Robert Coe <> wrote:
>Olympus has been drifting badly on Woodford's watch, has it not? Oly
>effectively abandons DSLRs to concentrate on mirrorless systems, only to be
>thrashed by Sony. Nikon stands in the wings, ready to pick the bones. Canon
>lurks out there, planning Who Knows Wnat. If you're a stockholder, good
>riddance to Woodford!
That's more than a little harsh. Woodford was fired because it
appears he uncovered some dubious deals and then refused to sweep the
evidence under the carpet.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/68cczz5
or:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-1...osecutors.html
The problems at Olympus' camera division date back to the massive
investment in Four Thirds, which has never paid off, and changes in
the p+s market which mean that no-one makes any money there now.
Olympus was formerly heavily dependent on p+s sales.
Olympus carried on making Four Thirds DSLRs when hardly anyone was
buying them. There are huge unsold stocks of models going right back
to the E-1, and lenses too.
Panasonic rescued Olympus with some very good sensors but developed
Micro Four Thirds on its own. Since then, Olympus has been playing
catch-up. Had Panasonic not allowed Olympus to join it in Micro Four
Thirds, Olympus Camera would now be dead.
Olympus is completely dependent on Panasonic for the manufacture of
its sensors, and Panasonic seems to be limiting Olympus to 12 MP which
will obviously restrict sales. The company no longer delivers profits
from making cameras, which means that the much larger medical imaging
division now almost completely dominates the company.
All these problems pre-date Woodford's appointment as President of the
company on April 1, 2011. He had only been CEO for two weeks when he
was fired. That he has been unable to change much in his time at the
top is quite possibly not his fault. The company may come to regret
having dismissed him - the $3 billion loss in value of Olympus shares
may be just the start.
Similar Threads
