"Hobby business" is a term that derives from the U.S. Small Business Administration, which distinguishes between hobbies and businesses for tax requirements (says one site, "If the IRS decides that you are indulging a hobby rather than trying to earn a profit, it won't allow you to deduct your business losses.")
(There's one other kind of Hobby business [sic] that photographers probably know about. But this isn't about that.)
"Hobby business" has come to mean, more generally (and as a put-down), a business that's subsidized by other profits or by exogenous wealth and doesn't necessarily have to pay its own way in the normal fashion.
Thom Hogan has just posted a typically trenchant analysis of Olympus Corporation's fiscal year-end report over at his site Sans Mirror.
He says the company keeps making optimistic predictions...and not really coming anywhere close. "Olympus has been repeating the same chant for years now: 'yes, we did poorly, but we’ll hit breakeven soon, maybe even next year.' This year is no different. They did poorly, they expect to manage break even during the year. The problem is that there's nothing in the actual financial information they’ve posted that would give that any credibility."
On the other hand, this situation, dire on the surface, might not be as bad as it sounds...because Olympus's camera division might essentially be a hobby business, in the derogatory sense of the term. "...The bottom line" writes Thom, "is still that the main medical business is subsidizing the imaging business at Olympus, as it has for all of this decade."
The situation isn't unknown. At Brunswick Corporation, for instance, now mainly a maker of recreational watercraft and fitness equipment, the pool table business (a single-digit percentage of the company's business) is kept alive because it's the "legacy" business. Billiards was company's core historical product, the product most closely associated with the famous name. Like cameras are at Olympus. Brunswick tables are made in China now, and the division might or might not return a profit. But it's kept going for global image...
...For pride, in a word. Which might not be the worst reason to keep going...even in a business sense.
Mike
(Thanks to Michael J. Perini)
Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
Ned Bunnell: "No comment on Thom's typical authoritative opinion. His implication that 'hobby businesses' should be viewed negatively might drive traffic to his site, but it's a fairly common practice for many companies.
"For example, Ricoh ran their camera business as a hobby for many years. This allowed the group to act as an incubator for new ideas in cameras and optics without pressure to meet any hard and fast sales goals. It's very similar to an R&D lab whose funding is measured by development goals for a range of projects each year.
"Being a hobby business allowed Ricoh's camera group to develop some critically acclaimed products that were never intended for mass distribution, such as the original GR film camera series and special lenses like the stellar 21mm lens designed for Leica thread mount cameras. Sales of these products in limited quantities helped offset some of the development costs, and gave them time to evolve and refine their concepts.
"Another benefit of a hobby business is applying expertise that you've gained in the lab to enter new emerging markets. Not widely known, but I'm sure some of the optics knowledge developed by the Ricoh camera group has been leveraged in the new automobile visual navigation systems that Ricoh quietly OEM's to major car companies in Europe.
"By purchasing Pentax, it's evident Ricoh has started to shift their camera business from a hobby to a profit center as they assimilate all of Pentax's products and future cameras into a more typical business model.
"Another positive example of a company using a hobby business model is how Apple is handling their work in both the TV space as well as automotive design.
"While Thom intended his comment that Olympus' main medical business was subsidizing the imaging business as criticism, I'm sure there are benefits to this structure that he, in his infinite wisdom, can't see. Smart companies will always invest profits from their core business to fund research in technologies that spawn products we can't even contemplate today."
[Ned was formerly President of Pentax USA. —Ed.]
sneye: "Thom Hogan insists on looking at business from the American point of view, where long-term losses are not sustainable. Japanese business culture is quite different though. It values tradition, good engineering and innovation at the same level it values profit. Olympus justifies the existence of the imaging branch by stressing its role in medical R&D, but I suspect that it's pride and brand recognition that fuel it. Oly's Japanese shareholders would hate it if the company stopped making cameras even though this business erodes the overall profitability by 10–15%. Olympus has been known to the public as a camera manufacturer, not as a producer of endoscopes.
"As for myself, I like buying stuff made by hobby businesses. Feels like a larger proportion of my money is invested in innovation and a smaller one in corporate administration."
Thom Hogan replies to Ned and sneye: "Actually, I insist on looking at business from an economic perspective. In Olympus' case, we have 72b yen in just the last five years that have left the building. That's a lot of money for which the rest of the company must get a significant benefit for in order to justify. Ned says we can't see what that benefit is, and he's right, we can't. Olympus has been asked many times about what the benefit is, and their answer is extremely vague, at best.
"Large companies often mislead themselves on this 'cross benefit' thing, too. To admit that there isn't much of a cross benefit means they'd have to admit that they are making mistakes and bleeding money intentionally.
"Which brings me to the 'Japan is different' thing. Well, yes and no. Japan as a country is far more in debt than any other G10 entity, and their demographics make it nearly impossible to get out of that problem. The consumer electronics business in Japan is somewhat of a mirror of that. A lot of the money that is sustaining the remaining CE industry in Japan is coming from low-interest debt. Nikon is even using low-interest debt to try to get into a new business (medical), which wouldn't be necessary if their CE side were entirely healthy.
"Implied in sneye's comment is that 'Japanese business culture' is the correct one. I, and I suspect a lot of economics professors as well, would disagree with that. Yes, it is what it is and shows no real sign of changing any time soon, but that doesn't make it right. Nor is it sustainable. ROI is ROI.
"I should also point out that negative ROI is what Olympus tried to hide when they committed their US$1.5b fraud against shareholders. Again, just because things are 'done that way in Japan' doesn't mean it is the right way to do it."
Ned replies to Thom: "Valid points on the Japanese business culture supporting somewhat non-transparent hobby businesses. Fortunately, I'm retired and don't have to worry about the business anymore, and am simply enjoying photography. My only observation is that the way things are going, the entire photo industry is starting to look like a hobby business :-) ."
Christian Beck: "Ah, so on what other site would you read an informed comment on an informed article, discussed by informed people, the former President of Pentax USA and the author himself?
"(Homer Simpson voice) Must...buy...something...on Amazon.
"(Well, actually, Amazon.de, as I'm from Germany ;-) ."
Eamon Hickey: "As this thread shows, issues like this have a lot of nuances—and every company and situation is unique. That said, if you're heavily invested in one camera brand's future (I am not), I think it's worth being careful not to overestimate how 'different' Japanese companies really are, or how impervious to market forces a particular company or management team can afford to be. (Note that I am talking here about how the world is, not how it should be.)
"So, first, several Japanese companies have pulled the plug on legendary camera divisions that were consistently losing money. Here's a random assortment:
- Konica (Now a copier company, this was Japan's oldest camera maker, in the business since 1902, decades before the other Japanese brands we know)
- Yashica/Contax (closed by Kyocera after 50+ years of camera-making)
- Topcon (now strictly an opthalmic and surveying company)
- (Perhaps Minolta [now the copier company, Konica/Minolta], depending on how you count—the Maxxum/A-mount lives on at Sony but for how long, now that Sony is clearly concentrating on the FE/E-mount?)
- Even Olympus themselves recently dropped its money-losing regular 4/3rds mount E system, to much gnashing of teeth among dedicated users.
"In other words, yes, the Japanese often close money-losing businesses, too, just like the rest of the world.
"Then secondly, the forces of capitalism—for better or worse—are what they are. In other words, Thom Hogan is not a voice in the wilderness—Olympus management has been under pressure from factions among its own shareholders to fix or drop the camera division for many years. This is why they are at pains to offer so many rationales for continuing it. Olympus management doesn't have to listen to Thom, but large shareholders are a different matter.
"Also, while I don't have a dog in this fight (and generally really like Olympus cameras, past and present), I share what I think is Thom's concern about (scorn for?) the repeated significant inaccuracies, to use a carefully chosen neutral word, of Olympus's projections for the camera division over the past few years. If I owned Olympus shares (as opposed to cameras), that would give me great pause."
[A former Nikon rep, Eamon has written for The British Journal of Photography among other publications. —Ed.]
It is my impression, also, that cameras are indeed a sideline, or "hobby", business for Olympus. Of course the irony seems (to me) to be that cameras are the legacy line that put the brand into the more profitable lines that now support the company.
I wonder how comparable the complexion of Leica's income statement is to Olympus's? Leica is also involved in premium lines of lab/tech optical gizmos parallel to Oly. (It's my impression that if you can't afford a Leica scope you fall back to an Oly?) I don't think M and S cameras/lenses paid for Leica's brand new galactic headquarters campus in Wetzlar, do you?
Posted by: Kenneth Tanaka | Sunday, 10 May 2015 at 12:23 PM
Horses for courses
I read Thom Hogan because he knows more about cameras and Nikons and photography than me.
I read Consumer Reports for refrigerators, Car & Driver (amongst other enthusiast mags) for cars, Pop Photo and Amateur Photographer for cameras, a bunch of Computer mags., etc etc. etc.
I have many years of experience and training as a financial analyst.
Thom?
Posted by: Gabe | Sunday, 10 May 2015 at 01:26 PM
The most spectacular hobby business in the world may have been Ferrari while Enzo still ran it.
Its was (is?) organized as a sports team that happens to have a automobile manufacturing business on the side.
Posted by: hugh crawford | Sunday, 10 May 2015 at 01:37 PM
It makes me happy that they so stubbornly keep producing cameras, and not just because I shoot Olympus gear. Some products are important enough to warrant a subsidy, whether from the government or from other , healthier parts of the business. And they have stated several times that they consider the research they do for their cameras important for their profitable health products.
If we determined everything by the bottom line we'd be very poor indeed.
Posted by: John Krumm | Sunday, 10 May 2015 at 02:23 PM
You could probably add Pentax to the list of hobby companies. Since Ricoh took them over at least here in Canada numerous former retailers of the product no longer do so. Ricoh advises dealers push Pentax as your primary camera for sale or don't ask. The company is noted for photocopiers, not cameras
Posted by: Bryce Lee | Sunday, 10 May 2015 at 02:35 PM
Yes indeed. And there's the holistic view: everything is connected. If Olympus cameras were to disappear, it might not affect the medical products business... but then again it might! Who knows, enough people might think: "wait a minute, Olympus cameras went down the drain, can we really trust their other products to stick around and still be supported?
When I still owned the DOMAI nudie-girl site, I featured on it an actual *paper book* with the pictures. And a beautiful small actual bronze sculpture! Which I had commissioned especiall for the site.
Compared to the memberships, they did not make all that much money. But I wanted the visitor to see clearly that DOMAI was not a porn site, see? We believed in culture, we had culture, we sold culture.
(Actually the sculpture is still for sale:
http://domai.com/text/sculpture.html
It is lovely. After several years, I still love mine. The sculptor Victor Issa is brilliant.)
Posted by: Eolake | Sunday, 10 May 2015 at 02:41 PM
Olympus appear to have about 90% of the world-wide market share for microscopes in my speciality - and we mostly get to choose our own microscopes.
Considering that a well specified one starts at $30,000 and goes way up from there, that's not a bad market to corner. Then the other Olympus medical imaging equipment makes ours look cheap.
Posted by: Hugh | Sunday, 10 May 2015 at 04:10 PM
Never underestimate the nature of image, status, and history to branding and marketing.
And don't underestimate the cultural and legal obstructions to ending such a business - it's written that in Japan firing of Salarymen is very difficult - so it might be that closing down the camera division would on net cost more (over the short term) than keeping it running. You'd have to really know what's going on inside to evaluate that.
Doesn't mean it's not a hobby business, or that it won't disappear at some point.
Posted by: Bryan Willman | Sunday, 10 May 2015 at 04:10 PM
Dear Mike,
Hobby businesses, or at least nonprofitable businesses, have benefited photographers several times. Up until the end of the 1980s, Kodak's entire scientific emulsions line, dye transfer, and Kodachrome (I think) were hobby businesses. They did not make money for Kodak. They were subsidized by Kodak's high-profit lines. Much the same way that non-specialty book publishers price books by the pound, more or less, knowing that they're going to lose money on the very poor sellers but they'll make out real well on the bestsellers.
When Kodak changed to a “carry your own weight” accounting philosophy, whole bunches of products simply disappeared from the catalog. Others tripled in price. It guaranteed that Kodachrome and dye transfer were going to die. Dye transfer sooner than expected (there was much mendacity involved), but Kodak dragged Kodachrome out far beyond its sell date–– accounting philosophy or not, they were carrying it as a hobby business for a long time.
Most darkroom folk don't know that Charles Beseler Corp. was primarily a manufacturer of industrial shelving. That was their bread-and-butter. They got into darkroom equipment because the owners of the company were interested in photography and realized that with all their metalworking and fabrication equipment they were well set up to manufacture darkroom gear.
My recollection is that this was not technically a hobby business; they did make money on their photographic line. But not a huge amount, and it wouldn't have existed if it weren't leveraging off of the shelving-manufacture infrastructure.
There are probably lots of other photographic products that operated as hobbies or sidelines to the main business. It would be interesting to hear from readers who know of such.
pax \ Ctein
[ Please excuse any word-salad. MacSpeech in training! ]
======================================
-- Ctein's Online Gallery http://ctein.com
-- Digital Restorations http://photo-repair.com
======================================
Posted by: ctein | Sunday, 10 May 2015 at 04:10 PM
Looking at Hogan's analysis, one thing pops up that you didn't cover: Sony's results and how they expect the market to decline significantly as well.
As someone who does corporate analysis for a rating agency, Olympus' aim isn't unrealistic: shrinking markets can be survived if (and largely only if) you can cut costs so that you have break-even to avoid further bloodletting.
Consider this as well: given an overall shrinking market as cell phones increasingly meet the needs of the many, any camera system that isn't in wide-spread professional use - which at this point is only Nikon and Canon - may well end up being hobby businesses as well. A case can be made - no pun intended - that this is true for Leica, Fuji, Panasonic, Sony and pretty much everyone else in the business.
Doesn't mean that it will drive them all out of business. but rather that the continued existence of our favorite systems will be based not on commercial success, but rather corporate unwillingness to lose face by closing those divisions down. Yikes!
Posted by: John F. Opie | Sunday, 10 May 2015 at 04:49 PM
The concept of a hobby business is also useful for distinguishing between those camera companies that don't "need" to make money from those that do. The hobby businesses have a curious stability in Japan. The Japanese love of tradition and ancestry shields these divisions from the usual bean counters.
Does that make them less vulnerable than the dedicated camera businesses? In a big market downturn the "for profit" camera businesses may have to make decisions that the hobby businesses can ignore. Time will tell.
Japanese hobby camera businesses include:
Olympus - supported by medical imaging.
Fujifilm - supported by cosmetics(!) and specialty chemicals,
Ricoh/Pentax supported by copiers
Japanese non-hobby camera businesses include:
Nikon (even though they make a lot of money elsewhere they're an optics company).
Canon
Sony (even though they're making more money on making sensors for everyone).
Panasonic
Ricoh, for example, has held user conferences for the Ricoh fans. Even releasing special limited edition cameras just for the conference. So they not only loose money making and selling cameras but the company will actively spends money on the customers. To some extent this is just a very specialized marketing scheme: perhaps next time a Ricoh GRD user needs a new copier in the office they'll suggest Ricoh.
Posted by: Kevin Purcell | Sunday, 10 May 2015 at 05:18 PM
How many camera companies (or camera divisions of larger companies) are actually profitable? I'm guessing Canon, Nikon and Leica. I'd be surprised if there were any others.
Maybe Olympus isn't the only company with a "hobby business"?
Posted by: Globules | Sunday, 10 May 2015 at 07:34 PM
There are all kinds of reasons to keep enterprises going. People forget that.
Posted by: Robert Roaldi | Sunday, 10 May 2015 at 10:39 PM
The same is often said about Fuji's digital camera division, though I think that recently it has started to turn a profit, or nearly turn a profit. I also think Fuji's biggest business is also Medical, though they seem to have plenty of hands in plenty of pies.
At Sony, I never hear the term "hobby business" thrown around to apply to any of its divisions, but I think sensors, Playstation, Sony/Columbia Pictures, and Columbia/Sony Music are the only profitable businesses outside of their financial services division, which outperforms the others by a significant margin. Their TVs, stereos, headphones, and other consumer electronics products are kept around just for the pride and history of them. Digital cameras? Neither profitable nor historical...
The term has also been used by Apple itself to describe its Apple TV product, though speculation has that one leaving "hobby" designation later this year, if it hasn't technically already done so by becoming profitable in its own right.
Posted by: Will | Sunday, 10 May 2015 at 10:58 PM
Thom has been "predicting" the death of Olympus camera business for nearly as long as he's been online and digital has taken over.
Enough already with the regular "prophecies of doom"! Boring...
Posted by: Noons | Monday, 11 May 2015 at 12:06 AM
What happens to photographers when a company tires of it's 'hobby'? Think Ricoh GXR for example.
Posted by: Steve P. | Monday, 11 May 2015 at 04:54 AM
They can keep running it any way they want, as long as they "keep" running it....
For many years, a lot of American companies ran divisions or sub-companies as money losing propositions to either enhance something their main company was accomplishing, or as a service to their clientel, or whatever, and it was never considered a "bad" thing. It was the dawn of idiots like that guy from GE, that thought that there was too much slack in corporations and that everyone had to pull their own weight, and each division had to make ridiculous quarterly profit marks, that drove this kind of thinking.
Want to know why every one is constantly mad and harassed at your company? You're working with half the people you need because of that guy. Want to know why if you live in a bad or marginal neighborhood, you can't go to a decent grocery store? It's because of that guy (each store has to show it's own profit and cannot be supported by the profit of others). One persons money-losing drain on the bottom line is another person's technical experimenter and innovator.
[Jack Welch. A pox on 'im. --Mike]
Posted by: Crabby Umbo | Monday, 11 May 2015 at 07:34 AM
In my earlier comment I forgot to mention what was probably the greatest hobby business in history, Bell Labs
Posted by: hugh crawford | Monday, 11 May 2015 at 09:39 AM
In Canada companies can take advantage of SRED (Scientific Research and Experimental Development) tax credits. There's an entire industry of consultants geared towards helping companies document and demonstrate their innovations to take advantage of such tax credits. And there's nothing wrong with that.
And I should add it's all open to the tax man for audit. :)
Posted by: Anthony K. | Monday, 11 May 2015 at 10:01 AM
It surprise me how this hobby business is one of the, or the, most innovative camera maker today, providing us not gimmicks, but useful features like wave sensor cleaning, sensor shifting anti-shake, live composite etc.
By the way, tomorrow they are announcing the Titanium E-M5 MkII, nothing innovative but their first titanium digital.
Posted by: Marcelo Guarini | Monday, 11 May 2015 at 11:27 AM
To expand on the point about Bell Labs made above by Mr. Crawford. What are philosophy, science and the arts if not the ultimate 'hobby businesses'? What was the ROI of the Lascaux paintings? If memory serves, Newton's job description as Astronomer Royal did not say anything about inventing the calculus, and Aristoteles could have done his day job as tutor without writing anything of significance. We should be proud of a society that can institutionalize support for those activities that truly make life worthwhile. Hunting bison was obviously essential for survival, but I am glad some Philistine Cro-Magnon (anachronism noted) did not dissuade the cave painting Masters from indulging their hobby. I say, if a company keeps an intersting and creative hobby business afloat, more power to them. Yes, it's not indefinitely sustainable, but then nothing else is.
Posted by: Adrian | Monday, 11 May 2015 at 12:55 PM
I have nothing of substance to add, but I want to mention what a wonderful conversation this is. This is why I love TOP, so many educated voices. I came here to read about photography and end up learning about Japanese business practices. And, it's all interesting. Thank you dedicated TOP readers/contributors.
Posted by: Dave | Monday, 11 May 2015 at 01:10 PM
So, is Thom Hogan writing to Olympus share holders, or to Olympus camera buyers and users? Is he confused about who is his audience?
Posted by: Arg | Monday, 11 May 2015 at 03:28 PM
NeXT, Pixar, and yes, Apple might all reasonably have been described as hobby businesses at some point.
How did that turn out ?
Jobs in 1996...
"And so the way out for Apple -- and I think Apple still has a future; there are some awfully good people there and there is tremendous brand loyalty to that company -- I think the way out is not to slash and burn, it's to innovate. That's how Apple got to its glory, and that's how Apple could return to it..."
Of course, it's an outlier... way, way out there.
And Thom would probably have shut it down.
:-)
Posted by: Nigel | Monday, 11 May 2015 at 04:08 PM
> How many camera companies (or camera divisions of larger companies)
> are actually profitable? I'm guessing Canon, Nikon and Leica.
Not really sure about Leica Camera AG. They are a privately-held company, and don't publish their financial results.
Leica might have gotten a cash injection a few years ago when Blackrock (the private equity firm) bought a stake from Andreas Kaufmann, the company owner, but there are rumors around that Blackrock has been a bit disappointed with Leica's financials lately. Incidentally, Leica's CEO has been replaced a few weeks ago...
As for Sony, looking at some of their segment results in their financial report for FY14, ending March 31, 2015:
Overall, Sony's FY14 sales amounted to 8215.9 Bn, with a 68.5 Bn profit.
Sony's FY14 results were dragged down by their "Mobile Communication" business segment, which lost 220.4 Bn, with 1323.3 Bn in sales.
Of late, major American and European banks have been fined several billion dollars by the regulators after probes into the banks' questionable sale methods of structured financial products and shenanigans with the fixing of LIBOR etc.
Many banks are thus quipped nowadays as being "a legal defense fund with a bank attached"
Considering the tidy profit delivered by Sony's "Financial Services" business segment, one might consider Sony to have morphed a few years ago into "a banking and insurance company with attached consumer electronics and entertainment interests" ;-)
Posted by: Bruno Masset | Monday, 11 May 2015 at 04:41 PM
Enjoy what's available and let worries to investors.
Posted by: Ragnarok | Monday, 11 May 2015 at 05:30 PM
@Thom comment: His site I read per week (as the update is less) and my reference for Nikon (and bought books). I agreed to him in general. However, one minor point comes up which we (I meant the whole world) has to be careful about. Is Japan really in such a debt? Is the debt increasing?
First, all the debts are in Japanese Yen, not in US dollars and unlike Euro Japan is one country -- they can easily escape it. That is how US get away from it. Yes Yen would fall. Look lately, they got more people buying their stuff and travel to them. It is a matter of managing the fall and they are out of it. In fact, the worry is not increasing debt but how to manage it.
Second point is what I have missed and one day someone points it out in detail financial studies. Look who has borrow the money. Bank of Tokyo. The central bank. It is a money manipulation to the point that whilst they are in debt, actually as the government owned the central bank, the effective debt is actually not all ups but have ups and downs (and in fact down). That is totally against the concept that Japan is falling and debt is always increasing. Not out of the woods. But not exactly as you appear.
Do not look at their right hand who is in debt to their left hand, look at their left hand as well. Japan government is also confusing like their Japanese firm.
Do not look just at the face of Japanese, or their firm or their government. Just don't. (Long term ageing is an issue ... need more robots; another story.)
Posted by: Dennis NG | Monday, 11 May 2015 at 06:09 PM
Facebook is down here. Post another comment:
@Kevin
"Fujifilm - supported by cosmetics(!) and specialty chemicals,"
I thought that is one of the good example, note the word "film". Those chemicals are developed out from film. That is how they diversify from the lost of film business. BTW, not sure but they still have shops in Hong Kong selling their paper and machines for people who like to print out.
Posted by: Dennis NG | Monday, 11 May 2015 at 06:15 PM
@Eamon Hickey
Konica/Minolta is alive and well mostly making printers and copiers like Ricoh along with medical and sensing equipment. All seem to have optics at their heart.
Konica/Minolta sold their A mount camera and lens designs along with the brand to Sony. They didn't sell their optical design group as many on the net seem to assume.
Konica Minolta Opto, Inc is an ODM (original design and manufacturing) company that designs and manufactures camera lenses (and lots of other interesting optical systems e.g. optical drive optics) for third parties, including some well known brands.
Pointers to their patents for new camera lenses pop up on the Japanese camera and imaging blog Egami on a regular basis. Figuring out who will market the design is part of the fun of patent watching.
http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/tag/KonicaMinolta
It seems likely that some Olympus branded lenses may be designed by Konica/Minolta. Along with some kit lenses for other manufacturers.
If true that would mean that Olympus are outsourcing their "hobby". :-)
Posted by: Kevin Purcell | Monday, 11 May 2015 at 07:40 PM
It's a small world ...
My earlier comment was a quick retort ... reading everyone else's has been quite enlightening as usual.
@Ctein.
Coincidentally I worked at Charles Beseler Co. in the early seventies, and never read back to their history, nor did I see any traces of industrial shelving. Nice people, great gear, and they were importing the Topcon line of "way ahead of their time" cameras, in addition to making the rock solid enlargers. Definitely not a hobby business by that time. I was there for the invention and introduction of what we believed to be the first battery powered auto winder - it was a great time in the camera biz!
@ Mike
Jack Welch was the reason I and countless other NBC employees had no benefits (luxuries like health insurance) from the mid nineties for the first eight+ years of my "non-employee" employment on the "Tonight Show with Jay Leno". We all protested in one way or another, and were trying to form a unified group when there was a change. It was rumored that Jay (a very generous guy who was NOT our employer) and some of the brass called Jack Welch, so we were shuffled over to an "employer" (set up by GE/NBC) who gave us health insurance - that's it. **Many of us believed that this was also coincident with Microsoft losing $97 million in a case they lost in 2000 ... eerily like NBC's employment practices.
Fourteen years later, when the show ended in L.A., about one third of the staff, those hired before the "no more employees" date, received substantial separation packages, continuing health insurance, pensions, vacation pay, etc. Most of us "run of show contractors" a hearty invitation to leave. My wife was one of the lucky third - her health insurance took care of my bills during a three month hospital stay.
P.S. Her GE Retiree health insurance has just been substantially reduced, .......thank goodness for Medicare.
**http://www.vault.com/blog/workplace-issues/independent-contractors-vs-Microsoft
Posted by: Gabe | Monday, 11 May 2015 at 08:29 PM
Olympus makes darn good microscopes (I use one in my day job) and endoscopes. They have expert lens designers. I consider that they are a mostly-optics Zeiss-type company that also puts the pertinent machine around their optics.
Posted by: NancyP | Tuesday, 12 May 2015 at 03:49 PM
The discussion above: TOP at its best.
Posted by: R | Tuesday, 12 May 2015 at 09:09 PM
> Second point is what I have missed and one day someone points it out in
> detail financial studies. Look who has borrow the money. Bank of Tokyo.
> The central bank. It is a money manipulation to the point that whilst
> they are in debt, actually as the government owned the central bank, the
> effective debt is actually not all ups but have ups and downs (and in
> fact down).
This is totally incorrect.
The original debt instruments — i.e. the borrowings — are issued by the government, not by the central bank:
When a central bank — be it the Fed, the ECB or the BoJ — acquires government debt instruments, it purchases them on the financial market from a counterparty — e.g. a private sector bank that bought the government securities when they were auctioned by the gov't.As it purchases the bonds, the central bank must, obviously, pay for them: what sane private sector bank would relinquish for free — i.e. without receiving a payment — the ownership of one of its assets ?
I don't think there's a single central bank in an OECD country that's authorized to buy a government bond directly from the government at its issuance, without the bond first making a detour through the financial markets. This rule, obviously, prevents a spendthrift government from having direct access to the central bank's banknote printing presses.
The payments issued by the central bank when purchasing assets can be made either with paper banknotes, or as entries in an electronic ledger — i.e. a bank "account" — maintained at the central bank.
Thus, the central bank, when it purchases assets and issues a payment for them, creates money — i.e. increases the money supply — by increasing either the quantity of banknotes in circulation, or the balance of an electronic bank account held at the central bank.
Total of the assets and liabilities of all the parties involved: after mutual cancellation of assets and liabilities, there remains, at the national level, a net asset that's equivalent to the amount of the gov't debt.1) Asset and liability positions after the gov't has auctioned a new gov't debt:
Total of the assets and liabilities of all the parties involved: after mutual cancellation of assets and liabilities, there remains, at the national level, a net asset that's equivalent to the amount of the gov't debt.2) Asset and liability positions after the private sector bank sells the gov't debt to the central bank:
Thus, the acquisition by the central bank of gov't debt does not change the netted asset and liability positions of the actors involved, including the government's.
There is thus neither an increase, nor a decrease in liability, that is, there are no "ups and downs" at the national level.
What does change, when a central bank purchases an asset, is the money supply. This is obviously relevant when implementing monetary policy, as the quantity of money in circulation is believed to play a role in the prevention of economic contractions and deflationary spirals.
Hence the unconventional policies pursued by the various central banks — the Fed, the ECB and the BoJ — which have all increased their assets purchases of late, thus increasing their respective currencies' money supply.
Posted by: Bruno Masset | Wednesday, 13 May 2015 at 05:12 AM
When you are answerable to shareholder, there is no long term direction for a 'hobby business.' You can't knowingly throw away shareholder wealth year after year and still claim fiduciary responsibility.
I'm guessing Olympus gave their cameras a long leash as long as they were gaining penetration; you can absorb short term losses as long as you have longer term potential for increasing market share, even in a diminishing market.
Unfortunately, Olympus has been losing market share.
I suspect they may be on their final bullet as they begin to belatedly (too belatedly) start to slash very high retail prices. Hopefully this will keep them viable a little longer.
On the other hand, Olympus has already given up 35mm SLR, 35mm bridge, Olympus medium format, Olympus 4/3, walked away from DSLR...
Gosh I hope they survive and thrive. But despite what Thom or anyone else alleges, plenty of companies have slashed money losing consumer product lines.
Posted by: ronin | Thursday, 14 May 2015 at 12:13 PM
Olympus, along with all other mirrorless makers, continues to shed money like there is no tomorrow. Sales are falling and are projected to fall further. R & D money is spent to get less sales the next year.
Mirrorless has had 5+ years to turn a profit and still has not reached that point. All of the mirrorless makers put together are out sold by Nikon and produce 0 pennies in profit.
Posted by: Lakshmi Sing | Saturday, 16 May 2015 at 05:30 PM