1Mo·

Sony

@Tenbagger2024 What do you think of $6758 (+1,01 %) ? Want to run your traffic light over it? I'm kind of interested but some fundamental data is meh. Hard to say but demerger metrics are all over the place. The camera division has a lot of imagination though, plus a possible spin off of Sony Entertainment

22 Commentaires

Tenbagger2024@Tenbagger2024

1Mo

I'll take a look. But Mr. Prompt can do a quick analysis @Raketentoni. But he is very conservative. And @PikaPika0105 can certainly also say something about Sony

•

ThemenmitKopf@topicswithhead

1Mo

@Tenbagger2024 I'm asking you personally for your opinion. I can do Ki prompts or DCF more than well myself. I find it difficult. The share is not falling cheaply and the individual parts are interesting, but the group, the yen etc. also have some negative points. You have had a few more Japanese companies in your portfolio than I have

••

Tenbagger2024@Tenbagger2024

1Mo

@topicswithhead yes, I understood that, but my motto is also "succeeding together". as far as Japan is concerned, no one can fool @PikaPika0105. And Mr. Prompt is also more than just a simple AI. So from a technical point of view, I can't yet see a clear bottom. From the RSI, however, I find the share interesting. Fundamentals: PEG around 1 is okay, sales growth of 1-3%, net profit growth also in single digits, EBIT margin around 13%, dividend yield 0.76%, doesn't exactly blow me away. I think that's why the share is valued so highly. As far as cameras for autonomous driving are concerned, I find $TDY very interesting, including cameras for drones. The cameras are also very good in fog, snow and at night. Teledyne Dalsa also builds sensors for robotaxis. As far as industrial cameras are concerned, you can also take a look at Basler. I myself only recently joined $EXENS. As far as Japan is concerned, I see more potential in other stocks.

•

PikaPika0105@PikaPika0105

1Mo

The transformation into an entertainment giant is still ongoing. As this is the core business, I also think the spin-off is complete nonsense. Where did you get that from? Sony is fully focused on games, films/series and music. These areas also have strong synergies with each other (e.g. films based on games etc.). The image sensor business is also doing very well (world market leader, new semiconductor partnerships). In addition, the X-Box is dead, which was the only real competitor in gaming (Nintendo does not compete directly). All in all, they are a company that has successfully arrived in the present and has now shed almost all of its legacy from the consumer electronics sector (most recently TVs). In other words, a good company with a good entertainment business. Valuation is currently quite attractive. They won't generate a huge return now, but certainly not bad for investors with a focus on quality.

•

Raketentoni@Raketentoni

1Mo

My AI colleague took a quick look at your thoughts. You have a damn good nose, but there's one point where you're slightly on the wrong track strategically:
1. the demerger metric (bullseye!):
You're 100% right. You can completely throw the current P/E ratio and the other key figures in the garbage can right now. Sony spun off its financial division (Sony Financial Group) to the stock market in fall 2025. This is tearing huge accounting holes in the shares due to special effects that are necessary for accounting purposes, but which do not hurt operationally at all. Anyone who stubbornly relies on naked screener data will be completely fooled. Good eye!
2. the camera fantasy (the real gold):
Absolutely correctly recognized. However, this is not primarily about the classic system cameras, but about the image sensors (semiconductor division). Sony builds the sensors for almost half the smartphone world, including Apple. This is an absolute cash machine. There have recently even been market rumors of spinning off this chip division in order to make the true value visible to shareholders.
3. spin-off from Sony Entertainment (the error in thinking):
This is where you are wrong. Sony will never spin off entertainment (PlayStation, movies, music, anime). The opposite is the case! They have thrown out the boring financial business specifically because entertainment and tech are now the absolute, focused heart of the entire group. They are not splitting it off, they are building it into a global fortress.
Conclusion: If you look through the distorted key figures, Sony is a brutally strong tech and entertainment giant. Good call!

•

PikaPika0105@PikaPika0105

1Mo

@Raketentoni would not have thought that I would agree with Mr.Prompt in his analysis

•

Raketentoni@Raketentoni

1Mo

@PikaPika0105 I've also been working on the Lord for the last 2 days 😬

•

Smudo@Smudeo

1Mo

Sony is currently fairly to slightly overvalued compared to historical P/E levels, but the strong operating trend and diversification justify this level for many investors.

•

Soprano@Soprano

1Mo

I don't think much of Sony. They tend to have structural headwinds. From a "tech" point of view, Sony is often just expensive, but without being outstandingly innovative. They have a very loyal fanbase, but that's about it. As silly as it sounds now, if you're looking for a solid hardware store, you're still better off with Apple.

•

ThemenmitKopf@topicswithhead

1Mo

@Soprano Well, there's more to it than that. Sony music is the top 2 music label. They have good margins have already $UMG but why not a 2 with the P/E ratio (if you look at it alone). Sony Entertainment is actually only lagging because of the anime part, but if you look at entertainment (i.e. film, music) together, the actual valuation is also very fair. The camera division is extremely interesting, not only because of the smartphones, but also the robotaxis. Sony has a market share of 45% for camera modules and they are planning at least 50% for the future. So anyone who believes in waymo or Tesla in particular actually has an opponent here. At the same time, the camera division has competitors but above all needs significantly more capex. The TV division is to become a JV, which I see as a positive alongside the spin-off from the banking business. This means that the management is not completely charred and under certain circumstances is approaching better capital allocation. For me, the gaming division is a minor player here, where I can write it down to zero. But of course we can also talk about them

•

Soprano@Soprano

1Mo

@topicswithhead Yes, Japanese groups are always very difficult due to their complex structure. You have to juggle a lot of pans. So the hardware is one thing. Good quality - high price, little innovation. There's not much imagination in it. You can talk about cameras. I don't know the statistics with the 45%, but cameras might be an option. But that's also speculative. Nobody knows yet which optical technology will prevail in robotaxis. They are still experimenting.

Music is becoming more and more of a commodity. I don't think you can make much money with it in the long term. Film is already hard enough. I lost a lot of money with Paramount and Warner Bros. myself. And Sony really has the weakest portfolio of the big 5. Music is another matter. It will really only take a few more years until there is so much AI music in circulation that it will hardly be possible to make money with it. The entry thresholds are simply much lower than in the movie business.

But the biggest problem child is certainly the gaming sector. Until now, it was a very nice walled garden where you simply sold a platform and then, as a platform operator, generated endless passive cash flows simply because you had the platform. This era will come to an end with the PS5. And this is where the completely antiquated management style of Japanese companies becomes apparent again. They are simply not flexible enough to react appropriately to changes in the market. Instead of restructuring themselves into a service operator in the gaming sector and at least continuing to earn money through software etc., they want to force the PS6, even though this will in all likelihood be a shot in the arm.

•

PikaPika0105@PikaPika0105

1Mo

@Soprano sounds largely uninformed, subjective and unsubstantiated. Prejudices are also present.

•

Soprano@Soprano

1Mo

@PikaPika0105 An opinion on a share ... on a platform for opinions on shares. Somebody fry me a stork.

•

Soprano@Soprano

1Mo

@topicswithhead So the topic of music is really exciting the longer I think about it. In the future, it will simply be the case that the distribution and publication of music will no longer earn anything. Basically, anyone can make music, upload it and that's it. The advantage that major labels have had so far was that they had "recipes for success". There are usually 2-3 songwriters who have composed the music for 20 different artists. People like Jack Antonoff who write songs for Taylor Swift, Pink, Lana Del Rey and Sabrina Carpenter at the same time. This is exactly what speaks against human creativity and in favor of the algorithm, because that's what the professionals did to see what sells best.

It will still be possible to earn money with "performances". So musicians will no longer earn money with records, no more money with Spotify streams - only concerts and sponsorship deals will be the main sources of income. At the same time, however, they are losing visibility. The use of licensed music will decline, especially in other media such as films and games.

So things are actually looking very bleak for the labels. The only thing I could still imagine is if they launch streaming services themselves and it is somehow legally possible to generate revenue with AI-generated music. That is, if Sony somehow manages to generate new songs from deceased artists like Michael Jackson, for example, and they are entitled to charge a fee for this. But that's a completely fictitious thing.

••

ThemenmitKopf@topicswithhead

1Mo

@Soprano I see it differently. You'll always get more from the streaming services over labels because they simply have more leverage. Ai music won't be any different in the end and just because anyone can make music doesn't mean anything. I prefer to consume music from others in the end. I'll probably make a song here and there, but in the end you need something more to be a star. Concerts or merchandise is also partly taken over by them. At the same time, they also help with other things. Legal cases, marketing etc. Of course there can be a drop in margins, but I can make the AI case anywhere.

••

Soprano@Soprano

1Mo

@topicswithhead Well, but in my view there are two effects a) The status of music within society is no longer increasing and I think it is lower overall than it was from 1960-2010. b) The output of music will simply increase exorbitantly.

I don't imagine that people will simply make their own music. Rather, in the medium term, the amount of songs produced by professional musicians will simply increase incredibly. So far, there are perhaps 500 people in some area of EDM who are professional DJs. So far, they have released maybe 10 songs a year. In the future, they will be able to release 300 songs a year, which they will do because the chance of a hit will increase. However, since the entire audience doesn't have the time to consume so much content, most of the songs will simply get around 0 clicks and they'll be chasing the 1 song that gets 100 million clicks.

It's a bit like books in the 21st century vs. books in the 19th century. The medium has not disappeared and will not disappear, but it was certainly much more popular in the past than it is now. And whereas in the past, even third-rate authors were able to make a reasonably good living from it, simply because not that many books were published overall. Today, a lot is being written because, for example, publishing and printing costs have become so low, but if you don't write a bestseller, you can't pay the rent.

••

ThemenmitKopf@topicswithhead

1Mo

@Soprano Well, the importance is decreasing but the willingness to pay and the audience is still increasing. Whether it's the shisha bar or whatever, the amount of music being played is increasing. Even today there are many songs. So it doesn't matter whether a song makes zero or organic because you get paid according to the number of clicks anyway. If the volume increases, then it's concentrated on the top artists or on the volume. I don't care, since almost every artist is on a label, I benefit too. The books argument is a little different. Reading books is more of a hobby and has completely different attributes. A lot of readers like real books but eBooks are much more profitable and easy to handle. There's also a lot of change and co in the industry

••

ThemenmitKopf@topicswithhead

1Mo

@Soprano Apart from that, the book industry shows exactly what I mean. It's easier than ever to publish a book, e.g. Amazon, but the good books all come from publishers. Marketing, distribution and much more is ultimately simpler than doing it alone. The 10-15% more margin is just 80% more work in the end.

••

Soprano@Soprano

1Mo

@topicswithhead Well, the audience is only growing through emerging markets. I doubt that the willingness to pay will continue to grow in this country. What I don't understand is that you yourself say it's about the click figures but at the same time it doesn't matter if the song gets 0 clicks? Yes, it doesn't.

With indie labels you don't profit at all. You're counting on the big commercial providers being able to maintain their market power - I don't see that at all. The structures are becoming more democratic overall. Just like publishers for books or neobrokers in the banking system. They haven't completely disrupted the system, but when something complicated suddenly becomes simple, there are simply far more market participants. Surely we can agree on that?

You're also right in the sense that the "good books" will come from publishers, just like the good music will come from labels. But that doesn't help you at all if these are non-investable companies. As soon as there's a lot of money involved, of course, you bring in professionals and no longer self-publish. But then it's no longer a profitable business for the publisher either.

Example: Harry Potter is the most commercially successful book of all time. And it was NOT the big publishers who made the money, but small publishers. In the UK, for example, the Blomsbury publishing house with somehow 2% market share in the UK. In Germany, Carlsen, which is also a complete niche provider that had already secured the license for all the books before the breakthrough came. If you had simply invested in the 5 biggest publishers, you still wouldn't have made €1 return on the most profitable book franchise of all time.

And that's exactly how it will be with music. Labels will be able to make fewer and fewer in-house productions, but then someone will always come around the corner with a viral record and the labels will have to shell out a lot of money to sign the person. That sucks. In the past, people were basically picked up off the street, given a gag contract for an apple and a 1 and then made a name for themselves. That's much better than when they always have to look at what music is trending on Tiktok and then have to buy into the trends.

••

Julien@HappyJulienDay

1Mo

I can say about Sony that I bought in October and am now at -21%. Whereby almost everything is currently at -20%. If I buy something, you should go short with a leverage of 100. P.s. I put 43% cash into the All World ETF on Wednesday after everyone said the time market was garbage :) Could be a record to be at -5% in the All World after 2 days or?

•

Dividendenopi👴@Dividendenopi

1Mo

@HappyJulienDay My dear Julien. You're really punished but, as I've said before, it's your own fault 😇 in this case. Don't blindly chase after third-party statements, even if there is competence behind them in some cases here at GQ. This should be an opinion piece. What matters is your strategy and your expertise. And I can understand and sympathize with the fact that it's "easy" to get frustrated when you're hit on the head. Give yourself a break, take the money and throw most of it away at e.g. 3.4% on call money. Invest the part you can get over as a total loss in the stocks and assets you are currently convinced of. DYOR. There is a lot of background information on the overall market situation here. Inform yourself, draw your own conclusions, try to deduce and understand the overall context. Use good sources. Build your own strategy and look for stocks that fit it just for you. Write down why and under what circumstances they fit into your selection at the moment. Set up a sample portfolio. There are many possibilities. And trade your stocks there. It costs no money and is easy on the nerves. Analyze the development regularly, why are things going in one direction or another, why didn't you take this into account. Educate yourself further, invest some of your interest income in specialist literature and try to understand more and more. Use the rest of the money to go for an ice cream 🍨 with your loved one in the summer, relax and come back to the market stronger when you're ready. It would be a shame to give up investing now, it would rob you of many opportunities in your life. Sorry for the long text says an old man 😉😇

•

Julien@HappyJulienDay

1Mo

@Dividendenopi Thank you for your encouraging words. I'm hardened by now. I invested €20,000 in Qualcomm a year ago. Then came the crash and it took me 10 months to get to 0 with the stock. Now I thought that I couldn't do much wrong. Wait 3 weeks for the war. Then go all in so that another crash starts exactly 1 day later. Maybe I should have sold at -2%. I decided against it and am sitting it out repeatedly. But I simply don't get a return this way and am happy to be at 0 if the rest of the market has made good gains in the meantime. Take a look at my portfolio. With gold SAP Siemens Sony Microsoft Tencent etc. All lost almost 20% since November. Any bet that I'll be down 30% in the All World ETF in mid-April. But I'm stubborn now and am happily watching my €40,000 fall by a few thousand every hour and I have nothing left to buy.

••