Ilford Purchased by Pemberstone Ventures Ltd

[RattyMouse]

Harmon has consistently been one of the best analog manufacturers for numerous reasons. Unlike some larger companies--the whole is worth far more than the sum of its parts. They've worked hard to balance serving the analog community against creating a sustainable business. Unless someone has information showing this VC firm looting and pillaging other companies, maybe we should give Harmon the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they see a potential for expanding the existing business--which could be a good way of making money and serving the analog community.

To expand their business, Leica sold a minority stake of their company to a venture capital firm. This gave them money to expand their business while still retaining control of the company. I would think that Harmon would have gone this route if their prime interest were to expand. Selling out completely to a VC firm gives them no say at all with business going forward. None.

 

[mgb74]

First of all, we're using "venture capital" incorrectly. Pemberton is a private equity firm. See this definition.

It's an important distinction because the 2 types operate differently. It's my guess that their objective at Harman will be to reduce costs and possibly expand markets via licencing.

 

[Barry S]

To expand their business, Leica sold a minority stake of their company to a venture capital firm. This gave them money to expand their business while still retaining control of the company. I would think that Harmon would have gone this route if their prime interest were to expand. Selling out completely to a VC firm gives them no say at all with business going forward. None.

Maybe Pemberstone is a vampire squid--I don't know. It would be unthinkable to see Harman collapse--devastating for all of us. We don't know the rationale behind the sale, but it isn't a foregone conclusion things will be worse. Regardless of who owns Harman--they have to be profitable.

 

[RattyMouse]

It's my guess that their objective at Harman will be to reduce costs and possibly expand markets via licencing.

Harman is exiting the film business. They are reducing their own costs and will have zero say with the new owners regarding future movements.

 

[Colin Corneau]

I am just happy that years back somewhere here on APUG Harman assured us they will be the last ones standing in BW.

This is the approach I have to take. I count on them for paper, film and materials...living in an out of the way place as I do, Ilford products are the ones easiest and usually cheapest to obtain. That they give top quality - for myself and many many fine art photographers - is key.

I can only do what I can do - buy Ilford products. To whomever owns and controls Ilford this morning: don't mess it up.

 

[xo-whiplock]

First of all, we're using "venture capital" incorrectly. Pemberton is a private equity firm. See this definition.

It's an important distinction because the 2 types operate differently. It's my guess that their objective at Harman will be to reduce costs and possibly expand markets via licencing.

Agree totally. Those using the term "VC" have not responded in context of the topic. I say beans, and they hear greens... then respond. "I don't like greens..." they say, and here's why...

I did read the link you provided so I was sure to understand the difference... "Private equity firms mostly buy mature companies that are already established. The companies may be deteriorating or not making the profits they should be due to inefficiency. Private equity firms buy these companies and streamline operations to increase revenues." Read more: What is the difference between private equity and venture capital? http://www.investopedia.com/ask/ans...-equity-and-venture-capital.asp#ixzz3lkhkhjYL

The clear intent is to increase revenues. They have announced this will be done by reaching out to a new generation that "get it" as the "old generation" has forgotten what it's like to have optimism in their hearts and minds. The change of owners allows new thinking and marketing to match the new generation of users.

 

[Sirius Glass]

First of all, we're using "venture capital" incorrectly. Pemberton is a private equity firm. See this definition.

It's an important distinction because the 2 types operate differently. It's my guess that their objective at Harman will be to reduce costs and possibly expand markets via licencing.

The result is the same. The target company is torn limb from limb and the pieces are sold off. That which cannot be sold off is left to rot.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

Just fucking great.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

The clear intent is to increase revenues. They have announced this will be done by reaching out to a new generation that "get it" as the "old generation" has forgotten what it's like to have optimism in their hearts and minds.

That's because the "older generation" has been down this road so many times before that they've lost count and can tell what's most likely coming while in their sleep. Would you like to know how many venture/equity controlled companies I've worked at? And how many are still in business? Do you know how revenues are increased? Want to hear the gory details?

How about the boss who was told he was safe, then instructed to fire all of his highly valued subordinates? Then two days later after having done the dirty work of the grim reaper he was called into the office of his boss. The one who had told him he was safe. It's not pretty. It never is.

I'll say it again, for this to turn out well there is going to have to be an absolutely huge exception to the regular dance performance. Because everyone knows the dance.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)...

Ken

 

[RattyMouse]

I'll say it again, for this to turn out well there is going to have to be an absolutely huge exception to the regular dance performance. Because everyone knows the dance.


Ken

Really. What firms has this private equity group bought, improved, and then sold? What's their track record? A single example please. Anything.

 

[pbromaghin]

One of the best ways to boost profitability would be to build the new factory. I would venture to guess that new owners have more financial, legal, and political muscle to help the property owners make that happen.

 

[RattyMouse]

One of the best ways to boost profitability would be to build the new factory. I would venture to guess that new owners have more financial, legal, and political muscle to help the property owners make that happen.

This doesnt explain why Harman sold out. See the Leica example given above. Why sell the entire company?

 

[Gadfly_71]

This doesnt explain why Harman sold out. See the Leica example given above. Why sell the entire company?

Well, to be honest we really don't know the details of the deal. At this point, all of this thread has been nothing but pearl clutching and hand wringing without any solid evidence that this deal is good or bad.

Harman is exiting the film business. They are reducing their own costs and will have zero say with the new owners regarding future movements.

This sort of wild speculation is ridiculous. So far there's been no indication that this is to be the case. Private equity firms prefer to make money, not kill the golden goose.

 

[RattyMouse]

Well, to be honest we really don't know the details of the deal. At this point, all of this thread has been nothing but pearl clutching and hand wringing without any solid evidence that this deal is good or bad.



This sort of wild speculation is ridiculous. So far there's been no indication that this is to be the case. Private equity firms prefer to make money, not kill the golden goose.

You suggest that Harman will still be in the film business after selling Harman?

 

[Gadfly_71]

You suggest that Harman will still be in the film business after selling Harman?

I'm not saying either is the case. We don't know what the plan for the business is, what sort of stake the PE firm purchased or what the conditions of the deal are. I'd suggest that maybe we should tone the "sky is falling" rhetoric down a notch until we have more information.

 

[pbromaghin]

This doesnt explain why Harman sold out. See the Leica example given above. Why sell the entire company?

There are plenty of reasons to sell out. It's a very good bet that Simon and his fellow manager/owners want to cash in on the huge risk they took and on their decade of exhausting hard work. They may have gone all these years without much reward. Also, they may have recognized that to win in the future would require in infusion of capital that they do not have and cannot get. For example, the hoped-for move into smaller and more economical quarters will require a full shutdown of all product manufacturing for an undetermined time, and there will be expense for tear-down, moving, and re-installation of all that equipment Nosing around the internet, Pemberstone appears to be more of a diversified holding company that buys small to medium businesses and runs them for ongoing profit. Yes, they will alter operations for efficiencies and product lines for increased margin. But they do not appear to be the sinister slash-and-burn, blood-sucking leeches that we fear.

 

[Ai Print]

You suggest that Harman will still be in the film business after selling Harman?

The company is actually "Ilford / Harman" as it stands right now and their business is selling film and related products and or services, so the answer at least for the foreseeable future is yes. They have had excellent momentum in the development of the niche that is black & white film and related materials, a number of people have counted on them to be the very foundation for this, my self included.

There are also a fair number of educational programs that have relied on them to be as thoughtful, vocal and visible as they have in an otherwise digital world.

Until we all hear official statements to the contrary, it serves no purpose whatsoever to over-speculate this forum into a frenzy of panic. I am possibly flying to the UK in November to be with family, I might very well add a couple of days on to meet in person with who would be the interested parties in having me help them with the next steps in terms of outreach and sweat equity on my part.

 

[pbromaghin]

You suggest that Harman will still be in the film business after selling Harman?

I would answer that with a "Hell yes." What other reason would there be to purchase a company whose only real assets are the products they sell? Would you buy an obsolete factory producing an obsolete and fading product? The most recent photo material factory exchange, Ferrania, was made for the scrap value of the production line.

 

[Lachlan Young]

There's a lot of fatuous nonsense in this thread...

Ilford have probably been looking for the right sort of investor for a while - they want to make a sustainable company for the 21st century & the investors may have seen how well companies like Marstons & Sierra Nevada have done in a notionally niche industry (brewing). Given a choice of investing in a brutally competitive digital imaging market or a resurgent analogue one with a steady market base it's not hard to see why they did so.

In other news, ADOX have just bought the Swiss Ilford's 52cm coater.

 

[MattKing]

You suggest that Harman will still be in the film business after selling Harman?

The news release says that Pemberstone purchased Harman Technology Limited. It does not say that Pemberstone purchased the assets of Harman Technology Limited.

As I understand it, Harman Technology Limited is a UK registered limited liability corporation owned by its shareholders. This means that a purchase of the company would have had to be accomplished by purchasing those shares. A share purchase leaves the corporation intact. The new shareholders have the ability to change the board of directors, who manage the corporation, but the corporation itself remains as a legal entity, with all of the assets and liabilities it had before the sale of shares.

Pemberstone might have a whole raft of plans for Harman. Who knows, they may be buying it because its numbers are good and they see loads of potential for ongoing growth and profits. Sort of like the approach that many pension plans take.

Maybe they intend to flip it to Kodak Alaris for a profit.

 

[Pioneer]

All I really care about is that I can still get Ilford products on a regular basis for a fair price. When I step back and take stock I am quite reliant on a lot of their products in sizes from 135 through 11x14. I also use a lot of their paper.

I would hope that these products continue to be available and would believe that a lot of us would be stopped in our tracks if it goes away.

Finally, the annual film production run of specialized sizes is unique in the film industry and I for one would seriously miss it if it were to go away.

After that, with my apologies to Simon, I really don't care who owns the company as long as it continues.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Maybe they intend to flip it to Kodak Alaris for a profit.

:devil:

 

[pentaxuser]

Finally, the annual film production run of specialized sizes is unique in the film industry and I for one would seriously miss it if it were to go away.

My understanding and I may be wrong is that the annual run to which you refer is a service that Harman provides as a result of APUG demand and Harman wants to cater for such demand but does so knowing that it is a service which makes little or no profit

The key question is: Will the new owners adopt the same approach if as some have said they have bought the company to improve profitability by improved efficiency.

Such decisions are no longer Harman's if I have understood the terms of the purchase

pentaxuser

 

[mgb74]

Harman is exiting the film business. They are reducing their own costs and will have zero say with the new owners regarding future movements.

Leaving them with what? Their ink jet paper business is not enough to sustain them.

 

[MattKing]

Matt, do you really think Alaris has the means to take that on?

Considering that, in addition to giving up its claim for the pension shortfall, the (UK) Kodak Limited pension plan had to pay $600,000,000.00 dollars to the bankruptcy trustee for Eastman Kodak in order to complete the transfer of assets that resulted in Kodak Alaris having the business they do, I think that Alaris has sufficient means to do quite a bit.

In the UK, private corporations must make their financial statements public. The most recent statements from Harman (December 31, 2013) show net assets of approximately 7 million pounds.

Kodak Alaris appears to have a much more complex structure, including a holding company called Kodak Alaris Holdings Limited. The most recent statements from that entity (December 31, 2014) show net assets of approximately 35 million pounds.