On Mon, Jun 11, 2012, at 10:26 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
> > My reading-between-the-lines concludes that the technological advantage
> > derives from the medical imaging business product development work. If so,
> > selling the camera division would be pointless, as it would have no value
> > if split from the medical imaging division.
>
> There is likely a lot of truth to your statement. What is disturbing
> is that there isn't sufficent cost charge-back going on. By burying
> costs from the medical imaging division into the camera division,
> Olympus is disguising the true profit or loss of the medical imaging
> division.
>
> Not to continue pounding on the dead horse, but this wouldn't surprise
> me and would be consistant with the other revelations about the
> integrity of Olympus' accounting methods and business management.
Don't you people know that Olympus died after the E-1 came out and
failed so miserably? It was clearly posted on this list many times.
Over and over.
Joel W.
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - The way an email service should be
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|