All Forum Comments
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Local stockists of Pentax? at 17/04/2012 - 00:00
But it is a not unreasonable assumption that this new technology would have had speed as one of its objectives.
The fact that the 60-250 is apparently very slow must be considered a disappointment.
G
The fact that the 60-250 is apparently very slow must be considered a disappointment.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Fast focus for baby shots at 15/04/2012 - 21:20
WobblyGoblin wrote:
George, you keep stating that margin is only correctly defined as being unit price less unit cost. If you talk to a cost accountant or similar then that is probably true.
In my experience of advising businesses and working in financial reporting people would often assume you mean total turnover less cost of sales.
In either case, in my experience it is not unusual for someone to ask you to clarify whether you meant unit margin or gross margin.
It was obvious what Dr Mhuni was saying so there was no need to play the pedant and try and pick fault.
It seems to me that you are picking fault, which is hypocritical.George, you keep stating that margin is only correctly defined as being unit price less unit cost. If you talk to a cost accountant or similar then that is probably true.
In my experience of advising businesses and working in financial reporting people would often assume you mean total turnover less cost of sales.
In either case, in my experience it is not unusual for someone to ask you to clarify whether you meant unit margin or gross margin.
It was obvious what Dr Mhuni was saying so there was no need to play the pedant and try and pick fault.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Pentax/Ricoh putting prices up at 15/04/2012 - 21:13
OK, I am trying to distinguish between the different effects that can flow from a change to prices.
The first is margin, meaning the difference between unit cost and unit price. All else being equal, a change in price will improve the margin (and therefore the bottom line).
However, thanks to elasticity of demand, a price increase is likely to result in a fall in sales. So the positive effect on the margin will usually be offset to a larger or smaller extent by a reduction in volumes.
It is also far from impossible that a fall in volumes will lead to an increase in unit costs, therefore affecting the margin negatively.
In the case of Pentax, there is some inelasticity of demand because there may be no alternative if you want a particular lens, for instance. In the longer term, of course, prices need to remain competitive or users will switch brands.
I am afraid I did not produce Ricoh's accounts, and can't answer your question on the quake, other than to say that Ricoh mention it as costing them 14 billion yen. An extraordinary cost, rather than a write-down.
Staff reductions cost 29.6 billion yen, and yielded a 3rd qtr benefit of 5.4 billion. Next year therefore they should see a benefit of approx 21 billion.
The reason I take a slightly more optimistic view than you is that the timing of Ricoh's troubles exactly mirrors the global economic downturn. I believe there may be some connection.
G
The first is margin, meaning the difference between unit cost and unit price. All else being equal, a change in price will improve the margin (and therefore the bottom line).
However, thanks to elasticity of demand, a price increase is likely to result in a fall in sales. So the positive effect on the margin will usually be offset to a larger or smaller extent by a reduction in volumes.
It is also far from impossible that a fall in volumes will lead to an increase in unit costs, therefore affecting the margin negatively.
In the case of Pentax, there is some inelasticity of demand because there may be no alternative if you want a particular lens, for instance. In the longer term, of course, prices need to remain competitive or users will switch brands.
I am afraid I did not produce Ricoh's accounts, and can't answer your question on the quake, other than to say that Ricoh mention it as costing them 14 billion yen. An extraordinary cost, rather than a write-down.
Staff reductions cost 29.6 billion yen, and yielded a 3rd qtr benefit of 5.4 billion. Next year therefore they should see a benefit of approx 21 billion.
The reason I take a slightly more optimistic view than you is that the timing of Ricoh's troubles exactly mirrors the global economic downturn. I believe there may be some connection.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Pentax/Ricoh putting prices up at 14/04/2012 - 22:15
Frogfish wrote:
No. It won't be brighter than daylight.George Lazarette wrote:
Install 3 or 4 100 watt CFL bulbs.
You'll have much more light, which will speed up focusing and enable you to use a smaller aperture, thus gaining DOF.
G
And freaking the hell out of the poor baby !Install 3 or 4 100 watt CFL bulbs.
You'll have much more light, which will speed up focusing and enable you to use a smaller aperture, thus gaining DOF.
G
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Fast focus for baby shots at 14/04/2012 - 21:05
Ssh.
Don't give 'em ideas.
G
Don't give 'em ideas.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Pentax/Ricoh putting prices up at 14/04/2012 - 21:02
Install 3 or 4 100 watt CFL bulbs.
You'll have much more light, which will speed up focusing and enable you to use a smaller aperture, thus gaining DOF.
G
You'll have much more light, which will speed up focusing and enable you to use a smaller aperture, thus gaining DOF.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Fast focus for baby shots at 14/04/2012 - 19:51
DrOrloff wrote:
[quote:3496ace15f="George Lazarette"]Its obvious from the context and because I'm not actually stupid.
I know you're not stupid! But margin in the UK is a word that is normally used to describe the percentage difference between unit costs and sales prices.[quote:3496ace15f="George Lazarette"]Its obvious from the context and because I'm not actually stupid.
Quote:
Your figures paint a picture of a company doing quite well, but goodness knows where you got them from. In 2009 profits plunged 94% to a small amount (0.3% of revenues). 2010 was better but still a poor year, 2011 was 30% down on 2010. For 2012 a profit was originally forecast and that was later revised to a loss of around half a billion US dollars. Had that not been for a major cost cutting exercise through job losses the performance would have been worse. Ricoh is not doing well.
Goodness knows is right. I seem to have totally misread their interim results statement for September last year. Egg on face!Your figures paint a picture of a company doing quite well, but goodness knows where you got them from. In 2009 profits plunged 94% to a small amount (0.3% of revenues). 2010 was better but still a poor year, 2011 was 30% down on 2010. For 2012 a profit was originally forecast and that was later revised to a loss of around half a billion US dollars. Had that not been for a major cost cutting exercise through job losses the performance would have been worse. Ricoh is not doing well.
2012 results will be out on 26 April. Presently they are reporting an operating profit of 38.5 billion yen for the first 9 months, but they have then made write downs of 75 billion for the quake, early retirement, and the effect of tax changes.
The problem with trying to interpret results like these is that one doesn't know whether they have taken the full hit, and can now move on, or whether there is more bad news to come.
It is worth noting that they still have substantial cash reserves, and will pay a final dividend, although lower than last years.
The fact remains, however, that the world economy is still far from buoyant, and results like these are to be expected (see Sony, for instance), unless you're a company like Apple with sexy products to sell. Copiers aren't so sexy.
You're right to say they are not doing well, but not necessarily right to say they are in bad shape. Could be better? Yes, of course, but they could be much worse, and the problems would appear to be caused largely by events outside their control rather than by poor management.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Pentax/Ricoh putting prices up at 14/04/2012 - 19:36
ChrisA wrote:
Quite so. At first glance, imposing much higher prices does seem likely to be counter-productive. That is why I suspect there are reasons for their actions which don't immediately meet the eye.George Lazarette wrote:
I find the assumption by many people here that Pentax doesn't know the principles of supply and demand to be comical.
I'm sure they do. However, there are other reasons for putting prices up.I find the assumption by many people here that Pentax doesn't know the principles of supply and demand to be comical.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Pentax/Ricoh putting prices up at 14/04/2012 - 16:29
It's a "run along, Dougie, and jump in the lake to cool off".
When you have calmed down and grown up, I shall be happy to take your questions, and debate matters of photography.
Until then, cheerio.
G
When you have calmed down and grown up, I shall be happy to take your questions, and debate matters of photography.
Until then, cheerio.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on The stupidest thing I've seen today. at 14/04/2012 - 16:05
As has been said many times, all current DSLRs should do a decent job and its best to handle each option before buying into a system. So, its a case of going into Jessops to try the 7D and the D7000, and NOT the K5
But you knew that.
G