Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Brian Hirschfeld on February 18, 2014, 09:58:12 am
-
Interesting little piece of news that was brought to my attention over here. Certainly seems like PhaseOne has been stepping things up especially over the past few years. I'm not sure what exactly PhaseOne will do with this influx of capital, my theory is some form of vertical integration to maximize profit and efficiency, PhaseOne has seen some nice growth over the past couple of years (you can look up their public filings through the references on their Wikipedia page), so it will be interesting to see what they do with this nice windfall.
Personally I could envision the acquisition of Schneider-Kreuznach, or at least this is one possible use of the investment that I might personally like to see because it could lead to more / better lenses becoming available. But I don't know if this is financially viable since I don't know anything about the size / scale of Schneider as a company.
Any thoughts out there?
http://www.growthbusiness.co.uk/news-and-market-deals/mergers-and-acquisitions/2454317/silverfleet-capital-snaps-up-stake-in-nordic-camera-business-phase-one.thtml
Best,
BH
-
And so you lose ever more autonomy and control.
In the end, as with so much in life, if the thing doesn't work one way then doing the same thing under a different umbrella changes little - it still doesn't work out. I am not saying it wouldn't work out long-term as it is - how could I possibly know? - but unless there are real problems, why would you blow autonomy?
I wish 'em well.
Rob C
-
Interesting.
This from their blurb -
Buy and build is about investing in a core platform company, and then backing that business to make one or more acquisitions. These ‘add-ons’ will ideally bring either new customers, new markets or new technologies into the group.
In executing Buy-and-Build strategies, we are effectively acting as a trade buyer, yet a trade buyer with significant speed and execution advantage. Through a Buy-and-Build strategy, our portfolio companies are able to achieve real revenue and cost synergies, as well as other scale benefits, such as increased purchasing power.
In addition to that, I can't imagine Leaf will be carrying on as a separate brand for much longer.
/edit
WRT Schneider, tough to see that one making sense -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schneider_Kreuznach
Only a very small proportion of their lenses are relevant to medium format.
-
And so you lose ever more autonomy and control.
In the end, as with so much in life, if the thing doesn't work one way then doing the same thing under a different umbrella changes little - it still doesn't work out. I am not saying it wouldn't work out long-term as it is - how could I possibly know? - but unless there are real problems, why would you blow autonomy?
Every investment and every capital firm is different. Sometimes they are done because things are not working; sometimes they are done because things are working well enough to justify aggressive financing of expansion. In this case P1 isn't in a position where "things aren't working out one way". They in fact have been profitable and growing every year since the financial crises.
Let's all put in our calendars to review this thread in about a year shall we :).
-
Yup, with both mainline MFD vendors now with their control stakes taken by private money players, it WILL be VERY interesting to see over the intermmediate term who is operating at what levels - and with what logo over the front door.
-
Every investment and every capital firm is different. Sometimes they are done because things are not working; sometimes they are done because things are working well enough to justify aggressive financing of expansion. In this case P1 isn't in a position where "things aren't working out one way". They in fact have been profitable and growing every year since the financial crises.
Let's all put in our calendars to review this thread in about a year shall we :).
What odds would you give me on Leaf no longer existing as an ongoing brand when we review the thread in a year's time? :)
With my serious hat on though, perhaps you could share your views (not necessarily from the perspective of a dealer) as to the Phase/Leaf marketing strategy?
There always seem to be exclusive capabilities held back for each brand.
I don't believe for one moment that there are any technological reasons why a single back couldn't be made that delivers the benefits of both.
And with the release of the IQ250, is this not the first time there has been a new generation of technology launched with a Phase One back, but nary a peep out of Leaf?
Is there truly space for both brands to coexist in such a small - and clearly increasingly competitive - market?
-
Been pouring over Silverfleet's past investments.
These guys don't hang around. We can expect to see significant impact from their investment within a 12 month timeframe, and then the business sold off 3-4 years after that.
It's gonna be one hell of a ride :)
-
It seems that there is a large desire for some Schadenfreude from Phase One, and I don't know why. Maybe it is because they are the King of the Hill and people like to see an epic fall from grace?
Insofar as Phase dissolving Leaf, I can't see it ever happening. Leaf provides Phase with another revenue stream, namely from those who don't want to or can't pay the extra 30% premium for Phase One branded backs. It is a great example of self cannibalizing that actually works (I think, but then again I don't have the financials to review). If Phase dissolved Leaf, where would those buyers go? Some may bight the bullet and buy a Phase back, but I guess most would just stick with Canon, Nikon, etc.
-
It seems that there is a large desire for some Schadenfreude from Phase One, and I don't know why. Maybe it is because they are the King of the Hill and people like to see an epic fall from grace?
Insofar as Phase dissolving Leaf, I can't see it ever happening. Leaf provides Phase with another revenue stream, namely from those who don't want to or can't pay the extra 30% premium for Phase One branded backs. It is a great example of self cannibalizing that actually works (I think, but then again I don't have the financials to review). If Phase dissolved Leaf, where would those buyers go? Some may bight the bullet and buy a Phase back, but I guess most would just stick with Canon, Nikon, etc.
No Schadenfreude from me - just a purely objective perspective on the company, marketing, and how it's structured.
I own one P1 back, and will probably be buying a second within the next month.
The overheads of running the two brands is a clear area for consolidation. Absolutely no reason why Phase One couldn't bring everything under one brand whilst dropping the nearly-overlapping products. Practically every other camera company manages to do it - in fact, it would only strengthen the Phase One brand.
I was wrong about the 250 actually - there's been no Leaf 2-series equivalent at all, has there? The only thing new was the WS Credos, which were announced around the same time as the IQ2's, IIRC?
-
I think Leaf will stay in, but "degraded" to a budget brand, ie the Phase One brand has premium prices and gets the newest technology first, and then the same technology with a bit different gui and some stripped features are provided again in the Leaf brand at a lower price. So customers that think the Phase One brand is too expensive can still buy Phase One products, but under the Leaf brand.
-
I think Leaf will stay in, but "degraded" to a budget brand, ie the Phase One brand has premium prices and gets the newest technology first, and then the same technology with a bit different gui and some stripped features are provided again in the Leaf brand at a lower price. So customers that think the Phase One brand is too expensive can still buy Phase One products, but under the Leaf brand.
You're describing the status quo.
Look. Canon manage to sell DSLR camera bodies that cost from close to $7K, all the way down to around $500.
It strengthens the Canon brand. People can buy into it at the bottom end when they start out, and gradually over time work their way up. The "halo" effect is enormous. My first Canon was an A1. My first digital Canon was an EOS350. In DSLR land, I now shoot with a 1Dx, having owned 5DII, 7D, and 1D4 in the past.
Can you imagine a situation where the 1Dx was marketed as a Canon, but the Rebel had no Canon branding whatsoever, and was called something completely different? It would make no business sense whatsoever.
-
With my serious hat on though, perhaps you could share your views (not necessarily from the perspective of a dealer) as to the Phase/Leaf marketing strategy?
[...]
And with the release of the IQ250, is this not the first time there has been a new generation of technology launched with a Phase One back, but nary a peep out of Leaf?
I rather like the diversity of options the Leaf / Phase duality provides. I hope they don't go away. A Credo 40 is very very similar to an IQ140 with a few features lacking - no hard buttons (useful for gloved operation), no focus mask (useful for iterative focusing on a tech camera and for quick checks during portrait/fashion work), no metadata for horizon/tilt for automatic perspective and horizon correction. Many people are happy to pay for those extra features and can opt for an IQ140. Others are okay without those features and can save some money by going the route of a Credo. The Credo also has separately made color profiles which share lineage/intention with previous Leaf color profiles to provide a different look than P1 and to provide continuity with photographers and institutions that have become accustomed to or otherwise love that look.
The Credo 40 Promo (https://digitaltransitions.com/blog/dt-blog/mamiya-credo-special-promo) is getting a lot of traction. It serves as a nice market counterpoint to the IQ250 which offers numerous advantages but at a much higher cost of entry.
The two backs share a lot of technology so there is not as much cost of independent development as when there was an Aptus II line which shared little-to-nothing with the P1 line.
The Credo line also supports the Hy6/AFi which is a small but important community to serve.
The IQ launched before the Credo. The IQ2 launched and there is not (yet) any Credo 2 with similar wireless capabilities or the long exposure sensor in the IQ260.
Also remember that for years Phase One offered the P20+, P21+, P25+, P30+, P40+, P45+, P65+ at the same time. So having four IQ2 backs and three Credo backs at the same time is not a large change in distribution methodology.
-
... but unless there are real problems, why would you blow autonomy?
To raise capital. These are private equity guys.
... sometimes they are done because things are working well enough to justify aggressive financing of expansion ... They in fact have been profitable and growing every year since the financial crises.
Yes, but either not profitable enough or with grandiose/aggressive plans that to date their capital and/or their business model can't support.
In all likelihood not so much ' aggressive financing of expansion' as 'financing of aggressive expansion' .
Or, just perhaps, their CEO is a PhaseOne user ..
-
I rather like the diversity of options the Leaf / Phase duality provides. I hope they don't go away. A Credo 40 is very very similar to an IQ140 with a few features lacking - no hard buttons (useful for gloved operation), no focus mask (useful for iterative focusing on a tech camera and for quick checks during portrait/fashion work), no metadata for horizon/tilt for automatic perspective and horizon correction. Many people are happy to pay for those extra features and can opt for an IQ140. Others are okay without those features and can save some money by going the route of a Credo. The Credo also has separately made color profiles which share lineage/intention with previous Leaf color profiles to provide a different look than P1 and to provide continuity with photographers and institutions that have become accustomed to or otherwise love that look.
The Credo 40 Promo is getting a lot of traction. It serves as a nice market counterpoint to the IQ250 which offers numerous advantages but at a much higher cost of entry.
The two backs share a lot of technology so there is not as much cost of independent development as when there was an Aptus II line which shared little-to-nothing with the P1 line.
The Credo line also supports the Hy6/AFi which is a small but important community to serve.
The IQ launched before the Credo. The IQ2 launched and there is not (yet) any Credo 2 with similar wireless capabilities or the long exposure sensor in the IQ260.
Also remember that for years Phase One offered the P20+, P21+, P25+, P30+, P40+, P45+, P65+ at the same time. So having four IQ2 backs and three Credo backs at the same time is not a large change in distribution methodology.
Well that was a very hasty edit.
(for those who missed it...
"You see a lot of this throughout the camera industry and other industries. The 6D and 5DIII, the 1Dx vs 1Dc, etc etc. "
was posted and then deleted)
Anyway...
Except it is not four IQ2 backs and three Credos, is it?
Four IQ2 backs, three IQ1 backs, three P+ backs.
Three regular Credos, two WS Credos, seven Aptus.
As to development costs - yes, of course there's a lot of technology sharing.
But there's a lot more to a company's cost base than just R&D.
-
Well that was a very hasty edit.
(for those who missed it...
"You see a lot of this throughout the camera industry and other industries. The 6D and 5DIII, the 1Dx vs 1Dc, etc etc. "
was posted and then deleted)
Gerald.d - you don't think it's a bit rude to post what someone has edited out of their post?
Anyway...
Except it is not four IQ2 backs and three Credos, is it?
Four IQ2 backs, three IQ1 backs, three P+ backs.
Three regular Credos, two WS Credos, seven Aptus.
The WS Credos are not separate products; just a Credo minus the IR filter. This is available on any P1 back as well. They are very cool to play with.
The Aptus (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=85180.0) is on it's way out.
The IQ1 are only available as refurbished and are not being made new.
Anyway... given their recent spat of strong years of financial growth I think their strategy is doing just fine :).
-
Gerald.d - you don't think it's a bit rude to post what someone has edited out of their post?
Nope.
The WS Credos are not separate products; just a Credo minus the IR filter. This is available on any P1 back as well. They are very cool to play with.
Of course they are separate products.
The Aptus (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=85180.0) is on it's way out.
The IQ1 are only available as refurbished and are not being made new.
And if Phase One only had a single website to worry about, perhaps it might be up-to-date.
Anyway... given their recent spat of strong years of financial growth I think their strategy is doing just fine :).
I bet their strategy 3 years ago wasn't to sell a controlling stake in the company.
-
Every investment and every capital firm is different. Sometimes they are done because things are not working; sometimes they are done because things are working well enough to justify aggressive financing of expansion. In this case P1 isn't in a position where "things aren't working out one way". They in fact have been profitable and growing every year since the financial crises.
All capital firms are looking for return on investment though which typically means higher margins.
I would love to be proven wrong but in general the entrance of capital firms is not good news, neither for the customers nor for the employees.
Also talking from my own personal professional experience here unrelated to the photo industry.
-
I think if we were at a party and someone said something that no one else heard, and then, for whatever reason, decided didn't want to be heard that it would be frowned upon to then yell out "hey everyone Joe just said _____".
In this case it was of no consequence, just an analogy I thought was not that strong.
I write on the forums in between doing real work, so I don't always triple read my posts and sometimes notice something I want to change and go back and quickly edit. Reposting the edited out section, on purpose, and calling attention to it for the very reason that it was edited out... that's just not good etiquette in my mind.
Probably just easier that I not reply to your questions in the future. I apologize in advance for that.
-
All capital firms are looking for return on investment though which typically means higher margins.
I would love to be proven wrong but in general the entrance of capital firms is not good news, neither for the customers nor for the employees.
Also talking from my own personal professional experience here unrelated to the photo industry.
You might peruse THIS capital firm's website and former dealings to get an idea of their particular motus operandi.
As I said, not all capital firms are the same.
-
I think if we were at a party and someone said something that no one else heard, and then, for whatever reason, decided didn't want to be heard that it would be frowned upon to then yell out "hey everyone Joe just said _____".
In this case it was of no consequence, just an analogy I thought was not that strong.
I write on the forums in between doing real work, so I don't always triple read my posts and sometimes notice something I want to change and go back and quickly edit. Reposting the edited out section, on purpose, and calling attention to it for the very reason that it was edited out... that's just not good etiquette in my mind.
Probably just easier that I not reply to your questions in the future. I apologize in advance for that.
Fine by me.
You wrote it. You posted it. I read it.
I was formulating a reply in my head when I hit the "quote" button.
Wrote the reply.
Hit preview.
And then noticed you'd edited it out.
Presumably because you'd read my post that was written and posted whilst you were writing yours (the forum even warns you about this eventuality.)
Obviously you edited your post as soon as you saw that what you wrote about Canon totally supported my argument.
Personally, I think that if you write something and I see it, I have the right to respond or comment.
And I will continue to do so.
-
How long till we see the rebranded Olympus cameras with jewels attached bearing the proud name of 'phase one' and boasting of a heritage of um, something. :P
-
When I saw the thread title, I expected some stellar "Doom and gloom" posts. Wasn't disappointed.
Will check back in a year to see how the hopes of the doom pundits were terribly smashed by reality. :D
-
PhaseOne has seen some nice growth over the past couple of years (you can look up their public filings through the references on their Wikipedia page), so it will be interesting to see what they do with this nice windfall.
On closer examination (via your links), I don't think this is quite as benign as it first appeared. It seems this is NOT simply raising capital but selling a majority stake. The following is a Google translation of the Danish link below.
quote
Danish Phase One sold to the English capital fund
18 February 2014 - By Heidi Sejlund
The British private equity fund Silver Fleet Capital acquires 60 percent stake in Phase One and gets thus a majority holding in camera manufacturer.
With English Silver Fleet Capital as the new owner , is Phase One - there is a world leading manufacturer of camera systems for professional photographers - now ready to turbocharge growth.
- We find that there are some significant growth opportunities in the coming years . And it is necessary to grow even faster in order to keep the best people . It requires us to have a larger capital stock in the back , which we have now , says Henrik Håkonsson , CEO of Phase One , the exchange about the sale of 60 percent of the company shares.
What the English capital fund paid for a majority stake in Phase One were not disclosed , but according to the Exchange's information these are 500-600 million, which means that Phase One has an estimated market value of around 1 billion, the newspaper said .
Phase One has chosen partly to sell to Silver Fleet Capital as private equity are accustomed to act in China and Japan , which are some of Phase One major markets.
unquote
www.electronic-supply.dk/article/view/123462/danske_phase_one_solgt_til_engelsk_kapitalfond
If the report and the figures are correct then Phase One was valued at about $180 million USD / £110 million GBP, which seems incredibly low if all the previous profitability reports were to be believed. Based on figures from www.proff.dk/firma/phase-one-as/frederiksberg/fremstilling-af-optiske-instrumenter-og-fotografisk-udstyr/13477705-2/ , though their net operating profit and return on assets looked good, the liquidity ratio** did not. If true, this could explain why Phase chose to sell out sooner rather than later.
-
** the liquidity ratio expresses the company's ability to meet its short-term financial obligations, and is calculated as receivables plus cash as a percentage of short-term debt.
-
Looks like our dealer friends are going to get to know a new team at the head office.
I'm fairly sure the only thing guaranteed to remain as like now is after-sales and support.
Edmund
On closer examination (via your links), I don't think this is quite as benign as it first appeared. It seems this is NOT simply raising capital but selling a majority stake. The following is a Google translation of the Danish link below.
quote
Danish Phase One sold to the English capital fund
18 February 2014 - By Heidi Sejlund
The British private equity fund Silver Fleet Capital acquires 60 percent stake in Phase One and gets thus a majority holding in camera manufacturer.
With English Silver Fleet Capital as the new owner , is Phase One - there is a world leading manufacturer of camera systems for professional photographers - now ready to turbocharge growth.
- We find that there are some significant growth opportunities in the coming years . And it is necessary to grow even faster in order to keep the best people . It requires us to have a larger capital stock in the back , which we have now , says Henrik Håkonsson , CEO of Phase One , the exchange about the sale of 60 percent of the company shares.
What the English capital fund paid for a majority stake in Phase One were not disclosed , but according to the Exchange's information these are 500-600 million, which means that Phase One has an estimated market value of around 1 billion, the newspaper said .
Phase One has chosen partly to sell to Silver Fleet Capital as private equity are accustomed to act in China and Japan , which are some of Phase One major markets.
unquote
www.electronic-supply.dk/article/view/123462/danske_phase_one_solgt_til_engelsk_kapitalfond
If the report and the figures are correct then Phase One was valued at about $180 million USD / £110 million GBP, which seems incredibly low if all the previous profitability reports were to be believed. Based on figures from www.proff.dk/firma/phase-one-as/frederiksberg/fremstilling-af-optiske-instrumenter-og-fotografisk-udstyr/13477705-2/ , though their net operating profit and return on assets looked good, the liquidity ratio** did not. If true, this could explain why Phase chose to sell out sooner rather than later.
-
** the liquidity ratio expresses the company's ability to meet its short-term financial obligations, and is calculated as receivables plus cash as a percentage of short-term debt.
-
You have to think that Silverfleet is coming to this party with a shotgun, a priest and a bus ticket to Sweden. Otherwise, this will get really expensive for them.
Interesting to be sure. Nobody makes this kind of investment, certainly not PE funds, without a clear plain for significantly increased profitability and a lucrative exit.
Btw, this was a buyout, but hardly a pay-day. The release is clear that senior management have had to roll their proceeds back into the company.
- N.
-
Private equity firms buying a stake in a high-end, "boutique" business isn't always bad.
Those of you familiar with Ducati (an expensive, low volume Italian motorcycle) may remember the company was on the ropes back in 96-97. Texas Pacific Group came in, bought the business, dumped in a bunch of cash and business know-how. The wailing and gnashing of teeth on the Ducati forums was pretty intense. The "end of Ducati as we know it" was widely predicted. However, TPG did NOT mess with what made Ducati Ducati, they let the motorcycle people do their job. The business end they took care of, the company prospered, Ducati aficionados were pleased and TPG cashed out some years later with a tidy profit. Win win win...
-
... this was a buyout, but hardly a pay-day. The release is clear that senior management have had to roll their proceeds back into the company.
Anything but a payday.
quote
Silverfleet Capital will acquire a majority investment in Phase One from the existing management team, who will reinvest a significant amount of money for a substantial minority stake. Bank financing for the transaction is to be provided by Nordea.
unquote
http://www.silverfleetcapital.com/media-centre/news/silverfleet-capital-to-invest-in-phase-one-as/
Raising equity is one thing, selling a majority stake is another.
-
"Silverfleet said in a statement that it will help the company to grow through the potential acquisition of complementary businesses or technology."
That does not seem like a bad thing at all…
also "in 2011 Blackstone Group bought a minority stake in Phase One rival Leica from investment firm ACM Projektentwicklung."
Leica is not doing bad at all
-
It's really hard to say - but man you guys sure are some doom-riddled pessimists.
I don't know how it will end up - but to raise the substantial investment they're looking for to grow where they want to grow, perhaps majority ownership is a card they had to give up. At any rate, they chose to, and that is not something you choose to do lightly. As it seems Phase One has been doing quite well in recent years - I would think the new owners are onboard with the current and future strategy and are enthusiastic about helping to fund it. Alternatively - there were lots of rumors about Canon, etc, buying them. Don't know that I liked that idea any better, in fact I don't.
As far as Phase One/Leaf - I don't understand why this seems to vex people so much, especially those who like to take members edits and re-post them. >:(
There are many companies who have tiered products with different labels - Audi/Volkswagon comes to mind as an apt comparison. What you see as some sort of resource drain - with no basis of fact - could be quite the opposite. If Leaf were such an anchor dragging Phase down, I'm sure Phase wouldn't be maintaining the brand. And I don't agree that you can take everything that is in Leaf and combine it with Phase. Maybe you could - but that means you would want to - since the products, and especially the files do maintain their differences, it's not a matter of whether they can combine all in one, but whether they want to. And so far, it doesn't appear that they do.
Phase has been hitting homers - this wasn't a rescue line, this is something else. What that means 3 years from now, we shall see.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
Maybe, if it's done right, there is money to be made in making good products.
And that capital is needed to make the necessary investments.
Sounds rather old-fashioned but might be true. It's likely that P1 management still care a lot about their company. They probably figured this was the best way to get investment capital.
-
Maybe, if it's done right, there is money to be made in making good products.
And that capital is needed to make the necessary investments.
Sounds rather old-fashioned but might be true. It's likely that P1 management still care a lot about their company. They probably figured this was the best way to get investment capital.
Phase One clearly has some very talented people and impressive IP assets. I could see where lack of funding could hold back some very interesting projects.
...and I hope that's the case!
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
As far as Phase One/Leaf - I don't understand why this seems to vex people so much, especially those who like to take members edits and re-post them. >:(
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Clearly this is aimed at me.
"Vex"?
You know what that means, yes? It means to irritate or annoy.
Phase/Leaf doesn't irritate or annoy me. There isn't a single drop of emotional investment from me into either brand nor the company's existing structure.
It's simply that, to me, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever from a business perspective to run the two brands under one roof. This is NOT the same as Volkswagen. For goodness sake. Phase One turnover around US$50M a year. The scale simply isn't there.
And I at no point said that "Leaf were such an anchor dragging Phase down". It is quite possible that Leaf is profitable right now.
But it IS a fact that there are two brands producing and marketing MFDB's and cameras under one roof delivering a profit of only a few million dollars per year. So there WILL be inefficiencies inherent in that structure that could be addressed should a new majority owner decide to do so.
On the one hand, you claim "I don't agree that you can take everything that is in Leaf and combine it with Phase.", and then right after that, without even skipping a beat, you admit "Maybe you could". Can. Could. Same verb.
"The products, and especially the files do maintain their differences."
Come on. Let's be honest here. The Credo IS the IQ1 wearing slightly different clothes and running different firmware. There is absolutely nothing to prevent Phase from releasing their own WS versions of the IQ's. Do you seriously not believe that if Phase did that, their own product line would be enhanced? That their own brand would suffer?
As Doug rightly pointed out (and as I have absolutely the right to respond to), Canon do something along very similar lines with the 1Dx and 1Dc. But there are two fundamental differences. Firstly, those two products are aimed at totally different markets. And secondly - they do it under the same brand.
As for the files?
What is it that is behind those differences? I'm intrigued here, because I'm under the impression that - if they wanted to, Phase One could have a single button somewhere in the workflow that said "give me Leaf" or "give me Phase One".
"Phase has been hitting homers - this wasn't a rescue line, this is something else."
Clearly Phase One needed significant outside investment in order to grow. You do not sell your majority shareholding without good reason.
But I repeat once again.
I bet it was not in their strategy 3 years ago to sell out. So something hasn't gone to plan.
-
If the report and the figures are correct then Phase One was valued at about $180 million USD / £110 million GBP, which seems incredibly low if all the previous profitability reports were to be believed.
Both Canon and Nikon are valued with a P/E ratio of around 15.
Phase One made $5.5M in 2011. Let's be generous and say - based on claims by insiders - that profits doubled in the intervening years.
$180M sounds on the expensive side actually.
-
I wonder whether this going to be a thing like Xrite where the company gets resold every 3 or 4 years?
This seems to be a frequent pattern with private capital firms, for tax reasons.
Edmund
-
Clearly this is aimed at me.
Do you think? ::) Are you going to re-post my edit? ;)
"Vex"?
You know what that means, yes? It means to irritate or annoy.
Phase/Leaf doesn't irritate or annoy me. There isn't a single drop of emotional investment from me into either brand nor the company's existing structure.
It's simply that, to me, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever from a business perspective to run the two brands under one roof. This is NOT the same as Volkswagen. For goodness sake. Phase One turnover around US$50M a year. The scale simply isn't there.
Yes of course I know what it means - though irritate and annoy are the two most extreme synonyms associated with the word. Generally, people - not you, only the re-posting edited posts was aimed at you - do seem vexed over the idea of Leaf and Phase creating inefficiencies.
What I see and where I come from is that many take positions on the wisdom of this situation when they have no real information about how the two brands provide any internal benefit from co-existing. It is assumed that there must be inefficiency and that is the only data point. It is the only data point that you can draw on, because you don't really know what is happening internally between Phase One and Leaf, strategically or operationally. That's not your fault - and neither do I. But I have a pretty good feeling that if it truly creates crippling inefficiencies, then it wouldn't be happening.
And I at no point said that "Leaf were such an anchor dragging Phase down". It is quite possible that Leaf is profitable right now.
I didn't say you did, this wasn't aimed at you (see above).
But it IS a fact that there are two brands producing and marketing MFDB's and cameras under one roof delivering a profit of only a few million dollars per year. So there WILL be inefficiencies inherent in that structure that could be addressed should a new majority owner decide to do so.
Quite possible.
On the one hand, you claim "I don't agree that you can take everything that is in Leaf and combine it with Phase.", and then right after that, without even skipping a beat, you admit "Maybe you could". Can. Could. Same verb.
"The products, and especially the files do maintain their differences."
Come on. Let's be honest here. The Credo IS the IQ1 wearing slightly different clothes and running different firmware. There is absolutely nothing to prevent Phase from releasing their own WS versions of the IQ's. Do you seriously not believe that if Phase did that, their own product line would be enhanced? That their own brand would suffer?
What I mean (meant) is that as one example, Phase One files have a certain look out of the box. Leaf files have a different look, use different profiles. Could they not use the same profiles, create the same look? They could - but it is certainly possible they choose not to. Maybe we would like Phase One products to use Leaf profiles out of the box. But maybe Phase One likes their own look. Or vice versa. It is true, though, that Leaf and Phase products became much more similar under the IQ/Credo design. If this trend continues, then...the separate branding may indeed not be practical.
As Doug rightly pointed out (and as I have absolutely the right to respond to), Canon do something along very similar lines with the 1Dx and 1Dc. But there are two fundamental differences. Firstly, those two products are aimed at totally different markets. And secondly - they do it under the same brand.
As for the files?
What is it that is behind those differences? I'm intrigued here, because I'm under the impression that - if they wanted to, Phase One could have a single button somewhere in the workflow that said "give me Leaf" or "give me Phase One".
"Phase has been hitting homers - this wasn't a rescue line, this is something else."
Clearly Phase One needed significant outside investment in order to grow. You do not sell your majority shareholding without good reason.
But I repeat once again.
I bet it was not in their strategy 3 years ago to sell out. So something hasn't gone to plan.
That's one way to look at it. Or perhaps their plans have succeeded to the point their ambitions and capabilities need funding to realize what they are capable of - which is a bit of a different take than simply "to grow".
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
+1
Just to say, that money doesn't come without a price tag. The investor demands return on investment, that may be a good thing. Perhaps expanding the market?
Erik
Phase One clearly has some very talented people and impressive IP assets. I could see where lack of funding could hold back some very interesting projects.
...and I hope that's the case!
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
Honestly I'm happy for Phase and am hopeful this will lead to good things for the photo community.
Ok so Hasselblad came out with the Lunar and discontinued the V film camera after the VC's got involved and oh what's the new $1000 camera in a $10000 package called?
But Leica has done well with their turn with the investors, but maybe because they didn't give up total control? I dunno but I'm a bit more optimistic about Phase doing better things than rebranding Japanese compact cameras with Ostrich testicle leather and extracting the value of the name by duping unsuspecting amateurs into thinking that something special had been added. Phase never had the name recognition power that Leica and Hasselblad did amount the wealthy amateur crowd anyhow so probably couldn't make that typical play from the MBA playbook even if they wanted to.
I'd like to see better software and we'll probably see some mobile solutions plus maybe a lot more CMOS offerings. Personally I'm also hoping to see more backs for the Rolleiflex Hy6 platform ( I already wrote I'm an optimist right?).
-
It's almost comical how the analysis paralysis crowd in any given forum is the ones who are also the least concerned with creating any noteworthy work.
Carry on...
P.S. I love my leaf. I don't particularly care much for paying Phase prices or the phase "Look" for my files.
-
It's almost comical how the analysis paralysis crowd in any given forum is the ones who are also the least concerned with creating any noteworthy work.
Carry on...
P.S. I love my leaf. I don't particularly care much for paying Phase prices or the phase "Look" for my files.
And here we go with the ad hominems.
Stay classy!
-
And here we go with the ad hominems.
Stay classy!
Certainly.
Champagne for you, sir?
-
What I mean (meant) is that as one example, Phase One files have a certain look out of the box. Leaf files have a different look, use different profiles. Could they not use the same profiles, create the same look? They could - but it is certainly possible they choose not to. Maybe we would like Phase One products to use Leaf profiles out of the box. But maybe Phase One likes their own look. Or vice versa. It is true, though, that Leaf and Phase products became much more similar under the IQ/Credo design. If this trend continues, then...the separate branding may indeed not be practical.
Perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly...
Could a single product not provide both profiles?
-
Certainly.
Champagne for you, sir?
Where are you going with this?
What are you trying to achieve?
I'm genuinely perplexed.
Are you looking to have some kind of meta-discussion?
What value does it add to come into a discussion specifically about the business side of things, and throw around crap like that?
It would be as daft as someone going into a thread full of pictures and saying "absolutely hilarious how these arty-farty people producing noteworthy work [sic] have no clue whatsoever about running multi-million dollar businesses. Do carry on...".
-
Where are you going with this?
What are you trying to achieve?
I'm genuinely perplexed.
Are you looking to have some kind of meta-discussion?
What value does it add to come into a discussion specifically about the business side of things, and throw around crap like that?
It would be as daft as someone going into a thread full of pictures and saying "absolutely hilarious how these arty-farty people producing noteworthy work [sic] have no clue whatsoever about running multi-million dollar businesses. Do carry on...".
I spent 10 minutes of my life I will never get back and went through your post history here.
Snarky comments is all you have.
Now imagine if you had put all that efforts into shooting something....
I know, novel thought.
-
I spent 10 minutes of my life I will never get back and went through your post history here.
Snarky comments is all you have.
Now imagine if you had put all that efforts into shooting something....
I know, novel thought.
Wow.
(FWIW, right now I'm sat at my computer and Lightroom is processing 46432 images from a single shoot that comprises less than 0.1% of a much, much larger project that I'm working on. I'll be sure to come back and share it with you when it goes live (hopefully sometime later in the year) so that I can validate my existence, because of course it is extremely important to me what your perspective on my work is.)
Seriously.
Just wow.
-
Again, it's comical to see you blow your lid in almost all of the 351 posts you've made here.
Maybe you should go out for a walk and enjoy some fresh air once in a while. I'm sure Phase One will survive in the meantime. :)
-
synn, are you really as old as you look on your photograph?
Rob C
-
synn, are you really as old as you look on your photograph?
Rob C
Kurt Cobain was 26 when that picture was taken, IIRC.
-
Kurt Cobain was 26 when that picture was taken, IIRC.
My God! Are you suicidal? It's not worth doing; it's messy and creates as many problems as it solves.
Rob C
P.S. Maybe I should use a snap of Gregory Peck, just to keep up to date...
-
P.S. Maybe I should use a snap of Gregory Peck, just to keep up to date...
No, you're better looking!
-
It's almost comical how the analysis paralysis crowd in any given forum is the ones who are also the least concerned with creating any noteworthy work.
Out of genuine curiosity, would you mind posting those images of yours that you consider to be noteworthy?
As a mere amateur, I am never missing a opportunity to learn from a top notch professional.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Out of genuine curiosity, would you mind posting those images of yours that you consider to be noteworthy?
I am never missing a learning opportunity!
Cheers,
Bernard
this might be the perfect learning opportunity to figure out how search works!
-
this might be the perfect learning opportunity to figure out how search works!
I have found your portfolio, but I would appreciate an indication from you about what images in particular fit in the noteworthy category.
Thanks.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I have found your portfolio, but I would appreciate a indication from you about what images in particular fit in the noteworthy category.
Thanks.
Cheers,
Bernard
whichever that might fit your standards.
have a ball.
-
whichever that might fit your standards.
have a ball.
What are your standards Sandeep?
You are telling us that the work of some guys here is not noteworthy, so you owe us a clarification.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
What are your standards Sandeep?
You are telling us that the work of some guys here is not noteworthy, so you owe us a clarification.
Cheers,
Bernard
I am saying that some folks are more interested in shooting test charts and aperture series and posting graphs and yes, endlessly speculating over financials of companies,than producing a genuine work of art.
I don't care how beautifully exposed a test chart is, it's beneath my standards. I have no illusions of being the grand poobah of photography, but I know for sure that I'd rather be shooting than analyzing crap that in no way improves my photography skills. Some people clearly can't digest being called out on that.
now back to your regularly scheduled episode of analysis paralysis...
-
I am saying that some folks are more interested in shooting test charts and aperture series and posting graphs and yes, endlessly speculating over financials of companies,than producing a genuine work of art.
I don't care how beautifully exposed a test chart is, it's beneath my standards. I have no illusions of being the grand poobah of photography either.
Assuming we know those people are interested in test charts/economy, how do we know they are not even more interested in creating "noteworthy" art?
I'll stop here Sandeep. I hope you got the point.
Such comments simply don't belong here.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Assuming we know those people are interested in test charts/economy, how do we know they are not even more interested in creating "noteworthy" art?
I'll stop here Sandeep. I hope you got the point.
Such comments simply don't belong here.
Cheers,
Bernard
You can hang on to semantics as much as you want, but you got my point right from the start.
I'll stop here too.
-
Keep in mind that 1 Danish krone = 0.184243 U.S. dollars
600,000,000.00 DKK = 110,616,000.00 USD
-
...so Phase One is worth $180 million US. It was stated earlier in this thread but kind of disappeared in a flood of compliments ;)
-
Hmm
Two opposing ideas:
first: Well, that is not a good sign. I fear they had to take additional money to get this CMOS up and working.
Not good for them as they always have been proud to be financed by the staff....VC´s are of course no nice people. they want to earn.
You are the ones whose blood they want to suck and that mostly fast.
second : of course they are right, either grow or close it. For a CMOS business they have to get up volume.
To even launch a new body to support this, it will need a significant investment. That could be raised by this if the capital was raised.
If earnings are big enough everybody will be happy.
.....
(it was not explicitely said they raised capital - only they bought the shares). as long as we don´t know what this really means in terms of capitalization
the information could be bad, good or neutral. All else is pure speculation.
I wish them well, I hope it works and will keep this industry alive and kicking. we really need a healthy Phase One, as this is right now one of the columns
several other smaller operations in this industry rely on (myself included).
Greetings from Germany
Stefan
-
Again, it's comical to see you blow your lid in almost all of the 351 posts you've made here.
Maybe you should go out for a walk and enjoy some fresh air once in a while. I'm sure Phase One will survive in the meantime. :)
+1
Enough trolling. Discuss like you were sitting in room across from the other person, sipping a scotch after a good day shooting in the field. Courtesy or nothing.
- N.
-
Please read Nick's latest post, above. Either behave like mature adults or be gone.
Frankly, the amount of misinformation being spouted in this thread is appalling. Conjectures are made out of thin air that have no basis in fact.
Please put your feet back on the ground and discuss matters like mature adults who have at least a modicum of information about what you're talking about.
Michael
-
Really remarkable what an announcement about the LBO of Phase One can elicit in childish comments.
It is completely unclear from the avsilsble information how much of the money that Silverfleet "invested" went into the pockets of the existing shareholders and how much of it stayed in the company for expansion. My expectation is that most if not sll of the money went to the existing shareholders and NOT into the company for expansion.
I congratulate the Phase One team. They should be justly proud of building an excellent company and were very smart to lay off some of the future risks in this business that we endlessly speculate about.
I do not expect a transaction of this type to be the CAUSE of future success or failure. The marketplace of the high end photography business will determine that. I expect that the same management team will still be running the company and they still a 40% stake in the its future.
-
Really remarkable what an announcement about the LBO of Phase One can elicit in childish comments.
It is completely unclear from the avsilsble information how much of the money that Silverfleet "invested" went into the pockets of the existing shareholders and how much of it stayed in the company for expansion. My expectation is that most if not sll of the money went to the existing shareholders and NOT into the company for expansion.
Silverfleet's own statement would seem to disagree with that -
Silverfleet said in a statement that it will help the company to grow through the potential acquisition of complementary businesses or technology.
/edit
Additionally...
"Joining Silverfleet in the deal are the existing management team, who are forfeiting a majority stake in the business but also reinvesting their own money for a 'substantial' minority stake."
-
No, you're better looking!
Manoli, you've just sent a warm glow to my heart and the hint of a slight flush to my cheeks!
Bringing some grounding to this thread, if not exactly light relief: I was walking past a café an hour or so ago when I was greeted by a chap who used to run a restaurant that my wife and I frequented over twenty years ago. He was sitting alone, holding a crutch. I reached out to shake his hand, to discover that he'd lost the fingers of his left hand; on looking further I noticed that both his feet were wrapped in bandages and looked very short. I asked him what the hell he'd been doing. Turns out he'd been operated for colonic cancer, and had caught a virus in hospital. This led to gangrene and the losses he suffered of his extremities.
I don't suppose the future of any photographic company would mean very much to him...
Let's count our blessings which, in fact, I am happy to admit that I do every night when I lie there in bed awaiting the drift into the arms of Morpheus, who then wafts me off to whatever takes his fancy. I do wish he had a more positive imagination or master plan for me than seems his wont.
;-(
Rob C
-
Silverfleet's own statement would seem to disagree with that -
/edit
Additionally...
"Joining Silverfleet in the deal are the existing management team, who are forfeiting a majority stake in the business but also reinvesting their own money for a 'substantial' minority stake."
That simply means that the existing owners sold 60% and retained 40% of the company's stock. They did not "invest" one additional penny of capital in the company. Silverfleet may have put some of its money into the company, but I will bet it was a relatively small percentage of its money. The Phase One management/stockholders did this transaction primarily, if not exclusively, to take a large part of their chips off the table.
-
Would it be fair to be worried given what happened when Hasselblad got the VC treatment? I don't know anything about the economics of the situation or business stuff but to me it just looks worrying given what has happened to their biggest (only real?) competitor.
-
Would it be fair to be worried given what happened when Hasselblad got the VC treatment? I don't know anything about the economics of the situation or business stuff but to me it just looks worrying given what has happened to their biggest (only real?) competitor.
Conversely, look at how well things (seem to have) turned out for Leica.
Phase One don't have the "brand history" that Hasselblad do. I can't imagine for one moment that the plan is to bring out a bunch of blinged out accessories.
-
But I repeat once again.
I bet it was not in their strategy 3 years ago to sell out. So something hasn't gone to plan.
Your implicit assumption seems to be that that's a bad thing. Not necessarily. It's possible that a combination of P1s growth, a changing market and the appearance of an outside investor with ready cash opened up possibilities that they didn't consider achievable 3 years ago. Sticking to the plan from then could well be their worst option.
The bottom line is that none of us knows if this will be great thing for the MF world, or a disaster. I'm more inclined to think the former, but then I'm generally an optimist. :)
-
Conversely, look at how well things (seem to have) turned out for Leica.
Phase One don't have the "brand history" that Hasselblad do. I can't imagine for one moment that the plan is to bring out a bunch of blinged out accessories.
Let's hope not! Though the opportunities are endless...
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
As the man always says, profitability is but an accounting exercise - cash is king.
Quote from prior poster:
"If the report and the figures are correct then Phase One was valued at about $180 million USD / £110 million GBP, which seems incredibly low if all the previous profitability reports were to be believed. Based on figures from www.proff.dk/firma/phase-one-as/frederiksberg/fremstilling-af-optiske-instrumenter-og-fotografisk-udstyr/13477705-2/ , though their net operating profit and return on assets looked good, the liquidity ratio** did not. If true, this could explain why Phase chose to sell out sooner rather than later."
-
That simply means that the existing owners sold 60% and retained 40% of the company's stock. They did not "invest" one additional penny of capital in the company.
With respect, you can't know that. It's quite possible that after the takeover a share issue/capital increase was made with equal participation.
Silverfleet may have put some of its money into the company, but I will bet it was a relatively small percentage of its money.
Given that, in their own words, financing was by Nordea - most likely. This is an LBO pure and simple
The Phase One management/stockholders did this transaction primarily, if not exclusively, to take a large part of their chips off the table.
Again, on a speculative note (with Michael's indulgence), that's a possibility but if Phase had needed additional equity, given the economic environment of QE and rising stock markets, the most obvious path would have been an IPO, this would have avoided the additional debt burden. Equally, I see nothing in the story so far that precludes the possibility (more likely probability) that the CEO of Silver Fleet is a PhaseOne user and has seized this opportunity to do a Leica/Kaufman. And THAT may not be a bad thing.
It's also worth noting that some are using the VC moniker. These are not venture capitalists, they're Private Equity - there's a difference.
-
IF the new owners are looking for a complementary business/technology to buy, then there's always...
(http://08.ae/imgs/LuLa/PhaseRed.jpg)
-
Let's hope not! Though the opportunities are endless...
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Just what the world has been crying out for.....a blinged out version of the Mamiya AFDIII!!!!!Q
-
That simply means that the existing owners sold 60% and retained 40% of the company's stock. They did not "invest" one additional penny of capital in the company. Silverfleet may have put some of its money into the company, but I will bet it was a relatively small percentage of its money. The Phase One management/stockholders did this transaction primarily, if not exclusively, to take a large part of their chips off the table.
I guess this is the unknown here. Typically in a deal like this there is no influx of money to the company, the capital firm purchases 60% and that money is used pay off the debt, the remaining balance goes to the previous owners. Additionally, this sounds like a leveraged buyout because bank financing was mentioned. Often the forward challenge in these situations is the bank, not the capital firm.
But everything here points to most of this money being left in PhaseOne for financing future growth including acquisitions. This to me would be the previous owners money ... a substantial investment. There is no disclosure as to the structure of the funding, but to me it appears it isn’t a typical “we’re ready to bail and need to get most of our chips off the table” type of arrangement.
Of course total speculation ... no one has any clue at all as to the arrangement or the business plan. And while we are all aware of massive failures of many many investments by VC firms, in fact there are more success stories than failures. They just don’t make the news. Were this not true they wouldn’t be in business.
-
Hi,
We have to wait and see to find out. Hopefully, the company needed capital for expansion.
Best regards
Erik
I guess this is the unknown here. Typically in a deal like this there is no influx of money to the company, the capital firm purchases 60% and that money is used pay off the debt, the remaining balance goes to the previous owners. Additionally, this sounds like a leveraged buyout because bank financing was mentioned. Often the forward challenge in these situations is the bank, not the capital firm.
But everything here points to most of this money being left in PhaseOne for financing future growth including acquisitions. This to me would be the previous owners money ... a substantial investment. There is no disclosure as to the structure of the funding, but to me it appears it isn’t a typical “we’re ready to bail and need to get most of our chips off the table” type of arrangement.
Of course total speculation ... no one has any clue at all as to the arrangement or the business plan. And while we are all aware of massive failures of many many investments by VC firms, in fact there are more success stories than failures. They just don’t make the news. Were this not true they wouldn’t be in business.
-
If the investment means we're finally going to see a new MF camera replacing the 645D+ and being superior to the Hy6,
bigger sensors playing well with view cameras and new and fast lenses I think it's probably good news.
I don't believe Mr.Håkonsson would have accepted the deal if he hadn't any plan and
Phase One seems not to be in a situation to desperately need fresh money,
but of course they can use any money to expand and consolidate their business.
Exciting times in the MFD world.
I'm curious what Photokina this year will bring.
Cheers
~Chris
-
Just what the world has been crying out for.....a blinged out version of the Mamiya AFDIII!!!!!Q
The best satire is often the truth ;)
Edmund
-
Just FYI
The plans to bring out Hasselblad products like the Stellar were made well before VC got involved.
Nick-T
-
The Bling Thing:
-
Actually looks better than the lunar... :D
-
Actually looks better than the lunar... :D
Hah - thanks ...
At least better than my crappy Nikon DF mockup.
Probably that means there's more potential in the 645D for design improvements ...
Cheers
~Chris
-
There is no way that the owners of a vibrant, sector leading company like Phase One would sell off 60% control of the company in order to raise capital for business expansion. They sold off 60% in order to take part of their chips off the table. The owners, I am sure, are very bright, industrious people who love what they do and make a very nice living, but are not personally wealthy beyond the value of the company they built. It came to the point in the life cycle of their company and the future risks in the marketplace for medium format digital where it made sense to diversify their own economic positions. At a certain point, it becomes crazy as a financial matter to have all of your financial wealth tied up in the stock of any company, never mind one like Phase One that is in an intensely competitive and risky sector. We do not have to reiterate the litany of failures in the photographic marketplace in the last 10 years.
This transaction does not, IMO, change anything (other than the fact the Phase One owners can now afford the prices of Phase One cameras and backs). The people who built Phase One are still there running it and, with a continuing stock ownership stake of 40%, they are still highly motivated to make the company succeed.
-
Some of these LBOs leave the ex-owners better of, at the price of saddling the company with huge debt ...
Edmund
There is no way that the owners of a vibrant, sector leading company like Phase One would sell off 60% control of the company in order to raise capital for business expansion. They sold off 60% in order to take part of their chips off the table. The owners, I am sure, are very bright, industrious people who love what they do and make a very nice living, but are not personally wealthy beyond the value of the company they built. It came to the point in the life cycle of their company and the future risks in the marketplace for medium format digital where it made sense to diversify their own economic positions. At a certain point, it becomes crazy as a financial matter to have all of your financial wealth tied up in the stock of any company, never mind one like Phase One that is in an intensely competitive and risky sector. We do not have to reiterate the litany of failures in the photographic marketplace in the last 10 years.
This transaction does not, IMO, change anything (other than the fact the Phase One owners can now afford the prices of Phase One cameras and backs). The people who built Phase One are still there running it and, with a continuing stock ownership stake of 40%, they are still highly motivated to make the company succeed.
-
There is no way that the owners of a vibrant, sector leading company like Phase One would sell off 60% control of the company in order to raise capital for business expansion. They sold off 60% in order to take part of their chips off the table. The owners, I am sure, are very bright, industrious people who love what they do and make a very nice living, but are not personally wealthy beyond the value of the company they built. It came to the point in the life cycle of their company and the future risks in the marketplace for medium format digital where it made sense to diversify their own economic positions. At a certain point, it becomes crazy as a financial matter to have all of your financial wealth tied up in the stock of any company, never mind one like Phase One that is in an intensely competitive and risky sector...
You're describing, and then assigning to the owners of Phase One, a mindset that applies to a lot of (most?) people, but it definitely doesn't apply to everyone.
I've never met or had any dealings with them, so I'd be reluctant to do too much mind reading.
-
I'd be reluctant to do too much mind reading.
What? On Luminous Landscape?????
-
There is no way that the owners of a vibrant, sector leading company like Phase One would sell off 60% control of the company in order to raise capital for business expansion. They sold off 60% in order to take part of their chips off the table. The owners, I am sure, are very bright, industrious people who love what they do and make a very nice living, but are not personally wealthy beyond the value of the company they built. It came to the point in the life cycle of their company and the future risks in the marketplace for medium format digital where it made sense to diversify their own economic positions. At a certain point, it becomes crazy as a financial matter to have all of your financial wealth tied up in the stock of any company, never mind one like Phase One that is in an intensely competitive and risky sector. We do not have to reiterate the litany of failures in the photographic marketplace in the last 10 years.
This transaction does not, IMO, change anything (other than the fact the Phase One owners can now afford the prices of Phase One cameras and backs). The people who built Phase One are still there running it and, with a continuing stock ownership stake of 40%, they are still highly motivated to make the company succeed.
Not all VC investments are as you describe. Certainly some are, but others are mechanism to infuse capital for growth and expansion and are conditioned on most of the money staying with the company ... the owners money comes back in often secured by preferred stock other arrangements. Reading the press release I get the sense this could be going on. It specifically states two things which are indicative of this type of investment.
"High-end medium format digital camera business Phase One has closed an undisclosed funding round so that it can finance new product launches as well as further marketing and possible acquisitions."
and
"Joining Silverfleet in the deal are the existing management team, who are forfeiting a majority stake in the business but also reinvesting their own money for a 'substantial' minority stake."
this implies the money is being left in the company. I would assume the PhaseOne team thinks they have something which would be worthwhile to them, owning 40% of a larger company is better than 100% of the current company.
I'm sure it's a combination, surely they were able to pull some of the money out for themselves, but it could be deal revolved around their willingness to reinvest in their own company by leaving most of the money in to " finance new product launches as well as further marketing and possible acquisitions."
However, who knows ... could be all spin by whoever wrote the press release. Even the owners probably aren't willing to divulge the details and indeed it could be either scenario. We'll know in the future, if we see no real changes at PhaseOne then maybe they are just diversifying and reducing risk. Not necessarily bad but if it is leveraged the debt the company gets saddled with can devour it over time.
Hoping for the best ...
-
"Joining Silverfleet in the deal are the existing management team, who are forfeiting a majority stake in the business but also reinvesting their own money for a 'substantial' minority stake."
This is Euroworld private equity double talk for a transaction in which the founders/management sell part of their stock and keep the rest. They did not put one dime of their own money into the company in this transaction.
-
Just FYI
The plans to bring out Hasselblad products like the Stellar were made well before VC got involved.
Nick-T
For real?! Wow, I never would have guessed that.
-
This is Euroworld private equity double talk for a transaction in which the founders/management sell part of their stock and keep the rest. They did not put one dime of their own money into the company in this transaction.
And you know that is absolutely true in this case because? I don't think anyone at this point really knows except the parties involved. It may come out later, and certainly the way the business operates will definitely reveal the truth (If they actually acquire anything, develop new stuff faster or change the pricing/marketing plan to increase market share ... whatever they have in mind that required "funding"),.
If you are correct the introductory statement I quoted earlier would be an outright lie, having nothing to do with obtaining funding for purposes of furthering the business. At this point I'm not willing to call anyone a liar ...
I've been somewhat acquainted with several VC deals, one personally and others because I became good friends with several of the managing partners of the firm I sold to and discussed their deals playing golf or at lunches. I saw them invest and divest of many deals, some like mine (I wanted out so I could move on to other things), and others like I described where the money was used to fund R&D or some other purpose - with a broad and creative combination often being the result. Not sure European firms would operate differently.
-
For real?! Wow, I never would have guessed that.
I don't think the base idea of the Lunar thing was bad, just the actual implementation. If the "objects" were a few tasteful variations that more strongly employed and evoked Hasselblad tradition rather than Sony innovation, no reason not to do it. People were expecting the X-Pan II, they got something so radically, shockingly different, the result was an understandable backlash.
But this is somewhat off topic and already well documented.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
Sony realizes their products are notorious for being small and hard to hold, then falling out of the hands of westerners onto western stone floors, and subsequently breaking. This is an unavoidable result of their established inhouse design culture.
So their partnering with an outside western firm to create a tough-cased, grippy version of their delicate electronics is *laudable*. Nikon do their design work for the pro bodies partly in Italy for the same reason.
I for one like the idea of a titanium-cased RX100 and would be prepared to pay 50% premium for that option.
Where something went wrong in the product positioning was when they turned "tough-hi-tech" into "bling luxury" rather than upper-range lifestyle. Reminds me of the whole Vertu phone story, which I never understood either.
Steve is of course someone who sells $40K cameras every day, so I guess he hands out mini-Hassies to the customer's wife and kids as door prizes ... vastly enhances the Wife Acceptance Factor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wife_acceptance_factor) - what would be even better of course would be if every Hassy came with a 2 carat removable diamond :)
Edmund
I don't think the base idea of the Lunar thing was bad, just the actual implementation. If the "objects" were a few tasteful variations that more strongly employed and evoked Hasselblad tradition rather than Sony innovation, no reason not to do it. People were expecting the X-Pan II, they got something so radically, shockingly different, the result was an understandable backlash.
But this is somewhat off topic and already well documented.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
Problem with both the lunar and the latest example is the old fairy tale of the "King has no clothes on". There was not a thing different or added to the Lunar to make it shoot any different from the already limited use Nex-7. The people it appealed to I guess are the same ones that believe that you can "really" get 41MP out of Cell phone. The newer version is no different than the A99 (inside) and that's what counts to me. If Hassi had added some new controller card or something else to improve an already excellent camera, then it might be 4x the cost of the A99. I wonder what happens when it breaks, but I guess the people considering it at 10K or what ever it is, would just throw it away and buy a new one.
Whatever it takes I guess.
Paul C.
-
(FWIW, right now I'm sat at my computer and Lightroom is processing 46432 images from a single shoot that comprises less than 0.1% of a much, much larger project that I'm working on. I'll be sure to come back and share it with you when it goes live (hopefully sometime later in the year) so that I can validate my existence, because of course it is extremely important to me what your perspective on my work is.)
In a discussion that has a lot to do with numbers of a financial nature, this set of figures really stood out.
"46,432 photos from a single shoot, which is less than 0.1% of project"!! Forget Phase, I'm buying some shares in hard drive manufacturers, as 46 million photos will take up a heck of a lot of space. :o
-
Be sure to get back to us with a link to those 46 million images.
*sigh*
Non sequitur.
Those images (STILL processing BTW - I'm going to have to go into work on my weekend to kick off the next stage in the workflow, much to my annoyance and poor planning) are for a single piece of content. One piece of content out of over a thousand. Not all pieces of content require that many shots. Most, a lot less, thank goodness. Some, more.
But hey, don't let that hold you back from having a cheap shot. I can take them just as well as I can hand them out.
-
*sigh*
Non sequitur.
Those images (STILL processing BTW - I'm going to have to go into work on my weekend to kick off the next stage in the workflow, much to my annoyance and poor planning) are for a single piece of content. One piece of content out of over a thousand. Not all pieces of content require that many shots. Most, a lot less, thank goodness. Some, more.
But hey, don't let that hold you back from having a cheap shot. I can take them just as well as I can hand them out.
I wouldn't call that a cheap shot, merely a response to your post that basically indicated you were doing a project that contained 46 million photos.
So I'm intrigued what is that major project? And what on Earth needs 46k shots on a single shoot. I've got a project folder of 47k shots, but that took me 13 weeks of shooting over several years and I usually shot 15+ hours a day and at times 24 hrs straight.
-
Hi,
Well, my opinion, the Lunar looks horrible but the Stellar looks OK and the new one is quite nice. I obviously woldn't buy either.
Best regards
Erik
I don't think the base idea of the Lunar thing was bad, just the actual implementation. If the "objects" were a few tasteful variations that more strongly employed and evoked Hasselblad tradition rather than Sony innovation, no reason not to do it. People were expecting the X-Pan II, they got something so radically, shockingly different, the result was an understandable backlash.
But this is somewhat off topic and already well documented.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
Well, my opinion, the Lunar looks horrible but the Stellar looks OK and the new one is quite nice. I obviously woldn't buy either.
Both look like objects randomly assembled from the production lines of two very different products. Ghastly.
But then there's a long tradition of taking an something fairly mundane, making it look incredibly tasteless usually by sticking shiny things on it and then selling it to idiots with money to burn. But then you stick a red dot on a Panasonic, people will pay 30% more for the identical product. My local camera shop points out there is no difference bar the name and many if not most people still pony up for the Leica version.
-
I don't think the base idea of the Lunar thing was bad, just the actual implementation. If the "objects" were a few tasteful variations that more strongly employed and evoked Hasselblad tradition rather than Sony innovation, no reason not to do it. People were expecting the X-Pan II, they got something so radically, shockingly different, the result was an understandable backlash.
But this is somewhat off topic and already well documented.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
I agree with Steve that the idea itself of the Lunar actually was not that bad, just the actual implementation.
For what is is worth, Leica recently sold a limited Monochrome Ralph Gibson edition (35 bodies with lens) for 21,000 Euros (around $28,000) each. It has its signature engraved on the top plate.
That is a pretty ridiculous mark-up as well but to Leica's defense it is still a Leica and it is not as ugly as the Lunar…
A digital X-Pan would still go a long way IMO. I wonder whether there ever was any truth to that rumor.
-
For what it's worth, there was a London reporter a few weeks ago that tried to go a week and not buy or use any service that was funded or owned by venture capitalists.
It came down to a few home made pieces of bread and an old sweater, virtually no cosmetics, movies, clothes, food or stores that sold virtually all goods.
That's just the way the capitalist world is funded.
Without knowing specifics, obviously Phase management sold for the money, whether that goes into their pockets or R+D is something we will all find out, but whatever number it was, it wasn't anywhere close to 19 billion facebook just paid for what amounts to a free texting service, (though I bet Phase One would have loved to received those numbers).
IMO
BC
-
I thought I might post this interesting presentation from Christian Sandström, based on interviews and internal documents from Hasselblad. I originally gave the link in the other thread regarding the V-system, but thought it might be more relevant here.
http://www.slideshare.net/Christiansandstrom/hasselblad-from-the-moon-to-surviving-disruptive-innovation (http://www.slideshare.net/Christiansandstrom/hasselblad-from-the-moon-to-surviving-disruptive-innovation)
His PhD on the topic is also available on his homepage.
http://www.christiansandstrom.org (http://www.christiansandstrom.org)
As Sandström mentions (somewhat simplified), Hasselblad has been in the hands of private equity all the way back to 1991, when Incentive AB took the company private. According to the presentation, Hasselblad had a digital project going on already in the 1990s, but was stumped when Incentive AB sold to the next PE-owner, UBS, in 1996, and extracted ~ $ 30 million earmarked for development in the process. At the same time the new owner, UBS, supported the development of the H-system in collaboration with Fuji. According to Sandström the next PE-owner, Shriro was also involved in deciding to merge the company with Imacon.
This illustrates both aspects - you have LBO-investors who want to "raid the cash registry" of wealthy (or potentially wealthy) companies, and you have PE-investors who buy companies with challenges (technology, market etc.), "fix" them (investing in the H-system and later digital with Imacon), and reap the rewards. It'll be interesting to see where Phase One goes with SFC.
Dag
-
Wikipedia ..
Venture capital (VC) is financial capital provided to early-stage, high-potential, high risk, growth startup companies... The typical venture capital investment occurs after the seed funding round as the first round of institutional capital to fund growth ... in the interest of generating a return through an eventual realization event, such as an IPO or trade sale of the company.
Venture capital is a subset of private equity. Therefore, all venture capital is private equity, but not all private equity is venture capital.
In addition to angel investing and other seed funding options, venture capital is attractive for new companies with limited operating history that are too small to raise capital in the public markets and have not reached the point where they are able to secure a bank loan or complete a debt offering.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venture_capitalist
-
Sony realizes their products are notorious for being small and hard to hold, then falling out of the hands of westerners onto western stone floors, and subsequently breaking. This is an unavoidable result of their established inhouse design culture.
So their partnering with an outside western firm to create a tough-cased, grippy version of their delicate electronics is *laudable*. Nikon do their design work for the pro bodies partly in Italy for the same reason.
I for one like the idea of a titanium-cased RX100 and would be prepared to pay 50% premium for that option.
Where something went wrong in the product positioning was when they turned "tough-hi-tech" into "bling luxury" rather than upper-range lifestyle. Reminds me of the whole Vertu phone story, which I never understood either.
Steve is of course someone who sells $40K cameras every day, so I guess he hands out mini-Hassies to the customer's wife and kids as door prizes ... vastly enhances the Wife Acceptance Factor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wife_acceptance_factor) - what would be even better of course would be if every Hassy came with a 2 carat removable diamond :)
Edmund
Uh...well we're actually not a dealer for either the Stellar or the Lunar, so - sorry. If you or your significant other is interested, here you go:
http://www.colette.fr/appp-4-1100183-boitierlunar-e18-55mm-titanium.html
And not all our clients have wives. Some have husbands! Actually, an add-on Stellar for the spouse isn't a bad idea! Hmmm....You got me thinking Edmund...
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
For what is is worth, Leica recently sold a limited Monochrome Ralph Gibson edition (35 bodies with lens) for 21,000 Euros (around $28,000) each. It has its signature engraved on the top plate.
Leica's business has been kept alive by collectors and those snobbish enough to think a red dot makes the camera and therefore themselves somehow superior.
-
author=Steve Hendrix link=topic=87363.msg711940#msg711940
And not all our clients have wives. Some have husbands! Actually, an add-on Stellar for the spouse isn't a bad idea! Hmmm....You got me thinking Edmund...
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Here is the wikipedia text on WAF. I guess it can equally well be called Spouse Acceptance Factor, although Marriage Interference Factor sounds ugly.
In real life, a Titanium Sony in the hands of the spouse may see more family use than the big MF camera of the trophy husband ... and it may help bring both spouses together in a shared photo interest.
Wife acceptance factor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wife Acceptance Factor, Wife Approval Factor, or Wife Appeal Factor[1] (WAF), are design elements that increase the likelihood a wife will approve the purchase of expensive consumer electronics products such as high-fidelity loudspeakers, home theater systems and personal computers. Stylish, compact, unobtrusive forms and appealing colors are commonly considered WAF.[2] The term is a tongue-in-cheek play on electronics jargon such as "form factor" and "power factor" and derives from the gender stereotype that men are predisposed to appreciate gadgetry and performance criteria whereas women must be wooed by visual and aesthetic factors.[3]
WAF is sometimes also known as Woman Acceptance Factor, Woman Approval Factor, or Woman Appeal Factor to accommodate unmarried heterosexual couples. As early as 1988,[4] the term Spouse Acceptance Factor (SAF) was suggested as a term uniformly and equally applicable to heterosexual, gay, and lesbian couples.[5] For instance, Neil Cherry's book Linux Smart Home for Dummies uses both "Spouse Approval Factor" and "Spouse Acceptance Factor" as it does not specify the sex of the reader.[6] In Cherry's opinion, while SAF "sounds like a joke, it isn't."[6] He continues by explaining that persons of any sex may be interested in keeping the home as peaceful as possible while indulging their interest in Linux-based electronics such as X10 devices for home automation.[6] However, Jen Haberkorn of The Washington Times wrote that the term "wife acceptance factor" is the more common one, given that men are usually more interested in electronics than their wives.[7] Wives control 88% of electronics purchases indirectly through their influence or directly by making the purchase themselves, according to a study by the Consumer Electronics Association.[7]
History
Larry Greenhill first used the term "Wife Acceptance Factor" in September 1983, writing for Stereophile magazine, but Greenhill credited fellow reviewer and music professor Lewis Lipnick with the coining of the term.[8] Lipnick himself traces the origin to the 1950s when hi-fi loudspeakers were so large that they overwhelmed most living rooms. Lipnick's wife, actress Lynn-Jane Foreman, arrived at a different term: Marriage Interference Factor (MIF). Foreman suggested that audiophile husbands should balance their large and ugly electronic acquisitions with gifts to the wife made on the basis of similar expense, with opera tickets, jewelry and vacations abroad among the suggestions.
Definition
The Wife Acceptance Factor is inversely proportional to the possible amount of conflict resulting from the different points of view. The lower the WAF, the more convincing needs to be done, or the more conflict arises from the acquisition or project.
-
Wikipedia ..
Venture capital is a subset of private equity. Therefore, all venture capital is private equity, but not all private equity is venture capital.
Good point as far as investment strategies of various firms who pretty much universally shun the VC moniker even if it is there strategy of choice. Not sure where Silverlight falls into the mix of VC investment firms (Bain Capital comes to mind) vs more PE type firms (maybe Warren Buffet who tends to retain many of his investments and seeks profit from owning and not flipping quite so much or at least as quickly).
-
Phase could buy Arca–Swiss. That would be interesting. At the very least, it'd mean Arca would enter the modern age and finally get a decent website...
-
I wouldn't call that a cheap shot, merely a response to your post that basically indicated you were doing a project that contained 46 million photos.
So I'm intrigued what is that major project? And what on Earth needs 46k shots on a single shoot. I've got a project folder of 47k shots, but that took me 13 weeks of shooting over several years and I usually shot 15+ hours a day and at times 24 hrs straight.
For some reason I was reminded of this discussion today.
Anyway.
Here's a single piece of content that required 88,000 shots.
http://dubai360.com/
-
For some reason I was reminded of this discussion today.
Anyway.
Here's a single piece of content that required 88,000 shots.
http://dubai360.com/
That was a long time taken to reply!
So is that the work you were talking about or is it someone else's?
But as that is film footage of course one is going to shoot a whole heap of frames, which is quite different from 88,000 photos.
-
Nice! Looks like a whole lot of photos with a whole lot of different lenses to me.
-
Here's a single piece of content that required 88,000 shots.
http://dubai360.com/
Guys, sometimes this forum seems to harbour a bunch of curmudgeons ... credit where credit is due.
I think it's great and I like the 360degree pan facility. It's an impressive piece of work - congratulations to Gerald. Period.