[monochrome]

OK. I wasn't aware of that arrangement. In Australia, the distributor is CR Kennedy, which is a separate organisation. As I thought I indicated, using someone else's storage facilities means you don't have to have your own.

Dealer financing would have to be at an attractive rate, obviously. Current bank interest rates are shown here – from the looks of things, Turkey looks the most attractive from that viewpoint, but maybe not from other considerations. Japanese rates are negative at the moment, so perhaps everywhere looks good to Ricoh.

When Ritz Camera in the USA went bankrupt Nikon was the largest creditor - so large in fact that Nikon was awarded Debtor in Possession status and managed the liquidation under Court supervision. IIRC Nikon USA were owed $65MM USD.

Pentax (Ricoh Imaging) just isn’t going there. It’s part of the reason Pentax is a good comparative value. They cut all the soft costs out of the product and just make excellent gear.

[reh321]

Some People believe that Pentaxians are less likely to switch brands and move to mirrorless. I don't think so.

That depends on how many Pentax users really do have problems using EVF. The possibility exists that Pentaxians are a reservoir of people who value OVF.

[RGlasel]

Given the present, and likely continuing, low cost of capital, increasing inventories is probably an easier case to make

Not saying that this isn't a valid argument, but I've never seen it accepted as business strategy (at least not in the last two decades). For bulk commodities, like crude oil or coffee beans, you can use inventory stockpiles as a hedging mechanism, but with manufacturered goods a percentage of inventory will have to be discounted or written off over time. Demand is miscalculated, the competitive environment changes, pricing changes, there are a number of reasons why a stockpile of finished goods will cost more than just storage and the cost of working capital. As the supply chain shortens between consumer and manufacturer, the amount of inventory shrinks.


Even before manufacturers started closing regional distribution centres in the late nineties, I did a year long project with a WD customer, where I managed their inventory, resulting in a 30% increase in sales, but at the end of this project, the buyer informed me over drinks that his compensation was adversely affected because he got paid on turns, not margin or net sales, so he was taking back management of my product line. The Amazon model of centralized fulfillment of consumer orders behind a fluid network of supply points is going to take over everything.

[beholder3]

Current view:



Smartphones and Instaxes continue to kill the ILC market.

Probably the outrageous pricing of remaining new products from the makers is just speeding up this vicious circle.

The offering of new mounts stops old customers from buying old mount items, so Nikon and Canon are in for a really rough ride and at the same time old DSLM manufacturers like Sony, Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic get a lot of wind in the face.

[beholder3]

Latest view:

The ILC market is eroding further.

[Sandy Hancock]

Market share doesn't matter. Only sustainable profitability.
Growth is an illusory goal. Until the entire world economy realises this we are all doomed. Not just Pentax.

[beholder3]

And it seems their profitability will not increase:
The full-frame mirrorless price war continues - Photo Rumors

[mecrox]

I am no fan of Sony and don’t want a Sony anything in my house. However, one has to give them props for coming in and shaking up a complacent duopoly in a fairly short time. Consumers have benefited, no doubt of it. I’ve no idea whether and to what extent any of the main camera-making companies is really profitable with regard to their digital camera divisions. They employ so much smoke and mirrors in their accounts that it’s hard even for experts to say. I agree with a previous poster, though, about industrial growth. The old assumptions are a bust and a new way of doing things is required.