Originally posted by joe.penn This doesn't answer the question - you specifically noted "THIS IS PURE TEXTBOOK" as if you have been involved in [many] corporate buyouts and such so why didn't Hoya follow this path?
Involved in? No, I'm not an
Investment Banker.
In many corporate acquistions the buyer plans to eventually raise cash to fund part of the acquisition cost by selling parts of the acquired company that don't fit its long-range plan. In the interim the buyer won't make any capital investment in the part it plans to sell, will cut costs there, RIF redundant employees, sell redundant assets, close factories (move production to lower-cost locations), terminate low-margin products, sometimes change to a low price / high volume strategy, etc. - all in an attempt to increase
return on invested capital at the non-rational division, which makes the FS division more attractive to an eventual buyer (and the sale price higher). Sound familiar?
It was written Hoya demands 20% ROIC from each division it owns,and Pentax cameras could only produce 7% in a good year (while the desirable divisions could produce the 20%).
Hoya's actions are also textbook actions - a seamier, dirtier textbook, but not uncommon nonetheless. Be thankful we're out from under Hoya's heel and that Ricoh seems to have a benign plan for Pentax. You wouldn't be happy with Hoya's plan.
Hoya gutted Pentax, then sold the husk to Ricoh for $110,000,000 (virtually nothing for a global brand, but reflective of the amount of add-on investment Ricoh will need to make in coming years to "restore the brand to its former place," as you desire). So Ricoh paid $110MMm
plus an unknown-to-us amount of necessary ongoing development investment to grow the brand. It makes perfect sense to sell a whole bunch of K-30's to middle-class households who want a nice simple camera that produces great photos of the children, especially if the cash flow from those sales is plowed back into product and brand development over time. If a dodgy British model in the Daily Mail gets a bunch of new people to try Pentax during the Olympics - well good for Pentax EU for doing the deal. If they sell a bunch of K-01's to guys like me (maybe K-02's, you get the picture) then good for Pentax - and why should you care what I shoot with? (I still use a K10D and an LX if that makes you happier).
In about a year, if Ned and John can keep it together and Pentax doesn't blow the engineering, I suspect we're going to see precisely what you are asking for. I believe Ricoh intends to make Pentax the strong Number 3, which means they will need a true professional system camera. Most people here think I'm nuts, but I believe what I believe and I hear what I hear.
Of course nothing is guranteed. Things change, economies enter recession (the largest threat to Ricoh's plan is being a year later than Nikon - 2013 will be another global recession). Technology moves faster than capital. Good designs sometimes just don't resonate. Competiton sometimes just has a better idea.
The system part won't come overnight - it will take years - but it will come.
My polite suggestion is you learn to view these approaches to the fat part of the product pyramid as positives for YOUR desires - because without the consumerist approaches and products Pentax will never return to the Professional glory days of its storied past (which, face it, was really never as the leading professional camera after the SPII anyway. Those were the F2 and F1).