MarcG19
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.9 #19 · Dismal Outlook for Mirrorless | |
sflxn wrote:
Their stockholders may not have the same opinion as you, and their's are the only opinions that matters. This business model of accepting losses to gain marketshare is one of the reason so many large Japanese companies are financially sick. It's fine for a few years, but some of them continue the practice for so long, they don't know what else to do. Less we forget Olympus almost went out of business and execs went to jail for trying to cover up all the losses.
What I said is not an opinion on what I think *should* happen, but only on what I think *will* happen. I'm not sure of these companies' exact shareholder lists, but for most of these companies Japanese banks (the same ones who give low interest rate loans) or other Japanese companies (sometimes in the same industry) are the major shareholders. The Japanese government has a huge informal say in what they do (in fact, big company, big bank, and big government all form the same societal "class", as it were).
American or European standards do not necessary apply. To wit: the FT's last analysis of Sony said that the whole consumer electronics division has been losing money, IIRC, for a decade, and that electronics is objectively a net destroyer of wealth in Sony. However, several attempts by (usually foreign) activist shareholders to change this have failed.
[ETA: Some people argue that this systemic and economy-wide rigidity is what is responsible for keeping Japan in poor economic straits for 20 years, though its proponents would note that it preserves jobs and stability.
Also, Japanese companies are not immune to using their other profits to subsidize loss making ventures. How many odd initiatives that went nowhere has Microsoft subsidized with its WinOffice monopolies. To say nothing of Android, which I'm told is a net loss for Google....]
I do think some consolidation, or reassignment (i.e. dropping compact cameras, combining still cameras with digital video divisions AKA obfuscating your losses, etc) will happen. But who knows how it will play out. (I am told the whole value of Fuji's camera division in a drop in the hat, so even if Fuji's camera division were a complete loss it would not significant effect profitability).
Finally, all this is fun to talk about, but really has no necessary connection to what one buys for photography. Even if a company - say, fictionally, Nikon - looks like it is going completely belly up, that's not necessarily a sign that Nikon owners should sell all their stuff and buy Canon. The stuff they have is still as functional (or not) as it was when it was first made. So, IMO they should buy based on what fits their needs, preferences and willingness to spend. Whether it's this fictional Nikon, the real Nikon, Canon, Apple, Samsung, Google, Olympus, Panasonic, Archos or whatever.
(though the B&S value of their stuff would definitely take a nosedive.  So format switchers better stick to safe brands - like the real life Nikon, Canon, etc.)
Edited on Jan 02, 2014 at 11:16 PM · View previous versions
|
