[jeffkrol]

Hoya could give Pentax an opportunity to be independent company again, but Hoya will have 49% of shares, Pentax - majority ownership.

Which would be the safe way. Get Pentax camera off the Hoya books and have it just as an investment. Placate the shareholders who are nervous that their cash cow is taking a hit. If I read the financial statement right Hoya, instead of cutting dividend had to pay out more then they earned last year. All they need is someone to buy 51% (back to the "white knight" days pre-Hoya merger) .... Should we start a pool???? Wonder what the camera division is worth?

[lurchlarson]

Wonder what the camera division is worth?

My uneducated guess is not much more than $300 million. If that.

[Samsungian]

As were guessing what Pentax Slr Aps-c Cameras & Slr Lens divisions are worth, you know the most they would sell for my guess is:

25 Million US Dollar Bills, & less if Hoya retains ownership of "Pentax" Logo

Would any Pentax real estate, manufacturing plants in Japan be included? Are there any Pentax Camera or Lense plants remaining in Japan? Does Hoya Pentax own their VietNam facilities and Philippine facilities ? Are there any production assests remaining in China? I remember reading of those Chinese factories closing after the Hoya Take Over. If any Chinese Pentax plants remain, are they owned outright or leased assets?

I read in a thread somewhere here a while back that Pentax USA has only 8 employees left, total. Is this True ???

I was surprised to find out my local post office building built in 1956 has been leased from its owners for 53 years !!! The post master wants to close it, which seems reasonable to me since they do not even own the land or improvements.

I wonder what Japan land holdings and facilities Hoya's Pentax still owns after Hoya stripped away the company's assets, even closing the Pentax Museum in Japan.

My uneducated guess is not much more than $300 million. If that.

[Kunzite]

Hmm... nothing new here, just people waiting Pentax to die.
I'll check back in 5 years, not that I expect any change

[lurchlarson]

Hmm... nothing new here, just people waiting Pentax to die.
I'll check back in 5 years, not that I expect any change

It's the thrill of the unknown that drives us...

[creampuff]

As usual, the usual online vultures coming up here to dish out their daily dose of doom and gloom on all things Pentax... :ugh:

BTW, Pentax today is merely a brand name wholly owned by Hoya Corporation. Pentax as a company has ceased to exist when Hoya formally bought over the company and its operations. Why would Hoya sell or divest Pentax when it continues to provide a steady cashflow? Unfortunately most in the West are all too preoccupied with looking at investments in the context of very short time frame, which is the complete opposite to how Japanese corporations plan their investments, preferring longer term returns that are complementary and synergistic to current businesses.

[Pål Jensen]

BTW, Pentax today is merely a brand name wholly owned by Hoya Corporation. Pentax as a company has ceased to exist when Hoya formally bought over the company and its operations. .

This is pure semantics. Pentax is exactly the same as before with same workers and the same design design team and factories. They just got a new owner.
Merely a brand name generally mean something that have ceased to exist totally, and where only the rights to the name has been transfered to somebody else.....

[thibs]

This is pure semantics. Pentax is exactly the same as before with same workers and the same design design team and factories. They just got a new owner.
Merely a brand name generally mean something that have ceased to exist totally, and where only the rights to the name has been transfered to somebody else.....

Not exactly. Pentax has been merged into Hoya. But if Hoya really wanted to sell Pentax cameras/optics part, why wouldn't they have cute Pentax cameras and optics from health care part. Integrate the Health care part and keep the rest separated and ready to sell?

[creampuff]

This is pure semantics. Pentax is exactly the same as before with same workers and the same design design team and factories. They just got a new owner.
Merely a brand name generally mean something that have ceased to exist totally, and where only the rights to the name has been transfered to somebody else.....

Don't call it semantics if you don't understand. Just do a search and read the investor relations press releases issued by Hoya Corporation.

Hoya formalized the takeover of Pentax by acquiring 90.59% of Pentax through a public tender offer back in August 2007, Pentax became a consolidated subsidiary of Hoya that same month. This was done through a buy-out in cash, not a share swop. In October 2007, both Hoya and Pentax announced that Pentax, as the company would cease to exist, will merge with and into Hoya effective on March 31, 2008.

http://www.hoya.co.jp/english/news/2007/pdf/newsobj-489-pdf.pdf

I should know because I held a few lots of Pentax stock then.

[Pål Jensen]

Don't call it semantics if you don't understand. Just do a search and read the investor relations press releases issued by Hoya Corporation.

Hoya formalized the takeover of Pentax by acquiring 90.59% of Pentax through a public tender offer back in August 2007, Pentax became a consolidated subsidiary of Hoya that same month. This was done through a buy-out in cash, not a share swop. In October 2007, both Hoya and Pentax announced that Pentax, as the company would cease to exist, will merge with and into Hoya effective on March 31, 2008.

http://www.hoya.co.jp/english/news/2007/pdf/newsobj-489-pdf.pdf

I should know because I held a few lots of Pentax stock then.

That IS semantics. Pentax is not just a brand name. It is workers, factories, designteams just as before. The fact that Pentax as a stand alone company have ceased to exist doesn't mean that Pentax gave ceased to exist and are reduced to simply a brand name owned by somebody else.
Whats happening is a restructuring of the business part of Pentax. Not the dissolving a Pentax as such and selling off the rights to the name.
Pentax products are still made and designed by Pentax. But it is owned by Hoya.

[MikePerham]

Don't call it semantics if you don't understand. Just do a search and read the investor relations press releases issued by Hoya Corporation.

Hoya formalized the takeover of Pentax by acquiring 90.59% of Pentax through a public tender offer back in August 2007, Pentax became a consolidated subsidiary of Hoya that same month. This was done through a buy-out in cash, not a share swop. In October 2007, both Hoya and Pentax announced that Pentax, as the company would cease to exist, will merge with and into Hoya effective on March 31, 2008.

http://www.hoya.co.jp/english/news/2007/pdf/newsobj-489-pdf.pdf

I should know because I held a few lots of Pentax stock then.

Well, I don't want to make this into a pedantic exercise but you are really both correct. Pentax is no longer a separate legal entity with a listing on the stock exchange, but as an operating entity it is still much as it was, albeit under the direction of Hoya as opposed to it's own board of directors.

Reminds of the anecdotal story about Samuel Johnson, who wrote the first English Language dictionary in 1755. The story goes that his wife found him in bed with the upstairs maid, and her reaction was to say "Doctor Johnson, I am surprised" ...to which he responded, "No Madam, I am surprised, you are amazed". Either way, the old dear was shocked.

[*isteve]

Reminds of the anecdotal story about Samuel Johnson, who wrote the first English Language dictionary in 1755. The story goes that his wife found him in bed with the upstairs maid, and her reaction was to say "Doctor Johnson, I am surprised" ...to which he responded, "No Madam, I am surprised, you are amazed". Either way, the old dear was shocked.

Priceless I do admire people who can keep their wits at a time like that.

A good Irish friend of mine during a very boozy celebration at his local pub noticed that there was a pint glass on the table that had remained nearly full for over half an hour, at which point he exclaimed "Could someone kindly get this drink a gentleman?"

[Pål Jensen]

Well, I don't want to make this into a pedantic exercise but you are really both correct. .

Not really. I was responding to a statement that Pentax is merely a brand name under Hoya. This is not correct. Pentax is not merely a brand name.

[*isteve]

Not really. I was responding to a statement that Pentax is merely a brand name under Hoya. This is not correct. Pentax is not merely a brand name.

Actually it always was - even back when the company was called the Asahi Optical Co. the brand Pentax was invented to describe their new pentaprism reflex SLR camera. They changed the company name subsequently.

Now it is still a brand, and also the name of a division of Hoya. The two things are only distinct in relation to the camera brand because they kept the division separate and largely autonomous. It would be possible to sell Pentax Optical but they would have to let a lot of the intellectual property portfolio go, and the brand name as well, to make it worthwhile to a buyer.

[creampuff]

That IS semantics. Pentax is not just a brand name. It is workers, factories, design teams just as before. The fact that Pentax as a stand alone company have ceased to exist doesn't mean that Pentax gave ceased to exist and are reduced to simply a brand name owned by somebody else.
Whats happening is a restructuring of the business part of Pentax. Not the dissolving a Pentax as such and selling off the rights to the name.
Pentax products are still made and designed by Pentax. But it is owned by Hoya.

Not really. I was responding to a statement that Pentax is merely a brand name under Hoya. This is not correct. Pentax is not merely a brand name.

Pentax no longer exists as a standalone company but has been merged into Hoya Corporation, so it is incorrect to say that it is merely "a restructuring" because by implication that would mean Pentax being a distinct business entity, which it is not. Pentax exists as a division under Hoya's Imaging Systems field of business. Now of course the workers are kept, the factories still work and design teams still are doing what they have been doing but in essence Hoya has acquired and owns Pentax 100%.

This is no different than other corporate takeovers. For example, Puma being owned by the PPR Group (an offshoot of Gucci), with the exception that in Pentax's case, Hoya has complete control, having taken full ownership of it. Hoya could just as easily have renamed the cameras Hoya or whatever it wants but of course it is not stupid enough to squander the brand value of retaining the Pentax name.

So I really don't understand why you're so adverse to the idea of Pentax being a brand because that is the corporate reality. If not for Hoya's corporate buyout, the Pentax Corporation of old would be defunct today because the other large shareholder of Pentax shares, Sparx Asset Management was not interested to run a financially ailing camera company.