[Kunzite]

An impairment loss is a one-time expense - not a continuous one.

[Mistral75]

I remember Pentax Imaging Systems Business being at least occasionally profitable, before and under Hoya.

Once the SMC patents expired and the associated royalties vanished, Pentax Imaging Systems Business being profitable within Pentax Co. was pure window dressing.

Indeed, the Pentax trademark was located within Pentax Imaging Systems and Pentax Medical (or whatever the name of the medical division was) had to pay licence fees to Pentax Imaging Systems for the use of the Pentax brand name.

Those licence fees were calibrated 'appropriately'.

[RonHendriks1966]

An impairment loss is a one-time expense - not a continuous one.

When they are this big, you don't forget them. It is a one time loss.......but with it all profits made where washed away. So next time Ricoh-Imaging is wanting a new investment, they have to work a lot harder to get it.

[Kunzite]

Once the SMC patents expired and the associated royalties vanished, Pentax Imaging Systems Business being profitable within Pentax Co. was pure window dressing.

Indeed, the Pentax trademark was located within Pentax Imaging Systems and Pentax Medical (or whatever the name of the medical division was) had to pay licence fees to Pentax Imaging Systems for the use of the Pentax brand name.

Those licence fees were calibrated 'appropriately'.

Even under Hoya?
What's the source?

---------- Post added 18-09-18 at 08:10 PM ----------

When they are this big, you don't forget them. It is a one time loss.......but with it all profits made where washed away. So next time Ricoh-Imaging is wanting a new investment, they have to work a lot harder to get it.

Sorry, but that doesn't make much sense to me - if there's a sound investment, why would some past impairment loss matter?

[Mistral75]

Even under Hoya?
What's the source?

Under Hoya I couldn't say. I would strongly suspect some window dressing too since they wanted to sell off the business. A quick way to make a high-tech business profitable is to cut the R&D expenses. It's deadly over the long term but the seller doesn't care.

As for Pentax Co. it was reflected in their annual reports when you knew where to look at.

As for the Pentax acquired business being unprofitable the source is Ricoh's FY2012 financial reports. They describe the negative impact of the acquisition on the P&L.

[RonHendriks1966]

Sorry, but that doesn't make much sense to me - if there's a sound investment, why would some past impairment loss matter?

Because you wasted money on them before and that time they also had a good story on a sound investment.

It is no problem if you don't understand things.

[Kunzite]

Under Hoya I couldn't say. I would strongly suspect some window dressing too since they wanted to sell off the business. A quick way to make a high-tech business profitable is to cut the R&D expenses. It's deadly over the long term but the seller doesn't care.

As for Pentax Co. it was reflected in their annual reports when you knew where to look at.

As for the Pentax acquired business being unprofitable the source is Ricoh's FY2012 financial reports. They describe the negative impact of the acquisition on the P&L.

But it is Pentax-under-Hoya that matters here, as Pentax started being serious with digital just as the deal with Hoya was made public (then renounced, then the hostile takeover happened). Pentax Co's last years weren't really interesting IMO (and I'd guess that Imaging expenses with the development of the K10D + lenses had an impact).

The negative impact of acquisitions should be factored off, as they're one-time expenses. What matters is if the business is viable.

As for Pentax-under-Ricoh being profitable at least temporary, this is from the FY2014 financial presentation:
"P12 Other
＜Other＞
- Sales of camera and financial business have expanded, and we have achieved profitability from a loss of the previous year.
- We have returned to profit in all business segments and geographic areas."

---------- Post added 18-09-18 at 09:59 PM ----------

Because you wasted money on them before and that time they also had a good story on a sound investment.

It is no problem if you don't understand things.

I understand very well your purpose here, and no, what you said still doesn't make sense.
You cannot even link the impairment loss to Pentax K.

[reh321]

What does all this have to do with replacing the K-3ii??

[biz-engineer]

So all press is going to cover that in the coming three months.

It's already covered and gone flat again. PR workflows with web agencies are faster than every, they receive the new cameras a few days before the release date, everything is already prepared and agreed with each camera brand, they pack the reviews in a few days , make a lot of waves (on the internet sites like DPR, imaging-resource, and a few others) and after a week or two, it's back flat down to normal life. New cameras are like taking drugs for the media folks, in order to get excited they need higher and higher doses of waves for a shorter time. Then no one cares about if Nikon and Canon and Sony have spend 18 months R&D on a new product.

[Kunzite]

What does all this have to do with replacing the K-3ii??

Uhh... since PentaxIsDoomedTM, there will be no K-3II replacement - and Ricoh Imaging saying otherwise is a lie?

[RonHendriks1966]

What does all this have to do with replacing the K-3ii??

Ricoh-Imaging published to reduce the line-up. That is what happend when the K-3ii was taken out. So wanting a replacement is wanting something that is not going to happen unless one of the other models will be faced out. Asking for an extra model in the line-up is asking for a new and extra investment. .....

---------- Post added 18-09-18 at 21:23 ----------

It's already covered and gone flat again. PR workflows with web agencies are faster than every, they receive the new cameras a few days before the release date, everything is already prepared and agreed with each camera brand, they pack the reviews in a few days , make a lot of waves (on the internet sites like DPR, imaging-resource, and a few others) and after a week or two, it's back flat down to normal life. New cameras are like taking drugs for the media folks, in order to get excited they need higher and higher doses of waves for a shorter time. Then no one cares about if Nikon and Canon and Sony have spend 18 months R&D on a new product.

You and I don't read them anymore......but they do exist.......camera magazines.

[biz-engineer]

Ricoh-Imaging published to reduce the line-up. That is what happend when the K-3ii was taken out. So wanting a replacement is wanting something that is not going to happen unless one of the other models will be faced out. Asking for an extra model in the line-up is asking for a new and extra investment. .....

I don't see it this way. Ricoh Imaging is unlikely to sell the Pentax camera business because it is very small now. So, the second option for them is the continue to do what they have always done before Ricoh, managing by the costs and cash flows, that is to spend no more than the revenue allows, this way they never have negative EBIT but the downside of doing that is losing market share. My guess of what Ricoh Imaging are doing now is they have one team and they alternate working on a format or the other. That means, if they work on a medium format update, there will be no new camera for both full frame and apsc for three more years, and when they will be working again on apsc or full frame there will be again lots of delay. If they keep 3 formats, that will be an average 6 years life cycle for each model.

[reh321]

Ricoh-Imaging published to reduce the line-up. That is what happend when the K-3ii was taken out. So wanting a replacement is wanting something that is not going to happen unless one of the other models will be faced out. Asking for an extra model in the line-up is asking for a new and extra investment. .....

So Pentax representatives were lying when they told Adam a K-3 replacement is coming???

We've completed our CP+ interview, but it may be another day or two before the video is ready for uploading. One of the things we asked was whether the K-1 line would essentially be the only K-mount flagship, or if they planned to have a model between the K-1 and KP. They reiterated that they are working on a K-3 successor, so the KP isn't and was never meant to be the top APS-C model. However, it seems that the K-3 successor won't be able to come out as early as they had wanted.

[RonHendriks1966]

So Pentax representatives were lying when they told Adam a K-3 replacement is coming???

No, that is coming when due time is.......

---------- Post added 18-09-18 at 21:40 ----------

I don't see it this way. Ricoh Imaging is unlikely to sell the Pentax camera business because it is very small now. So, the second option for them is the continue to do what they have always done before Ricoh, managing by the costs and cash flows, that is to spend no more than the revenue allows, this way they never have negative EBIT but the downside of doing that is losing market share. My guess of what Ricoh Imaging are doing now is they have one team and they alternate working on a format or the other. That means, if they work on a medium format update, there will be no new camera for both full frame and apsc for three more years, and when they will be working again on apsc or full frame there will be again lots of delay. If they keep 3 formats, that will be an average 6 years life cycle for each model.

645Z is almost 5 years now. The auto focus system they use is already 5 years. As some other parts inside the camera's. All camera's run on old sensors. All camera's are with processing as fast as an old typewriter.....

So yes those 6 years could be right. Unless someone says that the camera division should focus on less products and can speed up things.

[Larrymc]

What does all this have to do with replacing the K-3ii??

Nothing what so ever, its just the usual trolls at it again, anything negative about Pentax is what they pedal!