ho_co Posted June 2, 2011 Share #1 Posted June 2, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) (in German) Leica Camera AG - Investor Relations - Finanzmitteilungen Thanks for the English link below, LCT! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 2, 2011 Posted June 2, 2011 Hi ho_co, Take a look here Leica closes record year, pays dividend. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lct Posted June 2, 2011 Share #2 Posted June 2, 2011 Same in English (i guess): Leica Camera AG - Investor Relations - Financial Reports Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 2, 2011 Share #3 Posted June 2, 2011 :confused:The "shareholders" i.e. Mr.Kauffman have invested millions upon millions in the company. Is it that unreasonable for them to get some return on their investment? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
masjah Posted June 2, 2011 Share #4 Posted June 2, 2011 ... and instead of utilising the profits for R&D for the long promised solution for R-lenses users, they are shoving it up the 'arrises of the shareholders. This way, Leica will never achieve sustainable growth - I give them another two years... Cheers, Uwe Perhaps just a little over-pessimistic? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 2, 2011 Share #5 Posted June 2, 2011 Plus this report is very summary - it tells us nowhere how much has been sunk into R&D before profit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted June 2, 2011 Share #6 Posted June 2, 2011 you pay shareholders through higher profits that come from higher returns on capital. when you pay a dividend you are effectively saying the firm is overcapitalized. when it is really overcapitalized you buy back stock. paying dividends is the equivalent of a firm saying they have no use for the funds. this is a lazy view of the prospects of one's firm -- today's products are just fine. a dividend may be nice for the shareholder, using the capital to make better, broader, cutting edge products is better. leica was a revolutionary at the start by introducing the small high quality camera. the revolution has long been ceded to others. today, leica is just trying to sustain its original product using new technology. wonderful for me. for the long term viability of the firm, using the funds to produce the next revolution would be better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted June 2, 2011 Share #7 Posted June 2, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) you pay shareholders through higher profits that come from higher returns on capital. when you pay a dividend you are effectively saying the firm is overcapitalized. when it is really overcapitalized you buy back stock. paying dividends is the equivalent of a firm saying they have no use for the funds. this is a lazy view of the prospects of one's firm -- today's products are just fine. a dividend may be nice for the shareholder, using the capital to make better, broader, cutting edge products is better. leica was a revolutionary at the start by introducing the small high quality camera. the revolution has long been ceded to others. today, leica is just trying to sustain its original product using new technology. wonderful for me. for the long term viability of the firm, using the funds to produce the next revolution would be better. Where does this announcement say there's no R&D? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan States Posted June 2, 2011 Share #8 Posted June 2, 2011 ... and instead of utilising the profits for R&D for the long promised solution for R-lenses users, they are shoving it up the 'arrises of the shareholders. This way, Leica will never achieve sustainable growth - I give them another two years... Cheers, Uwe Since the company has very few shareholders other than Andreus Kaufmann, who pulled them from the brink of extinction singlehandedly I'd say it's his money to burn as he chooses. 5 million out of thirty is hardly a major chunk. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted June 2, 2011 Share #9 Posted June 2, 2011 ... and instead of utilising the profits for R&D for the long promised solution for R-lenses users... Throwing good money after bad? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Allsopp Posted June 2, 2011 Share #10 Posted June 2, 2011 So the owners of the company have had no return for 14 years and now you object because they do! Would you risk a small fortune for 14 years for no return? Answer yes and you admit to being unfit to be in business. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Allsopp Posted June 2, 2011 Share #11 Posted June 2, 2011 So that means then that Andreas K. is unfit to be in business? Cheers, Uwe No, he is now getting a return. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted June 2, 2011 Share #12 Posted June 2, 2011 Cynicism is so last year, don't you think? Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vonheim Posted June 2, 2011 Share #13 Posted June 2, 2011 you pay shareholders through higher profits that come from higher returns on capital. when you pay a dividend you are effectively saying the firm is overcapitalized. when it is really overcapitalized you buy back stock. paying dividends is the equivalent of a firm saying they have no use for the funds. this is a lazy view of the prospects of one's firm -- today's products are just fine. a dividend may be nice for the shareholder, using the capital to make better, broader, cutting edge products is better. leica was a revolutionary at the start by introducing the small high quality camera. the revolution has long been ceded to others. today, leica is just trying to sustain its original product using new technology. wonderful for me. for the long term viability of the firm, using the funds to produce the next revolution would be better. They are keeping 25 out of 30 million Euros in the company (after taxes). Compared to last year's total net income of 3.2 million Euros this is an increase of 8 times! I am sure Leica is securing it's operations, spending wisely on R&D, and cautiously preparing for increased production to keep up with a growing demand. There are limits to how much work a small company can take on. They can only interview, hire, and train a limited number of people per year - whether in production, sales, or R&D. I am sure Leica has taken all of this and more (financial considerations) into account when deciding how much it is wise to keep in the company and how much is a satisfactory dividend to shareholders. Even if you have ample opportunity to spend the money you will need resources to do so. As they are a limited number of people in the company I bet they said "the money may as well stay in the shareholders bank account as ours" - and everyone is happy and feels secure. The little financial information in the press release revealed very good news, in my eyes. The last two years have been extremely successful for Leica. With the investment I have made in the M-system I take this as a good thing and have increased hopes for the future/longevity of my purchases. Personally, I cannot wait to see what comes out of the 25 million Euros left in the company: increased production, new systems, new lenses, new services? Who knows? But I sure am hopeful and curious:) If one had to be first with a type of product to be successful there would be very few computer technology companies outside the US today. Leica can pick mature markets to enter if they think they have something to offer. What great opportunities for Leica. Exciting it is:) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted June 2, 2011 Share #14 Posted June 2, 2011 If one had to be first with a type of product to be successful there would be very few computer technology companies outside the US today. Leica can pick mature markets to enter if they think they have something to offer. What great opportunities for Leica. Exciting it is:) The US invented computers? Where did the US camera industry go? Leica management have made curious decisions, and the share holders paid, the share holders bought the shares in the first place, the money is not Leicas money, the company is not owned by Leica. If I was a majority share holder, I'd have some people standing outside company buildings with a cardboard box, to follow. If they were making chocolate mice I'd not buy one. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted June 2, 2011 Share #15 Posted June 2, 2011 you pay shareholders through higher profits. Yes. The shareholders receive part of the profit. That's what dividends are. :D If there were no dividends, the shareholders would be silly to invest their money into a company instead of simply placing it into an account in a bank. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted June 2, 2011 Share #16 Posted June 2, 2011 To make money as a shareholder, either you buy low and sell high – that’s speculation. Or you keep what shares you have and reap the profits in the form of dividends. That’s investment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Verrips Posted June 2, 2011 Share #17 Posted June 2, 2011 ... and instead of utilising the profits for R&D for the long promised solution for R-lenses users, they are shoving it up the 'arrises of the shareholders. This way, Leica will never achieve sustainable growth - I give them another two years... Cheers, Uwe Kauffman at least stick out his neck, did the right thing to make Leica survive. It's quite normal that there is a dividend after succes. Did you stick out your neck once in a lifetime in business? It's a matter of sowing and harvesting. Probably there is not much trust in the relaunch of the R sytem (digital), maybe because most Leica users are M shooters. Leica will always be a niche player, thats part of their image & marketing. Normal DSLR is a overcrowded segment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
larsv Posted June 2, 2011 Share #18 Posted June 2, 2011 Luckily you all make better pictures and other people understand business. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted June 2, 2011 Share #19 Posted June 2, 2011 with all due respect to those that have responded, that 5 million euro could come in handy someday especially if it is compounded. as for paying the investors, apple pays no dividends and the performance of the stock has rewarded its shareholders mightily. the more cash on hand the more latitude you have for r&d and developing new products down the road. you also have some money set aside for a rainy day. excess profits, in the true economics sense, is no excess, but an extra reward from the market for something new and innovative. as others see the earnings they catch on and invade your turf, x100 anyone, profits subsequently narrow, and you will then wish you didn't ship those excess profits out the door in dividends but had used them to build better and stay a step ahead. steve jobs thinks that way. and if you think leica is not a hi-tech firm so it doesn't apply think again -- it is, whether it wants to be considered that way or not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted June 2, 2011 Share #20 Posted June 2, 2011 ... that 5 million euro could come in handy someday especially if it is compounded. as for paying the investors, apple pays no dividends and the performance of the stock has rewarded its shareholders.... Leica is paying dividends for the first time in 14 years. What's the compounded profit on that? And what's the going rate for Leica shares in the stock exchange? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.