upvote
People are pointing to treasury bonds that would give a similar rate of return with no risk at all.
reply
Yeah, and I'm pointing out the opportunity cost of that is just silly. It's not a practical exercise in any way. Suppose there was some way for Microsoft to stop exactly on a dime, magically collect all $5bn in gross revenue for a year and managed to put that all into US treasury bonds without tanking the interest rate/market value of those by entirely eliminating their products and goods that generate that $5bn revenue. Microsoft does what next? Wait 30 years for the bonds to mature and collect $5bn + ~4% compounded? 30 years that they could use $5bn/year gross revenue to all sorts of advantages, but they only have $5bn/year if they sell similar products and goods?

The time value of money suggests money invested today is more powerful than money returned tomorrow, even if you magically get the highest possible rate of return.

The opportunity costs say that if you jump ship on an entire industry don't expect to have the same revenue next year.

I love this weird short term thinking with long term mistakes that treasury bonds are the right benchmark for something like Microsoft's margins and net revenue. It's really fun to watch all the armchair capitalists come out to play that seem to follow quarterly reports like hawks but seem to act like they never took an actual economics course.

reply
It’s not meant to be taken literally, it’s just a comparison to point out that the return isn’t really very good considering the risks inherent in game development, especially the type of AAA games that Microsoft’s acquisitions put out there.
reply