They covered their lost since 20 years ago, it was their dark age when AF
was started blooming and Olympus was lack behind. I would say their pre-1991
really successful product could be OM4.
The $700 million dollars may not be really paid, it was just a number they
treated as investment to cover the running lost.
To their employees, if the management did not make the company looked
profitable in the pass the company might be long gone.
C.H.Ling - just putting all guess together
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Norton" <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Hmm. Something still doesn't smell right about that explanation. That's
> only an admittance of misstatement of earnings. Punishable by fines and
> delisting, not criminal behavior. It also doesn't explain how almost $700
> million dollars disappears into a Cayman Island's account.
>
> So far, Woodford is 2 for 2. Both of his target individuals are now gone.
>
> Sadly, it is the entire family of hard working employees that are hurt
> most
> out of all this. Yet, is that my problem? Philosophical question.
>
> Except for my E-1, it looks like my entire Olympus kit is pre-scandal.
> Will
> collectors in the future value equipment differently based on era? Like
> with Leica is in regards to who owned it when and what country something
> was made? Who knows. Maybe the E-1 is what caused it all in the beginning
> for Olympus.
>
> AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|