See below where I blather in response to your blather. >From: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... >Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 22:17:37 +0100 > >On Tue, 22 May 2007 17:27:02 +0100, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Tom, > >> > >> Neither you nor Herb had or have the slightest idea what you are >talking > >> about. > >> > >> Pentax is in better shape now than it was two years ago. What has > >> changed > >> is that it has a major shareholder that owns enough shares to call the > >> shots. And that major shareholder has no interest in cameras, it just > >> wants to make money. It believes that it is in its best interests to > >> sell > >> its shares to Hoya now for 770 yen than to hang on to them and see > >> whether > >> the Pentax board can do better. > > > > None of that matters John. We're not talking about how much money >Pentax > > has, whether they are in better shape than previously because of turning > > a > > profit with the camera division, or anything like that. It doesn't > > matter > > whether their major shareholders have an interest in cameras. > > > > What does matter is that it's shareholders 'want to make money'. That's > > the > > reason for being a shareholder. That's an expectation that shareholders > > have. It's one that Pentax cannot ignore for very long. > > > > That's why all your arguments over whether Pentax produces good bodies, > > good > > lenses, is making money, etc., have had little bearing on the end >result. > > What has happened is a scenario not unlike that which we were suggesting > > could happen two years ago. Even Pentax's higher-ups realize that > > without > > the backing of a larger firm, they likely can't compete effectively. > > From > > an earlier Bloomberg report including quotes from Pentax's former > > President > > Urano: > > > > ------------------- > > > > Pentax is losing market share in the camera business because of price > > declines and competition from Canon Inc. and Sony Corp. The company is > > counting on medical equipment including endoscopes, a business it > > entered in > > 1977, to spur growth. > > > > Hoya, whose market value of 1.73 trillion yen is more than 17 times > > larger > > than Pentax's, is seeking to expand sales of medical equipment such as > > endoscopes and surgical scissors to rely less on glass substrates used >in > > semiconductor manufacturing. > > > > Pentax in October cut its full-year profit forecast because of price > > declines of parts used in digital cameras. The company projects 31 > > billion > > yen in net income for the year ended March, less than a previous >estimate > > for 34 billion yen. > > > > Operating profit at the optical components division, which includes > > digital > > camera parts, is forecast to fall for three years, Pentax said in a > > statement in November. > > > > At its life-care division, which sells medical equipment, operating > > profit > > rose in the past three years. > > > > ``It is really difficult for Pentax to go our own way,'' Urano said. > > ``Hoya > > was the best selection. I'm truly worried about my employees.'' > > > > ------------------------- > > > > So who doesn't know what they're talking about? > > > > Tom C. > >"Quote: Well, guess what? The sky IS falling. Two or more years ago those >taunts >were voiced when Herb (who has in depth knowledge of the camera industry >financials), Rob Studdert, and myself were discussing Pentax's future." > >You were saying then that Pentax couldn't make money as a camaera maker. >Well, guess what, you were wrong.
John, Are you really this obtuse or just pretending to be? No one was saying anything of the kind. We were saying that Pentax was in an undesirable situation in the market place, volume-wise, profit-wise, and that it was a situation where Pentax was fighting an uphill battle against competition that was much stronger. No one ever said they couldn't make money, though if you look at the facts they are making significantly less profit per unit, as was said back then. With the recent price drops on the K10D, the profit margin is likely shrinking further. >The present situation is totally different. Hoya has come along with a >good offer for Pentax because it thinks the medical business is >complementary to what it is doing, and has made an offer which Sparxx >thinks is too good to pass up. > Can't argue there. >And that's it. Herb had predicted that Pentax would be bust by now. He >also said that when that happened, the price of second-hand Pentax lenses >(of which he had lots) would rise. That's why he wanted Pentax to go >bust. And that's why he kept publishing anti-Pentax material. And he was >supported by you. Wrong. No one said absolutely when this would occur. No one said "bust". I'm laughing as I write this because your perception of reality and the written word is so different than what was stated. On top of that you're attributing motive, when Herb has purchased a K10D and some of the newer lenses. If he wanted them to go bust would he be adding to their bottom line? You still don't get that no one said what was going to happen or when, just that it seemed likely it might. Two names. Samsung. Hoya. Pentax is not, right now the same company it was 2 months ago, or 6 months. They will not be as autonomous as they once were (which may be the best thing). > >He was of course as far from reality with that as with everything else. >If Pentax does disappear, I would think it is much more likely that lenses >will lose their value, but that the better bodies will gain. People will >want to be sure that they have a working body to use their lenses with, so >will buy one or two extra bodies as insurance. Certainly, that's what I >shall do. > >John > Oh brother. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
