A company doesn't have to act in the best interest of shareholders. Look up Chrysler and Kirk Kerkorian, who was the number one shareholder at the time of the Daimler Chrysler merger. The board of directors has to act in the best interest of the company. If they do, others will buy out the discontented shareholders. Stock price is most important to short term investors. Branding and stability are important to long term investors. The camera division is an integral part of the Pentax brand. Long term goals may make it very important. Paul On Apr 16, 2007, at 6:40 PM, Tom C wrote:
>> From: "Fernando Terrazzino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: Pentax Update >> Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:48:28 -0400 >> >> On 4/16/07, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Fernando, >>> >>> I said markeD disconnection, not markeT. I agree with what you >>> state >> though >>> and that's my point. >> I C, sorry >> >>> >>> This wasn't Sparx selling the company as I see it. It was Pentax >> agreeing >>> to a merger with a more profitable and sucessful company than >>> itself, >> then >>> sitting on their thumbs right up to the last minute, making >>> themselves >> look >>> foolish, in a move that can be regarded as quite risky. >>> >>> If there was a Hoya-Pentax merger they were in some degree of >>> jeopardy >> of >>> having the camera division sold off or jettisoned jetsooned. If >>> they >> are >>> taken over by Hoya they are danger of the same thing. >>> >> >> I read the same thing, Pentax needs money for R&D to keep this >> positive trend, and my guess is that Urano said, "Hoya can inject >> money, I'll deal with how to convince them about the imaging division >> later or there might be no imaging division" but your are quoting >> Sparx as if they where a trustworthy source for an analysis of Pentax >> in the long term, and they are not that, if they where a Bank that is >> about to lend money, or even another Camera/Optics Co. willing to >> take >> over Pentax that would be different. I'm not demonizing Sparx, as I >> said, they play by the rules, Pentax is the only one to blame for >> being in a situation where companies like Spark can make money out of >> them, but Sparx is that, an investement fund, and as that, whatever >> they said about the long term business of Pentax means just nothing. >> >> -- > > Sorry for being so lengthy... > > Well I'm quoting Sparx because I assume they have far more > information about > the internal workings of Pentax than you or I, and I asume they are > more > savvy in the areas of corporate governance than myself, as it's not > my field > of expertise. :-) > > Not trying to argue, but what knowledgable source *would* one go to > as a > "trustworthy source for an analysis of Pentax in the long term"? I > can > assume not Pentax itself as they also have appear to have a healthy > self-interest. Isn't everyone else just guessing? > > I think I'm right in an overall sense that a board of directors > must/should/eventually respond to the wishes of it's shareholders. > As a > major shareholder, Sparx likely wields a fair amount of influence. > So when > a corporation out of neccesity acts in a manner consistent with the > majority > of it's shareholders, then even though the "company" and the > "shareholders" > are two separate entities, the "company" in many ways *acts* with > the mind > of it's shareholders. Urano in one release stated, that in this case > Pentax's board, by rejecting the merger, did not act in the > interests of > it's shareholders. > > As you say, one can read between the line and deduce that Pentax > themselves > must have been worried about their long term future, otherwise > there likely > would have been no consideration of a merger. > > Tom C. > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
