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. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
