>From: "P. J. Alling" <[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 18:14:29 -0400 > >That's not entirely true. Pentax isn't beholding to any stockholder >except to maximize shareholder value. Pentax is not required to commit >metaphorical suicide to do so however. >
That's what I mean. >Creditors can force a company to commit suicide, if said company is >unable to meet it's obligations, but that doesn't seem to be the case >with Pentax. > >Sparx can try to collect enough shares or proxies thereof to vote in >it's own board and replace current Pentax management, however that's >much easier said than done. One way to do that however is to continue >to question the viability of a company, (Sparx has been doing that for a >number of years now, this questioning of Pentax's dedication to >shareholder value seems to be only the latest salvo). > >No, I doubt that Hoya would build a 645D, that's not their business, I'm >not even sure it's in Pentax's best interest to put resources into the >project. In fact I doubt that Hoya even cares about building Pentax >DSLR's of any kind, the imaging division is one that they'd jettison as >quickly as they were able. > >I think you're the one who's being a bit blind. I agree with you that >if Sparx got control of Pentax it would be sold to Hoya in an instant. >They are bottom line driven, and own a large stake in Pentax, and >probably bought it based on that probability. > >However the Pentax board is dedicated to Pentax's continued existence. >They have an emotional attachment to the company, and an emotional >attachment to making cameras. I haven't looked it up lately but last >time I looked they seemed to be long term veterans. As long as the >imaging division is making profits and the company as a whole is healthy >they will resist breaking it up. > That's why I'm not blind Peter. I see that Pentax directors and the first family likely have an emotional investment to the camera business of Pentax, as many on this list share a like emotional attachment. I also realize that the emotional attachment has not made Pentax a leader in the camera business, or a heck of a lot money in the business, and in the world of business it's not the preeminent factor in what happens to the business. >Most Pentax stock, outside of three or four major holdings, is probably >owned by investment funds, and small individual investors. Fund >managers, and most small investors for that matter, aim for a certain >level of return, they have no interest in getting involved with a >particular companies management, if a stock loses money, or fails to >meet expectations, they sell the stock and buy where there's money to be >made. Few will give their proxies to takeover artists, they'll pretty >much automatically support the current board, or simply sell their stock. > > >Tom C wrote: > > May be... but that's the way the system is set up to work, n'est pas? >The > > lowest common denominator is money and that's what the whole thing is >based > > on. > > > > Pentax accepted Sparx's investment money when shares in Pentax were sold >to > > Sparx. Pentax is beholden to Sparx. Sparx may indeed not care one iota > > about whether Pentax continues to be a camera maker. > > > > The fact that you, I, and others may happen to enjoy using Pentax >products, > > does not gurantee anything. They are a minor player in the field of >DLSR's > > when it comes to market share and profit margin on each unit sold. > > > > Want to take any bets on whether a Hoya-owned Pentax thinks a 645D is an > > undertaking that will generate sufficient profit? > > > > None of you guys is stupid, you understand the basic principles of stock >and > > fiscal feasance, but you seem to look with a blind eye regarding the > > situation Pentax is in, and particularly the potential future of their > > camera divsion. > > > > > > Tom C. > > > > > > > >> From: "P. J. Alling" <[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 16:28:07 -0400 > >> > >> Or we see an investment company trying to maximize it's short term > >> investments. > >> > >> Tom C wrote: > >> > >>>> I expect Pentax is pretty close to being able to tell Sparx to take a > >>>> flying > >>>> f#ck at the moon anyway. > >>>> > >>>> William Robb > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> Why? Sparx is the major shareholder and therefore owns more of Pentax > >>> > >> than > >> > >>> any other single entity. > >>> > >>> What all this shows to me is that there is a marked disconnect between > >>> Pentax's popularity surge with the K10D/K100D, as good as that may be, > >>> > >> and > >> > >>> their profitability and long term viability in a competitive > >>> > >> marketplace. > >> > >>> Tom C. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> -- > >> Entropy Seminar: The results of a five yeer studee ntu the sekend lw uf > >> thurmodynamiks aand itz inevibl fxt hon shewb rt nslpn raq liot. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> [email protected] > >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >> > > > > > > > > > > >-- >Entropy Seminar: The results of a five yeer studee ntu the sekend lw uf >thurmodynamiks aand itz inevibl fxt hon shewb rt nslpn raq liot. > > >-- >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
