Yes, but I worked for a company that on paper either never made a profit
or barely made a profit, depending how you looked at their financials .
There are many ways of masking profits, the shell game played by my
previous employer must have been something to behold. I didn't pay much
attention at the time, I was an engineer. The core business lost money
for years and years, yet remained in business, and still is. You can
draw your own conclusions. Maybe Pentax is simply looking for an excuse
to close the imaging division. They aren't acting like it though.
There may be simply a good "Tax reason" for the way things are organized.
Herb Chong wrote:
i never said the company didn't make a profit. a division that is a
part of your core business, that sells to consumers, and doesn't make
money, is one that is going to be closed down. that's what Bronica
did. that's what Nikon did. about 1/3 of Pentax is owned by companies
who are in it for the money.
Herb...
----- Original Message ----- From: "P. J. Alling"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: ist DL disappointing price
I used to work for a company that on paper never made a profit.
Never the less they continued in operation for many years, in fact
they are still in operation, still not making
profits... On paper.
--
A man's only as old as the woman he feels.
--Groucho Marx
