Originally posted by Kunzite (...)
The negative impact of acquisitions should be factored off, as they're one-time expenses. What matters is if the business is viable.
(...)
No no no. I was talking about a (supposedly) negative contribution of the acquired business to the operating result, not about one-time expenses.
Anyway, now that I'm back in front of a computer I checked the sources and the exact wording is as follows:
Originally posted by Ricoh: The impact of PENTAX Ricoh Imaging Co. for FY2012/03 was 15.0 billion in net sales and no impact in operating income.
https://www.ricoh.com/IR/data/pre/pdf/h23q4_con.pdf page 3
Originally posted by Ricoh: Other business resulted in minus 6 billion yen operating income. The largest factor behind the loss is compact digital cameras of Ricoh. PENTAX was almost brake [sic!] even in profit.
https://www.ricoh.com/IR/pdf/essence_text_0426.pdf page 5
So the Pentax business acquired by Ricoh from Hoya contributed ¥15bn in sales over 6 months (it was acquired as of 1st October 2011 and was therefore consolidated during the second half of the fiscal year only) and was almost break-even whilst the Ricoh-branded compact cameras lost a good portion of ¥6bn during FY2012/03.
In other words, Hoya sold and Ricoh acquired a business (Pentax Imaging) of around ¥30bn in yearly sales and 0- in operating income, i.e. a business that was apparently turned around.
Smart Vision (which includes Pentax, the Ricoh compact cameras, the Theta business and the rugged BtoB cameras) achieved net sales of ¥19.4bn in FY2018/03.