>>41635If the value of a streaming service was media delivery, sure.
I'm not convinced, seeing as the youtube model is apparently profitable. "What people watched at a given time" and of even more utility, "where and on what device they did it" - has *considerable* value when sold in a side industry.
For e.g. an insurance broker would very much like to know how often a given neighbourhood's population is at home on week nights, and thus how much higher they can get away with adjusting car premiums without cancellations. The ROI for that information used correctly would be measured in the hundreds per home per year - far in excess of what the service delivery cost.
Then add how the film & tv industry famously use creative accounting to mask and funnel income, including manufacturing tax losses (almost certainly in such a way that the suits other business ventures are the beneficiaries) and it's quite likely that a streaming service turning a profit could be considered a bad outcome.
Hell, making *any* taxable income in the modern era - at least in the markets I have worked in - is a good reason to sack the accountant for incompetence. There is no legitimate reason to turn a profit once an enterprise goes beyond a certain scale, because there's no intrinsic value in doing so - compared to realising gains through shell companies and service providers in tax friendly jurisdictions.
Circling back to the topic, I'm not too familiar with the specifics of .jp tax and finance laws but I have read that after the real estate bubble the regulations got a lot tighter for this sort of creative accounting and profit masking - which would suggest that the studios are ripe for exploitation when used by a foreign actor.
But as you rightly say, the implosion could well happen independently (or even be the kick starter) of the next recession.