away to people who has more cash to invest and to pay stock analysts and robot traders. Playing might be fun, but the house always wins in the end.
 
owners of Nintendo could be something that is not traded in any public stock exchange, and even if it seems to have many owners, most of them could in theory belong to someone
That's a hostile takeover and it's illegal. This is the 10% threshold I mentioned. No entity can own more than 10% of Nintendo without them agreeing so they are safe from hostile takeovers and investors can relax. Otherwise m$ would have done it.
stock analysts and robot traders. Playing might be fun, but the house always wins in the end.
If you want to make money in the short term you will probably lose. But you could use your in-depth understanding of the video game industry to give yourself an advantage, investing in Nintendo and being profitable in a few years. If you think they will make much better games, consoles, etc. than Sony and m$ you should buy Nintendo stock if you can. If you are very, very confident you should take a loan to buy as much as possible. That's the idea. People should invest in their favorite companies.
 
Last edited:
That's a hostile takeover and it's illegal. This is the 10% threshold I mentioned. No entity can own more than 10% of Nintendo without them agreeing so they are safe from hostile takeovers and investors can relax. Otherwise m$ would have done it.
Thanks for the info. I didn't know that.
If you want to make money in the short term you will probably lose. But you could use your in-depth understanding of the video game industry to give yourself an advantage, investing in Nintendo and being profitable in a few years. If you are confident they have a better strategy than Sony and m$ you should buy Nintendo stock if you can. If you are very, very confident you should take a loan to buy as much as possible. That's the idea. People should invest in your favorite companies.
I don't think you're right, but I still think you're absolutely honest. I wish you luck. Take care.
 
The Wendy Ward Charm Course is just that good, I think that everyone should take it. This is my honest opinion and I have not been paid or coerced to say this 100% legitimate statement.
Great. Now it's a cult.
 
Back
Top