Brutal quarter for Nikon

Sangster

Senior Member
Messages
1,581
Solutions
2
Reaction score
1,129
Location
CA
From Bloomberg news:
Nikon Plunges Most Since 1985 After Forecast Cut: Tokyo Mover
By Mariko Yasu - Feb 6, 2013 5:59 PM PT

Nikon Corp., Japan’s third-biggest camera-maker, plunged the most since 1985 in Tokyo trading after cutting its profit forecast because of slowing demand in Europe and falling prices.

The company dropped as much as 19 percent to 2,139 yen, headed for the lowest since Nov. 21. The stock traded 18 percent lower at 2,156 yen as of 10:25 a.m., the biggest decline among members of the Nikkei 225 Stock Average.

Net income will probably be 38 billion yen ($407 million) in the year ending March, compared with a previous forecast of 60 billion yen, the Tokyo-based company said yesterday in a statement. Prices of entry-level single-lens reflex cameras have tumbled since mid-November because of slowing demand and rising competition, it said.
“It was a large downward revision and a negative surprise,”Hisashi Moriyama, an analyst at JPMorgan Chase & Co. in Tokyo, wrote in a report yesterday. “It would take a quarter or two to confirm whether Nikon can improve its average selling price and margin,” said the analyst, reducing the price target for the stock by 19 percent to 2,600 yen and lowering his rating for the stock to “neutral” from “overweight.”

Nikon and rivals including Canon Inc., the world’s largest camera maker, are relying more on high-end cameras with interchangeable lenses for growth as more consumers use smartphones for snapshots, undermining demand for compact models.

Sales Forecasts

Nikon trimmed its full-year unit sales target for SLR cameras to 7 million units from 7.1 million earlier. The estimate for lenses was lowered to 9.8 million from 10 million. The company kept unchanged its target for compact cameras at 17 million units.

“Demand in Europe is starting to slow,” Chief Financial Officer Junichi Itoh told reporters yesterday. Business in China was also “worse than expected” in the past quarter, he said.

Global shipments of digital cameras fell 14 percent in value in November from the previous month, according to the Camera & Imaging Products Association in Tokyo. Shipments of high-end models with interchangeable lenses recorded a 12 percent decline. That followed a 6.6 percent gain in October, according to the industry group.

Chinese demand was dented as consumers boycotted Japanese goods in the period because of protests sparked by a territorial dispute.

Nikon also cut its second-half dividend estimate to 12 yen from 22 yen. The camera-maker had been expected to make a full- year profit of 61 billion yen, based on the average of 20 analyst estimates compiled by Bloomberg.

Canon last month forecast profit will rise 14 percent in 2013, helped by a weaker yen and rising sales of its more expensive models.
 
It was not just Blackberry and Nokia that did not see smart phones coming was it.....all the camera manufacturers are feeling the squeeze.




Tough times ahead BUT necessity is the mother of invention so there should be some exciting developments around the corner!




Hopefully!
 
I hope so. Japanese companies are very slow to change. Look how long it took Nikon to finally launch their CX mount mirrorless camera.
 
You do remember we are in a world wide economic recession.

It could get worse or it could get better but it will change. Some will survive others will not. They are better off than many companies who are loosing money. But yes the sky is falling.
 
Sangster wrote:

I hope so. Japanese companies are very slow to change. Look how long it took Nikon to finally launch their CX mount mirrorless camera.
Canon and Nikon are late to mirrorless market not because they are slow, but because they wanted to protect their DSLR market dominance. Canikon owns over 90% of DSLR market, they do not want to promote mirrorless market that compete with their low end DSLR.

However, with the P&S market being eroded by smartphones, they have a gap in the low end consumer space as P&S market disappear. Thus, both Nikon and Canon are now in the mirrorless market to replace the shrinking P&S.
 
pavi1 wrote:

You do remember we are in a world wide economic recession.
Some companies post profits and growth nonetheless. The ones that don't can't simply blame all woes on the market of which all are part.
It could get worse or it could get better but it will change.
A fully hedged forecast! Better to show a bit of courage and predict the most likely scenario: continued growth and dominance of smart phones, shrinkage of P&S camera sales, and a DSLR market plagued by stagnant volumes and price competition. A tiny niche of high end products may fare well, on paper, but not generate enough gross profits to cover losses incurred by other divisions, general corporate costs, or debt service.
Some will survive others will not. They are better off than many companies who are loosing money. But yes the sky is falling.
Leica perhaps?

Why are big camera companies any better off than, say, Kodak five years ago? Exactly why are Sony, Panasonic, or Olympus more likely to turn-around than a company that made typewritters or ribbons?

Canon and Nikon have less debt than some other firms, and they aren't bleeding from massive losses on display screens or financial fraud. Unfortunately, Canon's traditionally good printer division is feeling pressure from flat or diminished office printing volumes.

Mirrorless cameras are a wild gamble, since they may simply cannibalize future DSLR or camcorder sales. If you tally the rising volumes of mirroless cameras, against the drop in volumes of other devices, it's likely a case of "one step forward, four steps back."

Every year, the management reports promise bold, innovative steps. Unfortunately, the steps often turn out to be a repeat of the past: more models and more "features," which everyone else is also doing, and which only glut the market further. Mergers (Panny+Sanyo), which ought to trim surplus capacity, don't yield that effect, but simply add to redundancy. Managers are rewarded mainly on the basis of the numbers of products and heads under their command, or by going with the flow.

Lots of fixed assets on the companies' balance sheets probably have no economic value at all. A component of the deferred charges and inventory also probably merit a write down. The published books may not reflect this for years. The stock market is simply prognosticating the likely adjustments.

A cold blooded investor would have short sold these companies shares and made off (not Madoff) well. Company management may try to "hold out" and hope for the best. But this is not a mere cyclical downturn. Smart phone cameras will continue to improve to the point that most people see no reason to have anything else; or they will never see any need to upgrade, if that means the inconvenience of bulk, weight, and likely obsolescence.


 
Based on 2012 results from Canon and CIPA (see here):

Total number of interchangeable lens cameras sold = 20.2 million


Canon sold 8.21 million interchangeable lens cameras = 40.6%


Nikon sold 7 million interchangeable lens cameras = 34.7%

The remaining interchangeable lens cameras (Olympus, Sony, Panasonic, Pentax), mostly represented by mirrorless cameras = 24.7%

Combined market shares of Canon and Nikon was 74.3% in 2010, 78.5% in 2011 and now 75.3% in 2012. So, once again, mirrorless cameras hardly gained the m43 consortium, Sony and Pentax any increase in market shares.
 
photo nuts wrote:

Based on 2012 results from Canon and CIPA (see here):

Total number of interchangeable lens cameras sold = 20.2 million

Canon sold 8.21 million interchangeable lens cameras = 40.6%

Nikon sold 7 million interchangeable lens cameras = 34.7%

The remaining interchangeable lens cameras (Olympus, Sony, Panasonic, Pentax), mostly represented by mirrorless cameras = 24.7%

Combined market shares of Canon and Nikon was 74.3% in 2010, 78.5% in 2011 and now 75.3% in 2012. So, once again, mirrorless cameras hardly gained the m43 consortium, Sony and Pentax any increase in market shares.
An interesting read, thanks for the link.
 
photo nuts wrote:

Based on 2012 results from Canon and CIPA (see here):

Total number of interchangeable lens cameras sold = 20.2 million

Canon sold 8.21 million interchangeable lens cameras = 40.6%

Nikon sold 7 million interchangeable lens cameras = 34.7%

The remaining interchangeable lens cameras (Olympus, Sony, Panasonic, Pentax), mostly represented by mirrorless cameras = 24.7%

Combined market shares of Canon and Nikon was 74.3% in 2010, 78.5% in 2011 and now 75.3% in 2012. So, once again, mirrorless cameras hardly gained the m43 consortium, Sony and Pentax any increase in market shares.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
pavi1 wrote:
RedFox88 wrote:
pavi1 wrote:

You do remember we are in a world wide economic recession.
The U.S. has been out of recession for 2 or 3 years now.
Tell that to the 20% who still do not have a job and the under employed.
That has nothing to do with whether an economy is is recession or not.Recession is a period of a shrinking economy compared to the previous quarter. We are in a period of slow growth which was predicted (due to the nature of the cause of the economic collapse) when the economy bottomed out.

And the unemployment rate is under 8%, not 20%. You need to calculate the unemployment rate as it always has been in order to have any sort of comparsion to the past. That's how you can have a baseline. Over the years there are always people that are "under employed" but they were not counted before, cannot count them now to make a political point to prove your personal viewpoint.
 
Last edited:
RedFox88 wrote:
And the unemployment rate is under 8%, not 20%. You need to calculate the unemployment rate as it always has been in order to have any sort of comparsion to the past. That's how you can have a baseline. Over the years there are always people that are "under employed" but they were not counted before, cannot count them now to make a political point to prove your personal viewpoint.
I hope you know unemployment rate is one of the most bogus number calculated by our government. Most think 8% means 92% have jobs and that is not even close to reality. The recession for political talk may end when the bottom is reached but that is also far from reality for the 20% who have no Pay check.
 
Economics aside, there's also the factor to take into account that digital cameras have become good enough in recent years there's little incentive for many people to upgrade every time a new model is released.

That applies to me anyway. My current batch of cameras finally does all I need cameras to do and for the first time since going digital, I'm not looking for something better. That's good for me, bad for the camera companies.
 
Gordon W wrote:

digital cameras have become good enough in recent years there's little incentive for many people to upgrade every time a new model is released.
A year ago, in the wake of the Kodak collapse, I noted [emphasis added]:
In My Opinion, there are too many players fighting for too little market in the interchangeable-lens camera arena. The camera manufacturers have to convince people to upgrade; Canon is making as many DSLRs in a month as they used to make film SLRs in a year [Internet data of unknown reliability]. If/when people start hanging onto their DSLR bodies like they did their SLRs, the bottom's going to drop out of camera sales. When the music stops, more than one manufacturer is going to find that they don't have a chair.
I haven't changed my mind. I have noticed, though, that pretty much all of the camera manufacturers also make digicams, and the non-enthusiast digicam is losing ground to the mobile phone. That means that sales will be slumping even more in each company's camera division.

I'm still not bold enough to speculate which manufacturer will be next to throw in the towel, or when it'll happen. Notice that I said who'll be "next", not "first," because Kodak has already gone. Also, depending how you do the counting, there's Minolta and then Konica/Minolta who got out of the business years ago. And Epson at the pricey end. And Sanyo and Agfa and Contax in digicams.
 
In My Opinion, there are too many players fighting for too little market in the interchangeable-lens camera arena. The camera manufacturers have to convince people to upgrade; Canon is making as many DSLRs in a month as they used to make film SLRs in a year [Internet data of unknown reliability]. If/when people start hanging onto their DSLR bodies like they did their SLRs, the bottom's going to drop out of camera sales. When the music stops, more than one manufacturer is going to find that they don't have a chair.
Back in the days of SLRs, there were many more (and some pretty obscure) manufacturers -- without even thinking about it, I remember names like Mamiya, Miranda, Petri, Cosina, Konica, Exacta, etc. etc. besides those that are still in business. They seemed to stay viable for quite a few years in most cases. Camera models didn't change for several years at a time. Many companies also produced compact zoom cameras that also sold quite well.

I conclude that most of these companies were ill prepared to enter the digital age so they went away.

I don't understand what's different about the business today that is causing the turnaround. More money than ever has been spent on (digital) cameras. That's one point I believe has been substantiated (your internet data?). But doesn't that disagree with your comment about too many players for too little market. People who lived happily with one film camera have purchased 3 or 4 digital cameras. Seems like the market has been pretty strong.

So then I'm assuming the margins were thinner due to the intense competition. And then there were an endless number of new models from most manufacturers, indistinguishable from the rest. That was presumably to command more shelf space in the store displays, but the constant re-packaging was bound to have had its costs.

Now, of course, the emergence of cell-phone cameras has made a huge dent in the interest in some segments of the digital camera market. That effect is easy to understand, but the problems appeared before then. Seems to me the manufacturers have made some serious miscalculations along the way.

Your prediction (in bold type) makes a lot of sense to me. I personally have less and less interest in the new cameras and assume I'm going to live with my (5 or 6) cameras for a number of years. If that's the trend, we will probably have 4 or 5 camera manufacturers in the future when we used to have 20 or so in the old (film) days. Why the change?

Sorry for the long post.
 
I don't really know much about the historical economics of camera manufacturers. But I can always take an uneducated guess...
Darrell Spreen wrote:
Back in the days of SLRs, there were many more (and some pretty obscure) manufacturers -- without even thinking about it, I remember names like Mamiya, Miranda, Petri, Cosina, Konica, Exacta, etc. etc. besides those that are still in business. They seemed to stay viable for quite a few years in most cases. Camera models didn't change for several years at a time. Many companies also produced compact zoom cameras that also sold quite well.
My guess is that the various camera manufacturers, big and small, were properly "sized" for the number of units they were shipping. For the smaller ones, it might've been maybe one small factory with a few people on the assembly line, I dunno.

Certainly the annual sales numbers were tiny by today's standards — probably thousands in most cases, compared with millions today. CIPA (the Japanese camera manufacturer consortium) reported that in 2011, their members shipped almost 16 million interchangeable-lens cameras and 26 million lenses. And about 100 million digicams.

Canon's production rate has jumped from 200 thousand per year for the FD film SLRs, to a million per year for the EOS film SLRs, to 10 million per year for DSLRs.

While some of that growth is probably due to the increasing popularity of SLR photography with the advent of autofocus and then of digital, that hardly can account for all of the increase in unit sales. I postulate that the push for existing owners to upgrade every couple of years is a large part of it.

If/when that "upgrade fever" subsides, it's going to get tough.
 
Doug Pardee wrote:
If/when that "upgrade fever" subsides, it's going to get tough.
Thom Hogan (bythom.com) certainly thinks we are nearing that stage... he calls it The Last Camera Syndrome.

I know the Canon 6D and Oly OM-D are the cameras that will last me at least 5 years. :D

But manufacturers can still rely on continual lens sales... if they manage to put out higher quality and innovative (to reduce size/weight) lens products.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top