Originally Posted by stewart_photo 
All that was an interesting read, Steve. However, since much of it seems to be revealing considerable inside information about both Pentax and Hoya, it would be worthwhile to know your sources. For example, where did you hear that "Hoya have made a good impression on the Pentax management"?" Or that "Hoya are determined to set a benchmark in Japan for a successful takeover?" Or that "Pentax is far safer with Hoya than they were with Sparx?" Or that Hoya is "very aware of the mistakes many companies make when buying out smaller firms?" Or that Hoya is "very cognisant of what the Pentax camera brand means in Japan?"
Likewise, where did you hear that new cameras were delayed "because they were given the go ahead to make improvements?" Or that a new camera will not be "using a Sony sensor?" Or that "they have largely sorted out production and supply issues on lenses?" Or that "the factory is coming up to full speed?" Or that "Hoya has given their full blessing" to anything at this point?
Your "friends in the A&M business" would certainly not be that aware of this level of inside information about these two companies. I doubt anyone outside of Pentax Japan would know all this, and then not even all at Pentax Japan would.
stewart
I have contacts within Pentax UK, I met the head of Pentax France, plus I spent a long time talking to Ben. All were very upbeat about the relationship with Hoya and I cant believe all of them were faking it. There is a real buzz at Pentax these days (probably relief as much as anything). The fact that Pentax are continuing to ship cameras and lenses tells you as much as you need to know. The other stuff about sensors you have heard before but it has been confirmed in several conversations. Nor did I say for sure that the delays were to add new features, all I said was it seemed possible given the delays to the K10D.
Regarding the merger, I used to work for Ernst and Young's A&M advisory team. Its a small tight knit community and some of my friends at Deutsche Bank have a lot of experience with Japanese firms (I worked on three Japanese takeovers of UK firms). None of my ex colleagues were directly involved but looking at the press releases and reading between the lines, they dont think it was likely that Hoya would have bought Pentax only to spin off the camera division (50% of the company). Since it is out of debt and indicators are pointing in the right direction (upwards) there would be a lot more mileage in running it as a profitable subsidiary and seeing how it goes. Nor would they have taken on the risk if they intended to sell it since they would almost certainly have made a substantial loss, as they would if it fails to make a profit. Nor is it certain that you could cleanly divide Imaging from the other divisions because they shared all their intellectual property which is worth a lot to Hoya, but Pentax without access to its patents would be worthless to a buyer. This is a very common issue with high tech takeovers.
If Hoya was owned by private equity then it may have been different but its very bad form for Japanese companies to destroy well known domestic brands to make a quick profit, plus there is no reason to sell it if Pentax can meet their profitability targets (10% profit by 2012 seems entirely reasonable and realistic given the growth in the overall camera market and the rapidly shrinking costs of components). Given Hoya's considerable financial and business acumen, they are probably more likely to make Pentax successful than almost anyone else. Had they not intervened it seems likely Pentax would have ceased to exist within a few years because of competition in the medical imaging market (ironically).
Plus I believe Hoya have gone on record as saying firstly that they are very aware of the importance of the camera business in terms of the brand and its heritage, and that they are determined to set a benchmark for successful takeovers. That does not mean Hoya will haemorrage their own company to keep Pentax alive, but
1. The have allowed Pentax Imaging to stay intact as a subsidiary to minimise the impact of the merger on current activities and to keep the core of the engineering and management team in place which is good for morale.
2. Since they are a major supplier to Pentax and also have many complimentary relationships with other suppliers there is a lot they can do in a material sense to reduce Pentax's operating costs.
In fact, the one area of the industry that is still heavily cost laden is lens manufacturing because of the relatively high component and labour costs. Here is an area where Hoya can actually make a huge contribution to Pentax but shortening their supply chain and reducing component costs.
3. They have reviewed Pentax's strategy and have more or less allowed them to continue on in the same vein, or even encouraged them to be bolder.
Reading between the lines it does appear that they will provide the Pentax subsidiary with every opportunity to deliver the required returns. Speculation for sure, but educated speculation at that. It does not mean they will go head to head with Nikon and Canon - in fact they will leave that to Sony I suspect. There is plenty of room in the SLR market for quality, niche value-add products which is where Pentax probably need to go. That is also speculation on my part, but if you are expecting Pentax to release a $5000 FF SLR, you will probably be disappointed.