Also FBI is investigating the Olympus advisory fee story.


Sorry to wake you up with another bad news for Olympus. The story is developing very fast and there is a news that will bring more worries for shareholder. Reuters reports that the “U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation is probing the massive advisory fee paid by Japan’s Olympus Corp in its takeover of a British company“.
And what is Olympus response? “Olympus has today denied reports that the fees controversy engulfing the firm could be linked to the criminal underworld (Source: AP).

Wow! Olympus you have to do more than that. Your shareholders are not believing in you anymore! Even today you lost $6,81 of your value (see screenshot on top. Source: Bloomberg.). If the shares keep falling like that an acquisition by others could become likely…

  • Is any of this affecting sales or production? I don’t know what happens when companies falter, but if Olympus can’t get out of this, will their retail prices dip? I’m more of a Panasonic guy, but what is Olympus’ answer to the GH2 and GFX1? If a price drop is anticipated, I’d like to know the good products I should watch for on-the-cheap.

    • Esa Tuunanen

      Share price really doesn’t have much short term effect to company if manufacturing/R&D and sales are going smoothly.

      For us photographers lot more worrying thing is that money needed by camera division for R&D might have disappeared to black hole of Cayman Islands just at the moment when Olympus should have been building their mirrorless system complete before other manufacturers could compete.

  • Miroslav

    “If the shares keep falling like that an acquisition by others could become likely.”

    Maybe this is done on purpose by the third party interested in the acquisition – spreading false rumors to lower the share price.

    • Din

      Yes… the FBI and Scotland Yard are in the behind that false rumors…
      The Olympus board just screwed up everything when they fired the guy.

      • Miroslav

        Ever heard of M Woodford? Maybe he has more interest in this than vengeance?

    • LLLL

      dont watch so much tv moron….
      makes you even more stupid…

    • calxn

      What a dope.

  • Oliver

    Sorry, but intraday charts are not appropriate to show a representative development of shares.

  • MJr

    Panasonic is doing well, if anyone should buy Olympus it’s them. And rulers of m4/3 they’ll be. Tho i like the brand name Olympus better, and especially Zuiko !

    • Miroslav

      “Panasonic is doing well, if anyone should buy Olympus it’s them.”

      No, they’d probably discontinue PEN line, the only mirrorless cameras with IBIS. It would be a disaster. Besides, Panasonic needs a competitor in the system, to drive them. If they bought Olympus, we’d end up like Sony users, at the mercy of a single manufacturer…

      • mahler

        I disagree. Panasonic would not necessarily drop the PEN line (only make it better) and may use IBIS in their own products. There is nowhere a disaster in sight, when Panasonic takes over. The competition will be kept up, because there are enough non-m4/3 competitors, as it is within the DSLR and compact market.

        With other photographic vendors buying Olympus, it even less likely that the PEN-line will be kept.

        • Miroslav

          Read again. Look at Sony way of handling things: Minolta IBIS is not part of their mirrorless line and when SLTs disappear, it will disappear with them. I presume NEX (as large as SLT) + PDAF adapter combo will take place of SLTs sometime in the future. I guess Olympus IBIS would vanish quicker under Panasonic, because they don’t agree with the concept at all and the mount is the same. And if Panasonic takes over and keeps PENs with IBIS, there will be no product overlaps and therefore IBIS will only be in brick-shaped cameras.

      • @Miroslav,

        Should Panasonic take over Olympus, they would get all the patents that comes along.
        It is already premature to say that Panasonic will take over, let alone that they would make no use of those patents.

  • James

    Whoever takes over Olympus would need to face off to the Yakuza!

  • mountainwalker

    A rumor should always contain what is called “presumption of innocence”. Otherwise it would be a defamation and not a rumor. Mr Woodford’s whistleblowing is not the proper way to behave.

    • bilgy_no1

      He did the proper thing first: take the results to the board and offer them a smooth way out. He was then completely shut off, which would have looked like the board was going to cover up instead of fixing things. He took his responsibility as a CEO.

      The extreme reaction of the Chairman to Woodford’s suggestion that he step down shows that the company is run by someone who wants to hold on to power for too long. And for personal reasons rather than for the sake of the company. That’s what investors see now, and that’s why share value has dropped so dramatically. Share price is based on an estimation of future earnings. It expresses trust in the strategy and leadership of the firm.

      • Oliver


      • @bilgey_no1
        the proper thing wasn’t to take it to the board and ask for the chairman to resign – that would of created the same amount of chaos going on now.
        Considering this happened 3 years ago the best thing would of been for a CEO as well as Olympus (including shareholders and workers) to stay within the company, make sure that all further payments are transparent and accountable for and focus on the company’s future.
        Woodford has been focusing too much on the past and not Olympus’s future, I’ve never ever seen a sacked CEO run to so many journalists and newspapers (he has given even more interviews to some of yesterday’s papers)he sees himself as a Julian Assange but in truth he’s really just a donut!
        What’s he really trying to achieve, the total destruction of Olympus??

        • > I’ve never ever seen a sacked CEO run to so many journalists and newspapers

          Then you must have missed completely the HP v. Fiorina saga. Though that was on totally different level, involved 20 times more money, none of which btw went to a shady off-shore company.

          It is pretty normal for (ousted) CEO to talk a lot. It is pretty normal for board member to talk a lot. One can even say that public statements is one of their principal functions: only they can talk on behalf of the company.

          > What’s he really trying to achieve, […] ??

          Return to accountability and transparency? Well, at least to whatever the current average level of accountability and transparency of public companies is.

        • You seem to think that since the transactions in question took place two or three years ago, that they aren’t reflected in the current financial statements. That’s the problem, they are. The three Japanese acquisitions that were mostly written off when they were made continue to drain millions of yen from the company a year. The AXAM transaction still appears on the statement as Goodwill, as far as I can tell. As part of “make sure that all further payments are transparent and accountable” Woodford would need to do that with the overhanging numbers from those older transactions, too. In other words, you can’t just bury them and pretend they didn’t happen.

        • tofino

          At this point, there is nothing more that Woodford can say or do that will have an influence on how this plays out. Regardless of who you think is wrong, Oly’s stock will continue to slide unless the Board resigns or immediately makes all of the documents related to the alleged malfeasance available.

      • Wei

        I think whole board of Olympus should be suspended until the investigation is over. Woodford should be re-instated to be an interim CEO during this period together with monitoring body formed from outside.

        I think Woodford’s mind is very clear of how to run a company and how to rescue Olympus and I do think it would be a big loss for Olympus to lose a talent like him!

    • Napiersabre

      Can you explain why his actions were wrong? To my eyes Woodford was put in an impossible position and not given a proper explanation as to what looks like fraud. Being appointed CEO has certain responsibilities that you cannot just walk away from.

      • mountainwalker

        Every physician has promised “primum nihil nocere” which means: at first, don’t do damage. I think a good CEO should behave like a physician. Especially a fired CEO should not start a war of roses because discretion does not end with the last day working in the company. It is a matter of social competence to see a responsibility for coworkers at all levels, even when being kicked out of the company. In philosophy, this is known as ahimsa-principle (non-violence).

        • tofino

          While the principle of first do no harm sounds lofty and proper, in practice it is ambiguous and unrealistic. For example, amputating a cancerous limb to save a life involves immediate harm in the interests of long term benefit. Analogously, it can be argued that Woodford exposed corporate malfeasance because he thought it was in the best long term interests of Oly’s stakeholders.

        • An interesting premise (do no damage). However, your premise also assumes that a business is equal to a human, that it deserves to be treated with equal care, and that there is a common and accepted oath that contains that which is made when you become a CEO.

          As I’ve repeatedly pointed out, Woodford is a board member. When he was fired by the board for actions that actually were in pursuit of shareholder interest, his one “oath” would be of fiduciary interest to the stockholders.

          As I said, yours is an interesting premise. We actually debated that very thing in the business ethics class in my MBA program. It cuts to the core of what the purpose of a business is and who it’s beholden to. For that latter bit (who it’s beholden to), you can choose general public, customer, employee, or shareholders. You’re choosing employee over all else.

          Without Woodford’s parting shots, the employees of Olympus would still be totally locked into a management team that is clearly pissing away money and putting the company itself in jeopardy. Ask Enron employees what eventually happens when a company makes questionable or worse decisions at the very top levels. I’d say that “doing no harm” now is just postponing the inevitable. Olympus has a large debt, and the amounts we know about that were wasted equal ~14% of that debt. This isn’t just a trivial management issue.

          One could argue that someone in the R&D ranks at Olympus Imaging might not have had any realization about what was going on at the top levels of the company and how that was slowly jeopardizing their job. Now they do. They can now actively do something about that by pursuing work at a different camera company. This is the opposite of “do no harm,” this is “warn before it’s too late.”

          • mountainwalker

            Thom, my point of view is naive and this is not necessarily bad. I must admit that I have no idea about all that MBA-stuff. However, I feel somewhat confused that a CEO should represent the goals of shareholders, I didn’t know that. Maybe I am oldfashioned but I believe a CEO should think of his employees and then he should also think of his customers. In this forum, I guess, most of us are customers of Olympus and not shareholders. And I really want to express my thankfulness to the R&D department at Olympus camera division because I really like my two FourThirds cameras and my great Zuiko lenses. I can only hope that these excellent engineers at Olympus will get the management they deserve.

            • Woodford isn’t just a CEO, he’s also on the board of directors (as CEOs often are). Once dismissed as CEO, his only remaining obligation was as a board member (he can’t be removed except by shareholder vote, so is still currently on the board).

              Now it very well may be that he took advantage of his remaining responsibility to launch his own personal agenda (revenge, perhaps) against others, but he is being consistent with his obligations under law.

              In two companies I ran in my Silicon Valley days, we actually had a written, stated policy about “obligation.” Everyone in the company was required to sign it. Basically: Customers first, employees second, shareholders third. But that was a policy that everyone, including shareholders knew about from day one and were measured against. To put it another way, I do think that there are alternatives to the way that things are typically run. But in lieu of them being explicitly stated, I would think that legal obligation comes first.

              Further, you could just as easily blame Kikukawa and others who have been implicated in these dealings for their not putting employees first. The first blow was obviously fired by them, when they blew US$1.5 billion dollars the company could have used. It does have a 500% debt-to-equity ratio, after all, which is amongst the highest of all Japanese companies.

        • Zaph

          “Every physician has promised “primum nihil nocere” which means: at first, don’t do damage”

          This doesn’t apply when the body, or company, is riddled with cancer.

          • mountainwalker

            OK, but cancer is not cured by gunfire.

            • Not to be morbid about it, but technically, yes cancer is cured by gunfire, as when the patient dies, so does the cancer.

              The issue you’re trying to raise is whether the body of employees can be protected from whatever cancer arose at the head of the organization. As with some cancers, if it’s not too late, complete removal is an option (e.g., remove the board and top executives). But also as with cancers, you don’t know when you do that whether or not there are hidden messengers that will eventually metastasize elsewhere. Moreover, in this case we’d need a transplant head.

            • Raist3d

              How come you don’t blame the board of directors for wasting huge amount of company cash and just look at Woodford? How can you be in such basic denial?

              • More to the point, we’re talking about the largest known “financial advice” payment ever made, and not be a trivial margin.

                We’re talking about buying companies and writing them off in the same quarter.

                We’re talking about firing an auditor that raised questions (and that was before the actual price became known).

                We’re talking about a company with a 5x debt to equity ratio that wastes an amount of money equivalent to 14% of that debt (i.e., they should be a company with a 4.5x debt to equity ratio).

                We’re talking about a company that approved deals without board votes.

                We’re talking about a company that first denied, then suggested the amount was less, then agreed with the amounts being discussed.

                We’re talking about a company that owns more than two-thirds of a major market (endoscopes) that is has sliding sales and profits (and in some cases, losses).

                Not a single one of those things was done by Woodford. We can question Woodford’s motivation for raising these issues–though even that doesn’t fly well, as when all of the above happen a truly dedicated CEO/board member is going to try to fix the problems–but I think you’re shooting the messenger.

          • Esa Tuunanen

            While cancer is more describing for this kind behavior of corporate management there’s really “better” symbol for diseases forcing doctors to do big decisions:
            Necrotizing fasciitis aka flesh-eating bacteria, though that calling name is little misleading. It doesn’t directly eat muscles but only all that soft tissue under the skin and on top of bones/muscles and after getting to full speed can kill human in hours if left unstopped.
            So unless patient is gotten to treatment fast after first symptoms chopping of limbs isn’t far away… in lucky cases when it isn’t eating head or torso.

        • > Every physician has promised “primum nihil nocere” which means: at first, don’t do damage. I think a good CEO should behave like a physician.

          Fine parallel. But.

          In the case it goes like that. MR.W scanned the patient and found that previous physician not only had removed one of his kidneys, but also operated with dirty instruments, infecting patient with germs.

          So, now you say, MR.W should just shut up, because him speaking up causes a lot of mental trauma to the patient already in pains?

          > In philosophy, this is known as ahimsa-principle (non-violence).

          So where was the ahisma when MR.W was rudely kicked out from his CEO position?

        • James

          Doing no harm has it’s limits. What harm would be done if he were just quiet? Plenty. Just ask people who lost their job and/or life savings in Enron, or the others like it. There are times when a doctor does some harm to prevent greater harm. Think amputation/chemo therapy/etc. As CEO, he should think of all the stakeholders (employees, partners, stock holders, customers,etc.) with the idea of keeping the company in business. The Board should also be thinling of this.

        • Raist3d

          What a ridiculous thing to say. Olympus is not a patient. If a business is doing things wrong it has to be cleaned up. Covering up won’t help things- look at all the money wasted already.

          Everyone jumping on Woodford for exposing these shady deals seems to me is looking at this through extreme fanboy glasses.

        • physguy88

          A company is not a patient and the CEO is not a doctor.

          The CEO is under fiduciary obligation to alert shareholders to mismanagement and legal obligation to report criminal activity, period. Once he was forced out and had evidence of criminal activity, he was obligated to go to the authorities immediately. If not, he could be accessory to a crime.

        • Wei

          Woodford has been an Oly employee for 30 years whether he is a CEO or not he has the right to demand for an explanation of the wrong doing that is causing employee’s bonuses to drift away.

  • All this right after Olympus released two of THE BEST lenses ever made for MFT cameras. It reflects the selfish greed of the few at the top of big corporations and Wall-Street firms and how little they regard the people who work in the company, their lives and their achievements. It is a global problem…and getting worse by the minute.

  • lnqe-M

    If a company will buy Olympus, is the camera producer so not have system camera production, so for example JVC.

    • Ross

      Interesting thought seeing they at least do a video camera.

    • Jón

      If I were an engineer working for Olympus, I would be pretty pissed off by now..

  • Alexander

    What about this:
    Maybe Olympus had to buy technologie from an other company!?

    • You mean, “what if Olympus hid a technology acquisition in what they labeled as a financial consulting fee”? In some ways, that would be worse. That would be outright fraudulent misrepresentation to the shareholders.

  • > And what is Olympus response? “Olympus has today denied reports that the fees controversy engulfing the firm could be linked to the criminal underworld”

    Any company would deny any link to organized crime.

    And since Oly is being investigated, I doubt we would hear much interesting from them: while being investigated, they will not risk any public statements nor they are allowed to talk about ongoing investigations.

    What Oly needs now is a solid product announcement. But since they just got 3rd generation of their PENs with two new lenses out of the door, I doubt they have anything new to announce.

    • Sure they’ll deny it. To do the opposite would require an immediate resignation from all the board members except Woodford, and much of the high management, as well.

      Problem is, they haven’t said what justified the huge payment in the first place. It really boils down to two possibilities, incompetence or illegality. So far they’re only denying that it is “super illegal” (ties to criminal world). So they haven’t exactly reduced the possibilities to just incompetence yet ;~).

      The fact that we’re so far into this and there hasn’t been a reasonable explanation proposed from the company is disturbing. It likely means there is no reasonable explanation. The fact that they originally denied, and then partially denied, and now agree to the amounts involved is another telling clue. If there WERE an explanation, the simple press release would have said “Yes, we paid $700m and here’s what that money provided us.”

      The damning part of this thing is that, without an explanation, there’s simply no credibility in the current management and board. None. When you start looking back at other actions, like the dismissal of the auditor who first raised the question, and the acquisition of those three Japanese companies, you begin to wonder just how much problematic news is hidden in the financials.

      Olympus is going to have to restate their financials, I believe. And even then people will wonder if they’re right.

      • @Thom Hogan
        you got any theories as to why they paid it????

        • Theories are easy, what’s demanded is the truth.

          But some that I’ve heard so far:
          * Masking payments to others (including criminal elements)
          * Not performing due diligence
          * Moving money (probably illegally) via another entity
          * Undisclosed direct interest (i.e. self-payment through a third party)
          * and many more

          But they all fall under one of two categories: incompetence or illegality. Neither is what you want to hear a board guilty of.

      • Ganec

        > If there WERE an explanation, the simple press release would have said “Yes, we paid $700m and here’s what that money provided us.”

        There it is:

        all responses:

        • More rehash of what’s already known and stated. It does not address a number of issues that were brought up first by Facta, then by others. But let’s look at two specific things:

          1. Olympus received “suggested M&A targets, formation of a team to further the M&A, design of the optimum transaction structure (;~), required evaluation of the transaction.

          From other material, it appears that the Gyrus acquisition was actually being pursued PRIOR to the AXAM agreement, so we can write off the first bit, especially since no other M&A target ever appeared. The contract with AXAM actually was modified at a later date to include Gyrus, but that transaction was already in progress.

          The other three things generally result in a 1% fee. That it turned into a 30-36% fee (depends upon who you ask and how certain things are valued) seems to be due to “design of the optimum transaction structure.” That’s why I put the smiley face there. In other words, AXAM designed a structure that benefited them, assuming, of course, that they actually designed the structure, which we do not know. But even without the stock part, we have some issues with the AXAM transaction. Beyond the stock, there was a 5% fee, which is still out of line with most transactions this size (and again, dependent upon performing services). One question that keeps coming up but has not been answered is: where are the documents that AXAM created in execution of their side of the agreement? All Olympus keeps saying is “they provided services.” They have provided no evidence of said services.

          2. “An appraisal was obtained from an external accounting firm as a third party.” The firm has not been identified, nor has the appraisal actually made the light of day yet. This is yet another example of Olympus trying the “evidence in absentia” tactic. “There’s evidence” says Olympus, “but we won’t show it to you.” That has all the classic earmarks of cover-up.

          Olympus says this was an attempt to expand the business by new business creation, specifically to get into the health care field. Even if we take that at face value, we have a highly indebted company making acquisitions that didn’t pan out. They use the excuse that the 2008 recession caused all the problems, but they actually present no evidence that this is the case. Other health care companies in Japan did not see the same problem. Even if there’s nothing specifically illegal with these acquisitions, they represent extremely poor judgment on the part of management and the board, and those acquisitions continue to be a monetary drain on the company to this day. As I’ve been writing all along, we have either incompetence or illegality (or both). I don’t think a good defense for the question of illegality is to say “we were just incompetent.”

          Olympus’ documents issued to date are a classic stalling tactic. They actually don’t tell us anything that wasn’t already said, nor do they actually respond to the actual questions being asked by shareholders, which is one reason why the stock continues to tank. Olympus management is in the bunker hoping that the fight will stop and they can come out. I doubt that will be the resolution. At least one analyst said this morning that he thinks Olympus stock will drop to 700 yen, or just above book value. At that price, Olympus WILL be acquired by someone.

          • From the Financial Times today:

            “Indeed, Mr Kikukawa’s position now appears untenable. Supposing you accept his own account, he promoted a protégé totally unsuited to lead the company. Even if all payments were entirely legitimate, he authorised deals that were clearly poor investments. When the payments were revealed, he obfuscated rather than explained. Mr Kikukawa should resign.”

  • fta


    “Even today you lost $6,81 of your value” It’s 6.813% not $6.81! $6.81 would have been another drop of 36%!! Ouch…

  • Daemonius

    Lol how deep they can fall? :D

    Under normal circumstances I would thought about conspiration against Olympus. But they are really no threat to mirrorless world or dSLR, so no sense to target them (unless someone wants to buy them cheap.. ).

    This seems quite real, simply lots of dirt in highest posts. That explains why Olympus wasnt able to produce anything really good for long time (and I guess it explains E-5 pretty well, they simply didnt have enough money for better RD).

  • Really?!?

    I am shocked that some can be so “fanboy” as to give Olympus a pass as such grotesque corruption. Such attitudes line the pockets of thieves and create an environment in which ethical business practices cannot compete – all due to cult-like brand loyalty. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

    A comment on the WSJ site mirrors my thoughts: “Olympus said Mr. Woodford was fired because of differences in management styles.” The major differences being that: Mr. Woodward wanted to manage the firm in a transparent manner and in accordance with sound financial and accounting standards and the current Chairman and board prefer an opaque, crapitalistic (crony+capitlistic) manner, featherbedding for friends and, in all likelihood, themselves. This has CORRUPTION written all over it.”

  • anon

    how low before we buy

    • > how low before we buy

      You should be buying Olympus stock now ;~). Unless there’s some additional billion dollar issues lurking that no one is aware of, Olympus stock is already selling below what the medical division alone is probably worth.

      But there are just a few small things you’d have to consider in evaluating the risk:

      1. The current management and board probably cannot stand for Olympus to be properly valued.
      2. Are there additional issues that haven’t been disclosed?
      3. Are Olympus financials even accurate?
      4. Would a takeover attempt spark a bidding war or would it be a backroom deal just to kick out the current management and board?
      5. Are there legal risks now in the UK, US, and Japan? The company could be liable for penalties and vulnerable to shareholder suits.
      6. How much does this all stall future Olympus products?

      • Bryan Brunton

        Wrong again Tom.

        You never buy a stock as it is going down.

        You wait for it to start going back up, and ensure that the management of the company is replaced or rights the wrong.

        • I’ve heard it both ways. Thing is, you want to buy low and sell high, not vice versa. If you wait until all the knowns are known and are trying to buy on the upswing, you can miss just as much as if you buy on the downswing and don’t gauge it close enough to the bottom. The “value-ists” like Buffett generally don’t care which side they buy on, they buy when the price is absolutely under the value. I believe it is at that point right now.

          Can you squeeze out a few more dollars by buying at another time? Maybe. Here’s the thing I would fear though: that someone DOES make a bid on Olympus and it’s significantly higher than the current price. The price will snap close to the bid before you’d have a chance to react as an individual investor, and you’ll have lost your chance to make money on it. If you want to maximize your gain, you’re going to take a risk that may keep you from making any gain. Personally, I like betting on sure things, and that was my point: at its current price, the stock is under its known value. The primary risks if you were to purchase today are #2 and #3.

          But I’m not a stock expert (and neither are you). If you’re taking advice from me (or from you), you deserve the results you get ;~).

      • physguy88


        IN the case of an ordinary company it might be wise to buy the stock.

        In this case Olympus has net debt of $5.7 billion (their market cap is about ~$3 billion). If Olympus is forced to cease operations and liquidate the debt holders would be in line in front stock holders for the money. This might happen if continued crisis leads to loss of confidence from parts suppliers, banks, sellers and other parties that Olympus has to do business with. In that case, one then has too look at how much fixed assets Olympus has. If the value of fixed assets are and IP are insufficient to cover the outstanding debt, then your stocks could be worth zero.

        I do not think that there is hope for a quick sale to a competitor. At this time, with the murky and possibly criminal elements present, due diligence on any sale would be nearly impossible, and it would be difficult if not impossible to proceed with any such transactions before these issues are cleared. Thus, Olympus could soon find itself in a dire situation and stock holders could find themselves holding worthless paper.

        Things would be different if Olympus did not have so much debt. As things are, it does not look good.

        • Very true. If Olympus were to shut down entirely or be forced to bankruptcy, you would lose any investment you made in them today.

          Neither seems likely, though. It’s not the Japanese way. Acquisition seems more probable. The questions are by whom and at what price?

          • physguy88

            With the current situation unresolved, I don’t even think acquisitions could proceed. Best thing would be a fast investigation by the government and removal of the board followed by sale to a new owner or installation of the new board.

            In case of a sale the buyer would probably split Olympus’ highly profitable medical imaging division and its camera division.

            • I think this is being resolved the Japanese way: in back rooms where we can’t see it. But who knows, after today’s FT article, one could say that Kiku

  • Thom, how long has Olympus been around?

    • wife

      Much longer than how long it will be around.

  • Mag

    Once the shares fall completely flat and the company becomes available for takeover, BAM! in steps Panny and we’ll have the almighty m4/3 company we’ve been wanting on our hands

    Perfect. It couldn’t work out any better. We don’t need Olympus – let Panny take it all.

  • Disraeli

    The stocks on its way back up gaining more than 7% today

  • Christoph


    Olympus might very well be in trouble, but a stock price fall of 90¥ or less then a dollar is probably not-so-big news. %, not $ ;) Please either stick to photo new reporting (which you are good at) or get the basics right at least (e.g. your chart shows what you say it shows) ;)

    • admin

      The news is that every day they loose that value. Every single dau since that Woodford-Olympus battle. And that is the prolem for Oly!

      • Today’s news out of Reuters Japan was that at least one investor thinks Olympus stock will continue to drop until it approaches book value, which means it has a long way to still go down.

        If that truly is the thinking in Japan, that means there should be a lot of people getting out of long positions while others are shorting the stock. I know the former to be true, but I don’t have the numbers on the latter.

        • physguy88

          What’s Olympus’ book value? Is it known?

          • It was in the local paper this morning, but I’ve forgotten what number they gave. IIRC it’s about half the current stock price.

      • Christoph

        If that’s the news you should write it in your article – you just said they lost $6,81 (which is wrong, both in text and in screenshot). You also did NOT write anything about day-over-day continuing losses.

        Sure, you could have written that and attached a screenshot from day x to today – that would have been a correct and interesting article – but you didn’t :) You didn’t even bother to correct the mistake in the post :(

        I agree that this means real takeover danger for Olympus though.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

What are Cookies?
A cookie is a small file of letters and numbers that is stored in a temporary location on your computer to allow our website to distinguish you from other users of the website. If you don't want to accept cookies, you'll still be able to browse the site and use it for research purposes. Most web browsers have cookies enabled, but at the bottom of this page you can see how to disable cookies. Please note that cookies can't harm your computer. We don't store personally identifiable information in the cookies, but we do use encrypted information gathered from them to help provide you with a good experience when you browse our website and also allow us to improve our site. You can watch a simple video from Google to find more information about cookies.

Cookies used by our Website
The 43rumors website,, uses the following cookies for the collection of website usage statistics and to ensure that we can . These are anonymous and temporary. By using our website, you agree that we may place these types of cookies on your device.
Read how Google uses data when you use our partners' sites or apps:
Google Analytics Cookie Usage on Websites: Addthis cookies:
Disqus cookies:
Vimeo cookies:
Youtube cookies:

Disabling/Enabling Cookies
You have the ability to accept or decline cookies by modifying the settings in your browser. Please note however that by deleting our cookies or disabling future cookies you may not be able to access certain areas or features of our site. For information about how to disable cookies in your browser please visit the About Cookies website.