Ecaton Posted June 4, 2011 Share #61 Posted June 4, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Looks like heathy news for Leica, good on them! Interesting to check out some of the financial data. Earnings before tax and depreciation (EBITDA) are very positive -- up by 57.3 % to EUR 248.9 million. That's a huge leap. Turnover also well up. And first dividend since 1997. Yet just a few years ago people were writing Leica off. They must be doing something right! Double Summiluxes all round! Prost! Zum Wohl! 249M is the sales number and not EBITDA. EBIT was some Euro 42M and net profit 30M. Great news nevertheless. And a 16.9% EBIT margin is rather impressive for a camera/lens manufacturer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 4, 2011 Posted June 4, 2011 Hi Ecaton, Take a look here Leica closes record year, pays dividend. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
rosuna Posted June 4, 2011 Share #62 Posted June 4, 2011 Repeating the mantra that the R10 could not compete against nikanopus monsters does not help that much IMHO. There is indeed a niche for simple cameras using the best lenses in the world. Photogs interested don't need live view or touch screen any more than Leica M or LF users do. So there was a choice to make between such a niche and that of the S2. Leica chose the latter with hope that it would be more profitable i guess. So much the better for them if the S2 project succeeds (any evidence of this so far?), so much the worst for us faithful and/or naive Leica R users. One of the problems was, as I have explained, the huge investment required by an updated R digital system with AF lenses. The complete system of R-AF lenses would have required a lot of resources invested in a short time frame. The S system requires a different set of lenses. Another problem is the potential sales of those R-AF lenses. Many R users might buy the R10 camera, but AF lenses would have to be sold (mostly) to new customers, newcomers to the R system. Current users already had a collection of manual focus R lenses. The attracting force for newcomers of an expensive 35mm system based on a CCD sensor is very limited. Yes, you have an installed user base, and that is good for a minimum floor of body sales, but not so good for lenses sales. It would have been a risky bet. All buyers of an S2 camera buy at least one new lens, and the average may be 2 or even more. Even Sony, with a large collection of AF lenses inherited from Minolta, and inexpensive bodies (in relative terms), has failed to gain momentum. They are the third player, but far from the position of Canon and Nikon. Even these two companies may be facing trouble in designing the next generation of professional cameras. The market for such type of cameras has changed substantially during the last 3 years. Video professionals are driving the market for professional equipment (and services), and the solutions will be oriented to those requirements. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveYork Posted June 4, 2011 Share #63 Posted June 4, 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? You are assuming that the value of their shares hasn't increased. Many companies don't offer dividends, especially when they have been on a tenuous financial platform for so long, and yet people invest in those companies hoping that the price per share increases. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveYork Posted June 4, 2011 Share #64 Posted June 4, 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. You miss the point. The return on capital is a more profitable business. A more profitable business mean their shares of stock are worth more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveYork Posted June 4, 2011 Share #65 Posted June 4, 2011 Of course, this assumes the stock is liquid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted June 4, 2011 Share #66 Posted June 4, 2011 You are assuming that the value of their shares hasn't increased. Many companies don't offer dividends, especially when they have been on a tenuous financial platform for so long, and yet people invest in those companies hoping that the price per share increases. As has been mentioned before you can only realize that gain if you sell. Evidently Dr. Kaufmann has no intention to relinquish any of the stock he (or rather ACM Projektentwicklung GmbH) already owns; rather he would have preferred to own all of it, take Leica Camera AG off the stock market, and turn it into a privately held company once again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted June 4, 2011 Share #67 Posted June 4, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) You are assuming that the value of their shares hasn't increased. . Why do you have to assume? Didn't you look it up before joining the discussion? LCA1.F Basic Chart | LEICA CAMERA Stock - Yahoo! UK & Ireland Finance Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecaton Posted June 4, 2011 Share #68 Posted June 4, 2011 Evidently Dr. Kaufmann has no intention to relinquish any of the stock he (or rather ACM Projektentwicklung GmbH) already owns; rather he would have preferred to own all of it, take Leica Camera AG off the stock market, and turn it into a privately held company once again. And the evidence being.....? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DES Posted June 4, 2011 Share #69 Posted June 4, 2011 It really amazes me how people continually make accusation on how the R system never made any money Well was the Leicaflex a loss, was the SL a loss was the SL-2 a loss was the R3, R4,R4s,R5,R6, R6-2 R7, R8, plus the DMR and finelly the R9 plus all those wonderful R lenses they produced over the years were a loss. If thats the case, those accountents that Leica employed must have been a bunch of knuckle heads. Do you really believe that after 40 years Leica did'nt make any money on the the R series. Strange to continually produce this system for so long, perhaps they really did'nt have to much fate in the M SYSTEM. A while back Leica stated that it could not make a Digital sensor for the M cameras because of the narrow clearances, so all R&D went towards the DMR and the so-called loss making R SYSTEM. Hassleblad bought out Amacon so no more DMR's, perhaps Hassleblad considered the DMR coupled up with R lenses to good for their liking. Then the unthinkable happened a Sensor was made that could fit the M series. A meeting was convined, we can make more money selling M cameras, those silly buggers will buy anything as long as we put an M on it, plus it's cheaper to produce then the R camera our profit margins will be greater. What about the R system.. yes a problem, we don't have enough Cash to develop both, just tell them we have been loosing money since 1965, treat them like mushrooms, keep them in the dark and feed them BULLSHIT. Thank goodness I finelly got plucked up from the ground so they no longer can feed me BULLSHIT. Ken. Ohhhhh.....My god not again, my head hurts, I am going for a lie down. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted June 4, 2011 Share #70 Posted June 4, 2011 And the evidence being.....? Leica Camera AG - Investor Relations - Finanzmitteilungen for example. Just observe what he says and does; it’s pretty obvious. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted June 4, 2011 Share #71 Posted June 4, 2011 Hi I keep tripping over M9 users in the streets, not seen a S2 yet though, is it pale gray with a flexible thing at the front? Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveYork Posted June 6, 2011 Share #72 Posted June 6, 2011 Why do you have to assume? Didn't you look it up before joining the discussion? LCA1.F Basic Chart | LEICA CAMERA Stock - Yahoo! UK & Ireland Finance So Leica shareholders have had more then 100% appreciation in their stock values since the dark days of 2006. That's pretty good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 6, 2011 Share #73 Posted June 6, 2011 Yes - based on 230 shares that changed hands - probably bought by Mr. Kaufmann for his collection... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephan_w Posted June 6, 2011 Share #74 Posted June 6, 2011 when you are a small firm with limited capital the best strategy is to foucs on the one thing you do well and do it better than anyone else. ferrari isn't out there making minivans. Well, Porsche did and earned so much money that they almost didn't know what to do with it. ok, everybody knows how it ended. It looks as Leica is following a similar concept with the S2 (somehow the Cayenne of all cameras): Offering a camera that nobody needs, but is expensive enough to make you look good. What would interest me is how much selling of what stayed over years on the shelves of the M-System (lenses, MPs and so on) contributed to the result. So we really have to wait for the annual report. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuny Posted June 6, 2011 Share #75 Posted June 6, 2011 A while back we heard on this Forum that the Cayenne was an albatros on Porsche's neck, but over here they are amazingly common, and I read somehwere they are (and have been) selling well overall. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted June 6, 2011 Share #76 Posted June 6, 2011 ... What would interest me is how much selling of what stayed over years on the shelves of the M-System (lenses, MPs and so on) contributed to the result. So we really have to wait for the annual report. I don't think that selling from shelves had any importance in the last two years. It is said that Mr. Lee tried to force Leica dealers to order a minimum amount to keep the Solms shelves empty - but this lead to his dismissal. It was already in spring 2008 when I had to wait several months for a new 2/75mm as it had to be built when I ordered it. On the peak of the financial crisis - end of 2008 - they rebated many lenses which should have emptied quite a good part of what was still collecting dust (the data in the quarterly reports from this time show that the rebates were succesfull). Since the M9 came on the market in September 2009 the big run on anything you could use as a lens started and it has even reached the Summarits now, which did not sell well before. May be there are some film Ms at most important dealers, but I presume that new ones are only built on demand now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted June 6, 2011 Share #77 Posted June 6, 2011 May be there are some film Ms at most important dealers, but I presume that new ones are only built on demand now. There are lots of early film M cameras, but you may need to shop around for a new M7 or MP. Most dealers would sell a 2nd hand M with a buy back condition, upon availability of next batch of new. A lens would be difficult, a type I 5cm Cron is a nice lens... There seems to be an ugly rumor that a Cosina supplier, has been disadvantaged by quake. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.