Nikon in difficulty?

[mecrox]

So, let's just say Nikon had the best camera at the best price point in the market 5, 3 and 1 year ago, with everything else remaining the same.

They'd still be in the same situation. They still wouldn't be able to produce a sensor on their own. They'd still be completely reliant on Sony and Sony subsidiaries for their high-resolution/high DR sensors - Sony could still just turn off the tap and they'd be in a world of trouble. The would still be competing for market share in a shrinking market, unable to supply anything to anyone other than non-smartphone photographers - they have no sensors to sell to phone manufacturers, don't make lenses for anyone other than Nikon cameras and other Nikon products and don't produce much of anything apart from stills cameras (whose market is shrinking) and a bit of technical equipment.

Meanwhile, look at Sony, who, ten years ago, didn't even have a real stills cameras business to speak of (point-and-shoots notwithstanding). What they did have was cash reserves, other income streams and control over their supply chains (i.e. they could develop and produce it themselves). Now they've taken over several other companies' camera/imaging divisions and have several others (Nikon, Pentax, Phase One, etc.) essentially beholden to them, as well as a booming business making sensors for the non-photographic technical and smartphone markets.

We don't know what agreements Nikon may have with Sony (or any other sensor-maker, design team or fab). Quite a lot rests on that since really solid, long-term agreements would offer stockholders a fair degree of comfort that plugs would not and could not be pulled or key components deliberately degraded by competitors refusing to make their best efforts available. But without that information, much of the rest is guesswork. It's certainly fair to say that any company which cannot manage to diversify in an industry whose sales are plunging would be in some trouble because no other revenue streams can be accessed. So, in a nutshell, it looks like shrink down to something very modest, diversify successfully or, er, die as an independent perhaps to live on as a brand in someone's else's portfolio. I realize that Nikon do have their "stepper" business but so far this doesn't look to be diversity enough or very successfully done either.

[shadowblade]

We don't know what agreements Nikon may have with Sony (or any other sensor-maker, design team or fab). Quite a lot rests on that since really solid, long-term agreements would offer stockholders a fair degree of comfort that plugs would not and could not be pulled or key components deliberately degraded by competitors refusing to make their best efforts available. But without that information, much of the rest is guesswork. It's certainly fair to say that any company which cannot manage to diversify in an industry whose sales are plunging would be in some trouble because no other revenue streams can be accessed. So, in a nutshell, it looks like shrink down to something very modest, diversify successfully or, er, die as an independent perhaps to live on as a brand in someone's else's portfolio. I realize that Nikon do have their "stepper" business but so far this doesn't look to be diversity enough or very successfully done either.

I doubt there's any sort of a long-term agreement - any such agreements tend to be on a product-by-product basis (e.g. 'we'll keep making the 36MP D810 sensor for the next 4 years'), rather than a 'we'll keep on selling you our best-available sensor for ever and ever and won't ever jack up the price'-type agreement.

But the diversification point is very relevant. Every other major company in the camera equipment also develops and makes things that are used outside of their own line of dedicated stills cameras, while using the same technology that goes into cameras. Exmor sensors go into everything. Canon has a booming video business. Tamron and Sigma make glass for everyone. Zeiss glass goes into everything, and the software, manufacturing plants and engineers who design camera lenses can just as easily design and build lenses for anything else. Nikon doesn't do much other than make camera bodies (using sensors produced by others) and make lenses for their own cameras. In a shrinking market, that's a good way to die.

[bjanes]

Nikon doesn't do much other than make camera bodies (using sensors produced by others) and make lenses for their own cameras. In a shrinking market, that's a good way to die.

That is not correct. Nikon is a leader in microscopes (most hospitals and labs use either Nikon or Olympus). They also produce rifle telescopic sights, range finders, binoculars, and spotting scopes. They also have a semiconductor lithography business and industrial  metrology business. See their annual report for details.

http://www.nikon.com/about/ir/ir_library/ar/pdf/nr2015/15nikonreport_e.pdf

Regards,

Bill

[Manoli]

That is not correct. Nikon is a leader in microscopes (most hospitals and labs use either Nikon or Olympus). They also produce rifle telescopic sights, range finders, binoculars, and spotting scopes. They also have a semiconductor lithography business and industrial  metrology business. See their annual report for details.

You missed out on the Operating Income data just below it.
ALL the other units combined barely add up to that of The Imaging Products Business, and though the 2015 data still shows a minimal profit, 2016 figures I suspect will show a loss.

Even Nikon, in the report state that

 ' Furthermore, I hear questions regarding reviews of the production bases of the Imaging Products Business, the market for which is shrinking, but these reviews will be conducted in accordance with changes in the business environment. We are working on optimisation ...'

[bjanes]

You missed out on the Operating Income data just below it.
ALL the other units combined barely add up to that of The Imaging Products Business, and though the 2015 data still shows a minimal profit, 2016 figures I suspect will show a loss.

No, I didn't miss the income data, but didn't cite it since income is not a measure of production. Shadowblade stated erroneously that Nikon doesn't do much more than make cameras and lenses for the cameras. I wouldn't think that nearly half of their business amounts to next to nothing. Diversification can allow a company to withstand a temporary downturn in one segment of their business, but in the long run unprofitable units tend to be closed down or spun off. However, a company would hesitate to shut down more than half their business, but rather would strive to revive it.

Bill

[shadowblade]

No, I didn't miss the income data, but didn't cite it since income is not a measure of production. Shadowblade stated erroneously that Nikon doesn't do much more than make cameras and lenses for the cameras. I wouldn't think that nearly half of their business amounts to next to nothing. Diversification can allow a company to withstand a temporary downturn in one segment of their business, but in the long run unprofitable units tend to be closed down or spun off. However, a company would hesitate to shut down more than half their business, but rather would strive to revive it.

Bill

All the other stuff is low-volume. Nikon would sell thousands of cameras for every microscope they sell.

Sometimes shutting down or selling an unprofitable business, taking the money and investing it in something else is the best thing to do. Better than pouring good money into a sinking ship. Other companies could make much better use of Nikon's facilities than Nikon can themselves, since they can combine them with the rest of the supply chain. Sell the camera business and production plants and become a dedicated optics company, making glass for every other device out there.

[BernardLanguillier]

Better than pouring good money into a sinking ship. Other companies could make much better use of Nikon's facilities than Nikon can themselves, since they can combine them with the rest of the supply chain. Sell the camera business and production plants and become a dedicated optics company, making glass for every other device out there.

This is becoming ridiculous... really.

Cheers,
Bernard

[shadowblade]

This is becoming ridiculous... really.

Cheers,
Bernard

It's the slowly boiling frog analogy. It's not there yet. But you can see it coming. The dedicated stills  camera market isn't getting any bigger - it's shrinking every year and the market is becoming more high-end, as those who may previously have bought low-end cameras gravitate towards  phone cameras, GoPros and the like. Nikon is bottom  of the pack in mirrorless, bottom of the pack in video - both vital technologies for future, increasingly multipurpose and interconnected devices - and can't actually make a sensor themselves. If they want the beat sensor on the market for their camera, they'll have to pay whatever the seller wants, or go with a lesser option, to the detriment of their product. They're also too small to easily catch up to Sony, Canon and others in either manufacturing capability or technology  - they just don't have the capital or the caahflow of the larger companies.

Sure, they could pour all their money into trying to turn the ship around. But the market is shrinking and they're outgunned both financially - they would be able to keep it up for a while (an Exmor equivalent made by a non-Sony-owned company would help them a lot, until the next big leap came along), but, eventually, must fall behind technologically, because they simply can't spend as much on R&D as the big companies. They're barely making a profit as it is - pretty soon, they'd start posting losses and have to find more and more sources of capital to make up for it.

Or they could sell out of the camera business (their plants, infrastructure and human capital would be worth a huge amount to anyone able to make their own sensors), take the billions of dollars from the asset sale and invest it in something much more likely to generate profit and growth in the medium to long term. Maybe optics, maybe something else entirely (e.g. property, finance).

Certainly, as a photographer, it would be nice for Nikon to stay in the game and continue to come up with good products. But, as an investor interested in profit, there are far better things Nikon could do with their resources than continue to compete in the camera game. And, ultimately, Nikon's purpose as a company is to make money, not cameras - making cameras is just one of the many ways to make money, and, given their current strategic position, not a very good one in the long term.

[BernardLanguillier]

And, ultimately, Nikon's purpose as a company is to make money, not cameras - making cameras is just one of the many ways to make money, and, given their current strategic position, not a very good one in the long term.

With all due respect, your lack of understanding of how companies work is rather puzzling.

I am out of this thread.

Cheers,
Bernard

[shadowblade]

All this sounds like the hopeful thinking of a camera enthusiast who likes what Nikon has done with the D810 and D5, or the head-in-the-sand thinking of a small business owner who sees only one solution to a problem (build better cameras) because he only knows how to do one thing (build cameras), rather than the dispassionate thinking of an investor or corporate strategist with a clear goal (maximising company profit).

Your argument essentially consists of, 'They make good gear, so they'll be fine', without any justification as to why this would be the case, or whether the company would be more profitable taking a different direction altogether.

Companies change direction all the time. IBM uses to make commercial scales. Sony's biggest money-spinners are films/music and financial products. Ten years ago, Sony barely made a camera. And companies divest themselves of unprofitable divisions all the time, or even profitable arms which aren't as profitable as they could be - it frees up capital which can then be invested elsewhere with greater return.

Don't  believe me? Look at the share price history of Nikon vs Canon and Sony over the last five years. It's not a pretty picture - evidently, other investors are thinking along the same lines.

[shadowblade]

At best, continuing along the same path and making most of their money from a shrinking market will put Nikon into the same category as a corner store owner or an antique shop. They may continue to generate a cashflow and turn a small profit if they do well, but are hardly likely to experience massive profit growth or expansion. It's not a growth strategy. Meanwhile, the corner shop owner doesn't realise he's actually sitting on a huge mountain of valuable assets (in his case, the land that the store sits on, which has appreciated at well above CPI since he bought it 40 years ago) that, if sold, would make him a fortune, that could be invested elsewhere and bring him far more income than the store ever did. Instead, he continues to go in to work every day, making a small income, because he's been selling groceries all his life and doesn't know how to do anything else... even while the supermarket up the street gradually steals most of his customers because it can undercut him on price and variety, due to economies of scale.

Leica's camera division is essentially in the same boat. But they never really pretended to be anything but a niche producer after the development of the SLR

[mecrox]

All this sounds like the hopeful thinking of a camera enthusiast who likes what Nikon has done with the D810 and D5, or the head-in-the-sand thinking of a small business owner who sees only one solution to a problem (build better cameras) because he only knows how to do one thing (build cameras), rather than the dispassionate thinking of an investor or corporate strategist with a clear goal (maximising company profit).

Your argument essentially consists of, 'They make good gear, so they'll be fine', without any justification as to why this would be the case, or whether the company would be more profitable taking a different direction altogether.

Companies change direction all the time. IBM uses to make commercial scales. Sony's biggest money-spinners are films/music and financial products. Ten years ago, Sony barely made a camera. And companies divest themselves of unprofitable divisions all the time, or even profitable arms which aren't as profitable as they could be - it frees up capital which can then be invested elsewhere with greater return.

Don't  believe me? Look at the share price history of Nikon vs Canon and Sony over the last five years. It's not a pretty picture - evidently, other investors are thinking along the same lines.

A little over-egged, I think. Nikon's entire value as a brand comes from their expertise and reputation in optics, photography and imaging generally. That isn't going to change any time soon. No one is suddenly going to buy a pair of socks, a kettle or a financial product just because it has "Nikon" branded over it. Diversifying into new businesses doesn't mean branding them with Nikon at all, in fact that may be counterproductive unless they are optical/imaging ones.

I don't see a rosy future at all for most camera companies, Nikon included, without very substantial change. However, the idea that Nikon will suddenly stop making cameras, sell up and invest the money in an underpants factory or whatever instead is a little wide of the mark I suspect What these companies may need is new management and an end to thinking like the Nokia of old that it's all about the hardware in a world where it's more often all about the software. In the bigger picture Nikon is a hugely valuable brand (for now, anyway) but the weight of opinion might well be that as a brand it needs plugging into a much bigger corporate outfit whose expertise and muscle in retail, distribution, finance, etc. is far superior. In other words, the days of going it alone when this increasingly makes no sense are numbered. Who knows, of course. None of us, for sure.

[shadowblade]

A little over-egged, I think. Nikon's entire value as a brand comes from their expertise and reputation in optics, photography and imaging generally. That isn't going to change any time soon. No one is suddenly going to buy a pair of socks, a kettle or a financial product just because it has "Nikon" branded over it. Diversifying into new businesses doesn't mean branding them with Nikon at all, in fact that may be counterproductive unless they are optical/imaging ones.

I don't see a rosy future at all for most camera companies, Nikon included, without very substantial change. However, the idea that Nikon will suddenly stop making cameras, sell up and invest the money in an underpants factory or whatever instead is a little wide of the mark I suspect What these companies may need is new management and an end to thinking like the Nokia of old that it's all about the hardware in a world where it's more often all about the software. In the bigger picture Nikon is a hugely valuable brand (for now, anyway) but the weight of opinion might well be that as a brand it needs plugging into a much bigger corporate outfit whose expertise and muscle in retail, distribution, finance, etc. is far superior. In other words, the days of going it alone when this increasingly makes no sense are numbered. Who knows, of course. None of us, for sure.

I don't mean bringing out Nikon-branded underwear.

What I mean is selling off the barely-profitable camera-making division (which would probably be worth a lot more to Sony or even Canon than it is to Nikon). The sold-off division may or may not keep the Nikon name - after all, Toshiba's imaging division is owned by Sony, but still makes sensors under the Toshiba name. Then take the billions of dollars generated in the sale and invest it in something that can generate a far higher rate of return - property or other companies (like an institutional investor), or their own optics business (expanded to make lenses for all sorts of systems, from security systems to photocopiers to Canon cameras). They don't necessarily need to manufacture or sell anything to make a lot of money. What do you think Warren Buffett makes or sells? Not much - he just invests his billions into other companies and turns a tidy profit.

[mecrox]

I don't mean bringing out Nikon-branded underwear.

What I mean is selling off the barely-profitable camera-making division (which would probably be worth a lot more to Sony or even Canon than it is to Nikon). The sold-off division may or may not keep the Nikon name - after all, Toshiba's imaging division is owned by Sony, but still makes sensors under the Toshiba name. Then take the billions of dollars generated in the sale and invest it in something that can generate a far higher rate of return - property or other companies (like an institutional investor), or their own optics business (expanded to make lenses for all sorts of systems, from security systems to photocopiers to Canon cameras). They don't necessarily need to manufacture or sell anything to make a lot of money. What do you think Warren Buffett makes or sells? Not much - he just invests his billions into other companies and turns a tidy profit.

You're missing out a crucial thing: Nikon's expertise is in optics and imaging. They know no more than the next guy about anything else. So when "they" have sold off the camera division, what are "they" left with? Not much more than a board of managers and the office cleaners, with all the know-how, staff, patents etc. gone for good and a couple of rump businesses now too small to survive on their own. More likely, I would think, is a break-up sale with current Nikon investors remunerated (if they are) with shares in the acquiring companies and a dollop of cash to top up pension funds and bribe sorry compensate the directors or whatever. Anyway, who knows. My own hope is that this happens before value is destroyed and employees lose their jobs because the management is too obtuse to realize what is happening to their industry. Anyway, last post from me.

[shadowblade]

You're missing out a crucial thing: Nikon's expertise is in optics and imaging. They know no more than the next guy about anything else. So when "they" have sold off the camera division, what are "they" left with? Not much more than a board of managers and the office cleaners, with all the know-how, staff, patents etc. gone for good and a couple of rump business now too small to survive on their own. More likely, I would think, is a break-up sale with current Nikon investors remunerated (if they are) with shares in the acquiring companies and a dollop of cash to top up pension funds and bribe sorry compensate the directors or whatever. Anyway, who knows. My own hope is that this happens before value is destroyed and employees lose their jobs because the management is too obtuse to realize what is happening to their industry. Anyway, last post from me.

Their expertise is optics. Not digital imaging or the electronics that go with it.

If they sold their camera (not optics) division now, they'd have a large chunk of cash. Probably considerably smaller if they sold it in 10 years' time instead. But, either way, still a chunk of cash. They could dispose of that cash in several ways. Firstly, they could wind up most of the company and return a huge chunk of cash to their shareholders. That's actually not a bad option - instead of Nikon investing the money as a company, individual shareholders would take their one-off dividend and invest it themselves. Secondly, they could take the money and invest it in other assets - bonds, shares, property and the like - in a similar manner to a trust fund, with shareholders as beneficiaries. No, they're not experts in it now, but they can easily afford to hire them. A company, even a bank, has no inherent expertise in investments - it's the people they hire who have the expertise. On average, a large company doing that as an institutional investor on behalf of shareholders is going to get a better return than people investing as individuals, due to the centralisation and greater availability of resources, reduced transaction costs, better access to international exchanges and better access to loans. Thirdly, they could focus on the optics side of their business, which is potentially far more profitable than their cameras, given their ability to do things in-house and the expanding nature of that sector. Finally, they could do a bit of each - return some cash to shareholders, invest some and expand their optics business.

Optics go in everything, not just interchangeable-lens cameras. Look at what Zeiss does with it. Their lenses go in everything from phones, to microscopes, to satellites. That's what Nikon needs to concentrate on if they are to survive as a company that actually makes something. Forget about proprietary mounts and their own camera system and start making optics for everyone and anyone out there, compatible with all sorts of different imaging systems. That's a far larger market than Nikon-branded stills cameras, is an expanding rather than a shrinking market, and utilises what Nikon is best at (optics) and much less of what it's not so good at (electronics).

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Here is an idea: a hedge fund buys them, starts playing with it as if a business school project, hires a bunch of Italian designers and locks them up for months in an undisclosed location. Finally, a new product is born: somebody else's camera, with a big, exotic-wood handle and a huge initial of its name slapped on it ("N") - with a tenfold price tag. You see, bling is a much better market than cameras. Oh, wait, haven't somebody else tried that already? An "H" company or something

P.S. Shadowblade, not mocking your line of thoughts, I actually find it interesting, but just couldn't resist injecting some levity

[NancyP]

Nikon makes damn good microscopes, and pretty much splits the clinical and research laboratory market with Olympus. Zeiss may still dominate in opthalmologic optical equipment (slit lamp microscopes, refraction stations) and intra-operative microscopes for colposcopy and microsurgery. Olympus and Pentax make the majority of endoscopes of all kinds.

 I have no idea who has the material sciences market.

Nikon may be the dominant player in mid-priced binoculars ($100.00 to $1,000.00). Hunting stores are full of them.

Gosh - I think that some people might actually go for the Nikon branded underwear - the same people using those fake-lens coffee cups?

[BJL]

I will not wade into the general debate about Nikon's prospects, but I will record my skepticism that Sony Sensor will start limiting Nikon's access to its sensors for ILC's, meaning ones in DX [24x18mm] and FX [36x24mm] formats.

Why?

- Firstly, I am fairly sure that for these sensor sizes, Nikon is Sony Sensor's main customer — bigger than Sony Imaging, Pentax, and Fujifilm combined.

- Secondly, if Sony could hamper Nikon enough to cause significant switching away from Nikon DSLRs, the main destination would be Canon, causing a loss of sales for Sony sensor, and making Canon and even more powerful competitor. I expect the revenue and profit losses there would outweigh the gains of body and lens sales from those switching from Nikon to Sony's (non-DSLR) ILC offerings and less extensive lens system.

- Thirdly, this has been predicted almost constantly ever since Sony bought the Konica-Minolta SLR business, with still no sign of it happening, so it has long since come to sound like "crying wolf".

[Yashika]

I will not wade into the general debate about Nikon's prospects, but I will record my skepticism that Sony Sensor will start limiting Nikon's access to its sensors for ILC's, meaning ones in DX [24x18mm] and FX [36x24mm] formats.

Why?

- Firstly, I am fairly sure that for these sensor sizes, Nikon is Sony Sensor's main customer — bigger than Sony Imaging, Pentax, and Fujifilm combined.

- Secondly, if Sony could hamper Nikon enough to cause significant switching away from Nikon DSLRs, the main destination would be Canon, causing a loss of sales for Sony sensor, and making Canon and even more powerful competitor. I expect the revenue and profit losses there would outweigh the gains of body and lens sales from those switching from Nikon to Sony's (non-DSLR) ILC offerings and less extensive lens system.

- Thirdly, this has been predicted almost constantly ever since Sony bought the Konica-Minolta SLR business, with still no sign of it happening, so it has long since come to sound like "crying wolf".

Finally, sensible post.

Want the best sports camera? Nikon makes it.
Want the best APSc camera? Nikon makes it.
Want the best landscape camera, at base iso? Nikon makes it.

Want best high end prime telephoto lenses, from 200mm, 300mm, on up to 800mm? Nikon makes them.

How bout best 105mm, as good as Otus, but with AF? Nikon makes it.

BUT!

If you want a substandard camera, from a "bigger company"--buy Canon or Sony.

While you miss shots and take lesser photos, can brag that your camera company "bigger"

At least with Sony, can buy Nikon glass. But still have to deal with limited camera.

Buy Canon, own limited camera, with limited sensor, and settle for substandard prime lenses. But the company is "bigger"

[shadowblade]

Finally, sensible post.

Want the best sports camera? Nikon makes it.
Want the best APSc camera? Nikon makes it.
Want the best landscape camera, at base iso? Nikon makes it.

Want best high end prime telephoto lenses, from 200mm, 300mm, on up to 800mm? Nikon makes them.

How bout best 105mm, as good as Otus, but with AF? Nikon makes it.

BUT!

If you want a substandard camera, from a "bigger company"--buy Canon or Sony.

While you miss shots and take lesser photos, can brag that your camera company "bigger"

At least with Sony, can buy Nikon glass. But still have to deal with limited camera.

Buy Canon, own limited camera, with limited sensor, and settle for substandard prime lenses. But the company is "bigger"

All of this is as true as it is meaningless.

Look at the situation from a corporate strategy point of view rather than as a photography enthusiast. Nikon has no control over its supply chain for critical components, needs to buy from a company which has a monopoly over the best sensor,  is far too reliant on sales within a single, shrinking market (dedicated stills cameras) and lacks the capacity to develop the in-house capability to overcome these problems.

Plenty of companies have gone broke, or lost a lot of money, while making the best product in their market. In most of those cases, the market was either shrinking or being undercut by low-cost producers. Having the best product is no insurance against financial difficulties - quality of the product is only relevant at the bottom end, as you need a competent product to be in the game at all.

It's quite telling that the only place where people think Nikon are doing OK is on photography forums. People there are all about the gear - if the gear's good, the company must be OK, or so goes the thinking. It's a completely different story on investment and shareholder forums (online or otherwise). Nikon is pretty much on the nose, for all the reasons I mentioned.