Goldman Sachs: Xbox Division Should be Spun Off

October 6, 2010 -

A Goldman Sachs analyst (whose company was saved by taxpayers, for the record - you're welcome) says that Microsoft should spin off its Xbox division and downgraded Microsoft share recommendations from buy to neutral. In a new report, Goldman Sachs said that "A break-up of the consumer businesses could potentially unlock hidden value, or more discipline on cost could turn the businesses into contributors to profitability and shareholder value."

Goldman Sachs: Microsoft should split off 'unprofitable' Xbox dept. Analyst Goldman Sachs has downgraded Microsoft share recommendations from 'buy' to 'neutral', and suggested that one way to resolve the firm's apparent difficulties is to split off its consumer entertainment division.

Goldman's Sarah Friar added that "The Xbox products could be an appealing stand-alone entity, given the historical success of the Xbox and the products' brand strength, and the business could show unlocked value with forced cost discipline compared to as a piece of Microsoft."

Other analysts strongly disagree with the assessment: "Pulling this off would be like Microsoft learning Geller-ian magic tricks, the equivalent of being able to bend spoons with its brain," said investor Paul Kedrosky.

Finally, analyst Matt Rosoff told ComputerWorld: "I think it's silly to spin off a profitable business. Xbox would lose more than it would gain by going it alone." Rosoff felt that the company would be better off carving its search business, due to the complexities of competing with Google.

Source: GI.biz

Posted in

Comments

Re: Goldman Sachs: Xbox Division Should be Spun Off

Dude, James...sorry to be a downer, but you really need to proofread your posts.  You've got a typo in almost every sentence ("you're welcomed", "In a new report from Goldman Sachs said that", that entire weird second paragraph that restates what's said in the first paragraph in a run-on sentence, "Other analyst strongly disagree with the assessment").

It's a good story, but it looks like you were really in a hurry when you put it up.  Take a minute to check your work before you hit that Post button.

Re: Goldman Sachs: Xbox Division Should be Spun Off

was supposed to be a reply...

 

Re: Goldman Sachs: Xbox Division Should be Spun Off

LOLWUT  This "analyst" doesn't understand anything about Microsoft and Xbox.

Pwnage of Empires Xbox 360 Indie RTS

Re: Goldman Sachs: Xbox Division Should be Spun Off

Yes, I'm sure one of the most successful companies in history is going to take the advice of one that had to be BAILED OUT BY TAXPAYERS!

Sorry, but that's just a LOT of fucking nerve right there. Jack Thompson-sized nerve, you know?

Re: Goldman Sachs: Xbox Division Should be Spun Off

Yeah... I don't see it.

Spinning off would be a great way to make some bankers some money, but I can not picture how it would do anything positive for Microsoft.

Re: Goldman Sachs: Xbox Division Should be Spun Off

100% accurate comment

Re: Goldman Sachs: Xbox Division Should be Spun Off

Yes, let's listen to the people known for falsely raising the value of their own stock.  Sure, Microsoft could probably burn their reputation into the ground and make a few bucks.  But who will bail them out when they eventually realize their stock is worth nothing and collapse?  They can't go crying to the government like Goldman did.

Bill Gates has done something Goldman has failed to do.  He has become richer than god, all the while establishing a brand that actually is worth something.  Goldman should keep their suggestions on "smart" business practices to themselves and leave business to the people who are actually good at it.

Re: Goldman Sachs: Xbox Division Should be Spun Off

I'm inclined to agree with Matt Rosoff here.  Microsoft letting go of the strong brand name and Xbox losing Microsoft's support would hurt both sides of the divorce if it went through.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Sora-ChanI realize that they have ways getting around it, but one reason might be due to earthquakes.04/17/2014 - 4:42am
Matthew WilsonSF is a tech/ economic/ trade center it should be mostly tail building. this whole problem is because of the lack of tail buildings. How would having tail apartment buildings destroy SF? having tail buildings has not runed other cities around the US/world04/16/2014 - 10:51pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the issue is you can not build upwards anywhere in SF at the moment, and no you would not. You would bring prices to where they should have been before the market distortion. those prices are not economic or socially healthy.04/16/2014 - 10:46pm
ZippyDSMleeYou still wind up pushing people out of the non high rise aeras but tis least damage you can do all things considered.04/16/2014 - 10:26pm
ZippyDSMleeANd by mindlessly building upward you make it like every place else hurting property prices,ect,ect. You'll have to slowly segment the region into aeras where you will never build upward then alow some aeras to build upward.04/16/2014 - 10:25pm
Matthew WilsonSF have to build upwards they have natural growth limits. they can not grow outwards. ps growing outwards is terable just look at Orlando or Austin for that.04/16/2014 - 4:15pm
ZippyDSMleeIf they built upward then it would becoem like every other place making it worthless, if they don't build upward they will price people out making it worthless, what they need to do is a mix of things not just one exstreme or another.04/16/2014 - 4:00pm
Matthew Wilsonyou know the problem in SF was not the free market going wrong right? it was government distortion. by not allowing tall buildings to be build they limited supply. that is not free market.04/16/2014 - 3:48pm
ZippyDSMleeOh gaaa the free market is a lie as its currently leading them to no one living there becuse they can not afford it makign it worthless.04/16/2014 - 3:24pm
Matthew WilsonIf you have not read http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/04/introducing-steam-gauge-ars-reveals-steams-most-popular-games/ you should. It is a bit stats heavy, but worth the read.04/16/2014 - 2:04pm
Matthew Wilsonthe issue is when is doesn't work it can screw over millions in new york city's case. more often than not it is better to let the free market run its course without market distortion.04/16/2014 - 9:36am
NeenekoTrue, and overdone stagnation is a problem. It is a tricky balance. It does not help that when it does work, no one notices. Most people here have benifited from rent controls and not even realized it.04/16/2014 - 9:23am
ZippyDSMleehttp://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2014/04/15/riaa_files_civil_suit_against_megaupload04/16/2014 - 8:48am
ZippyDSMleeEither way you get stagnation as people can not afford the prices they set.04/16/2014 - 8:47am
Neenekowell, specifically it helps people already living there and hurts people who want to live there instead. As for 'way more hurt', majorities generally need less legal protection. yes it hurt more people then it helped, it was written for a minority04/16/2014 - 8:30am
MaskedPixelantehttp://torrentfreak.com/square-enix-drm-boosts-profits-and-its-here-to-stay-140415/ Square proves how incredibly out of touch they are by saying that DRM is the way of the future, and is here to stay.04/16/2014 - 8:29am
james_fudgeUnwinnable Weekly Telethon playing Metal Gear http://www.twitch.tv/rainydayletsplay04/16/2014 - 8:06am
ConsterTo be fair, there's so little left of the middle class that those numbers are skewing.04/16/2014 - 7:42am
Matthew Wilsonyes it help a sub section of the poor, but hurt both the middle and upper class. in the end way more people were hurt than helped. also, it hurt most poor people as well.04/16/2014 - 12:13am
SeanBJust goes to show what I have said for years. Your ability to have sex does not qualify you for parenthood.04/15/2014 - 9:21pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician