I agree with you that Hasselblad did not have the capital to ramp up production to handle the flood of orders for the X1D that completely blew by their expectations, and the PE firm that is the majority owner was unwilling to double down and provide additional capital. The PE firm is a financial player and is at the end of its investment cycle with Hasselblad. DJI, on the other hand, is a strategic acquiror with a long term vision that is interested in things that a financial player could care less about. The amount of cash needed to take out the PE owner AND provide capital to Hasselblad for the X1D and future products is a drop in the bucket for DJI. It has a market cap in the billions. The guy running DJI is VERY smart and highly regarded. So, I completely disagree with your assessment about the outcome here. There is no way DJI would up its stake in Hasselblad, having detailed knowledge of its capital needs, and then let it wither on the vine.
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Hasselblad to be acquired by DJI
- Thread starter richardman
- Start date
I agree with you that Hasselblad did not have the capital to ramp up production to handle the flood of orders for the X1D that completely blew by their expectations, and the PE firm that is the majority owner was unwilling to double down and provide additional capital. The PE firm is a financial player and is at the end of its investment cycle with Hasselblad. DJI, on the other hand, is a strategic acquiror with a long term vision that is interested in things that a financial player could care less about. The amount of cash needed to take out the PE owner AND provide capital to Hasselblad for the X1D and future products is a drop in the bucket for DJI. It has a market cap in the billions. The guy running DJI is VERY smart and highly regarded. So, I completely disagree with your assessment about the outcome here. There is no way DJI would up its stake in Hasselblad, having detailed knowledge of its capital needs, and then let it wither on the vine.
glenerrolrd
Workshop Member
glenerrolrd
Workshop Member
Didn t say they would let HB fail ! They had a minority share of the company and obvious see some synergy with their market focus . Doubtful that they made the investment based on purely a financial return from HB . They want HB to succeed and are surely working to that end .
BUT..its a big leap of faith ....to assume that they will infuse sufficient capital to achieve the turnaround of the company ..we hoped for . Thus ...Kevin Raber s article ....
In any event it shouldn t be too long before we will see evidence of actual performance . X1D s shipping in volume ,products meeting expectations etc .
There is an easy explanation for why Hasselblad management wanted to ramp up production to meet the intense demand...Fuji. Hasselblad likely believed there was a window where it would have the "mirrorless medium format digital" market to itself, and they wanted to take advantage of that and sell the maximum number of X1Ds before any competitors entered the market. Even at the lower price point of the X1D and GFX, these cameras are expensive enough that people who buy into an X1D are unlikely to turn on a dime, sell it and buy a Fuji (or a Phase) if Fuji (or Phase) comes out later with a competitive product. That creates a large user base with expensive lenses that are likely to stay with that platform. As things are turning out, it is not clear whether that window of opportunity is gone because of the delays.
DJI have not acquired Hasselblad.
What they have done is increased their shareholding and will sit on the board alongside Ventizz Capital (existing owners).
DJI have a great deal of technical know how and this is a good thing for Hasselblad.
Speculation about Hasselblad running out of money or communist made cameras is simply that and completely inaccurate.
Hasselblad do not tend to make a habit of replying officially to factually incorrect articles.
What they have done is increased their shareholding and will sit on the board alongside Ventizz Capital (existing owners).
DJI have a great deal of technical know how and this is a good thing for Hasselblad.
Speculation about Hasselblad running out of money or communist made cameras is simply that and completely inaccurate.
Hasselblad do not tend to make a habit of replying officially to factually incorrect articles.
Well, I agree with you that the future will tell the story. We will watch how it plays out. You appear somewhat more skeptical than I about DJI's level of commitment to Hasselblad. However, there is little doubt in my mind that Hasselblad is way better off today with DJI as the owner than it was before the change in ownership, so this is definitely good news. Kevin Raber's comments at LuLa had a Chicken Little, the sky is falling, tone that I found objectionable and grossly unfair.
Hi,
First we don't have any news.
So let see:
1. Hasselblad pre sold so much X1D that they run out of money to build them
2. DJI a partner sinvce 2015 decided to increase the investment on the company, that should allow them to fullil the others and move the manufacturing to the 21 century.
3. If the title of the artice is not a false (that is DJI buyed Hasselblad) Hasselblad will have access to the leading engeniers and expertise of DJI the more inovative company in the drone marquet and arguably the most dominant technology company on any segmet.
4. X1D orders can produce a positive cash flow: There is not reason to believe otherwise. If they could produce a possitive cash flow before they can now, unless the artice and the FUD based on it works.
The issue is that, since the annoucement of the X1D a subsector of the PhaseOne propaganda machine enter panic mode. I will never forget the funny "is not medium format mirroless is a croped ..". It was funny for the reaction, and by the implication that the people that pay P1 a fortune for 50mp cmos sensor were paying
for a non MF camera (or that they don't know that MF is an umbrela term).
We don't now even know what is real (the article is self contradictory)
Best regards,
Where's Kevin's article on Leaf being suffocated to slow death or Phase selling out to a venture capital firm as they didn't have the money to ramp up production and R&D?
I find the whole Raber article incredibly sensationalist and unjustifiably negative. No amount of gushy backstory about aspiring to own a Hasselblad in his early years can disguise his bias. Continuing LuLa's MR extreme vendetta against Hasselblad, perhaps? Sour grapes?
I find the whole Raber article incredibly sensationalist and unjustifiably negative. No amount of gushy backstory about aspiring to own a Hasselblad in his early years can disguise his bias. Continuing LuLa's MR extreme vendetta against Hasselblad, perhaps? Sour grapes?
In my view this is turning into a farce - not the relationship between DJI and Hasselblad but the furore on the internet.
If you look at Nick-T's response (and I assume he knows exactly what he is talking about) the situation appears to be that DJI have increased their shareholding in Hasselblad so that they now have a sufficient shareholding that allows one or more of DJI's nominees to sit on the board (I have no idea but presumably prior to whatever transaction took place they didn't have a board member or considered that they didn't have sufficient board members). A shareholding alone (however big) does not entitle the shareholder to dictate the operation or direction of a company. The only body that can do that is the Board of Directors. But the only people who can remove and appoint Directors are the shareholders. In order to increase their shareholding they will have had to have purchased shares from someone - unlikely under UK company law (which obviously does not apply with a Swedish company) that those shares came directly from Hasselblad since it is unlikely (but possible) that Hasselblad had authorised but unissued share capital. So they must have bought their shares from existing shareholders.
The alternative is that there was authorised but unissued share capital available which would have been available for DJI to purchase directly from Hasselblad. But that means that new shares would have been issued and Hasselblad would have received the purchase price for them with the result that the existing shareholders' interests would have been diluted. And since those shareholders sit on the Board they would have had to have agreed to this.
So it is more likely than not that this is not an investment in Hasselblad in the sense of putting extra money into its coffers, it is a simple exercise of increasing a shareholding to have a more direct involvement in the management of the company. No one buys shares in a company unless they (sadly and more frequently these days) think they can then asset strip it or unless they expect it to thrive. Whether or not DJI will or need to invest extra capital into Hasselblad is clearly something than none of us on the outside know. But if they have spent a significant amount of money on increasing their shareholding and Hasselblad needs more working capital then I would expect they would make a loan to the company. Otherwise why bother?
There are a lot of other things that happened in 2016 that might make one think that the sky is falling. But this is hugely unlikely to be one of them.
If you look at Nick-T's response (and I assume he knows exactly what he is talking about) the situation appears to be that DJI have increased their shareholding in Hasselblad so that they now have a sufficient shareholding that allows one or more of DJI's nominees to sit on the board (I have no idea but presumably prior to whatever transaction took place they didn't have a board member or considered that they didn't have sufficient board members). A shareholding alone (however big) does not entitle the shareholder to dictate the operation or direction of a company. The only body that can do that is the Board of Directors. But the only people who can remove and appoint Directors are the shareholders. In order to increase their shareholding they will have had to have purchased shares from someone - unlikely under UK company law (which obviously does not apply with a Swedish company) that those shares came directly from Hasselblad since it is unlikely (but possible) that Hasselblad had authorised but unissued share capital. So they must have bought their shares from existing shareholders.
The alternative is that there was authorised but unissued share capital available which would have been available for DJI to purchase directly from Hasselblad. But that means that new shares would have been issued and Hasselblad would have received the purchase price for them with the result that the existing shareholders' interests would have been diluted. And since those shareholders sit on the Board they would have had to have agreed to this.
So it is more likely than not that this is not an investment in Hasselblad in the sense of putting extra money into its coffers, it is a simple exercise of increasing a shareholding to have a more direct involvement in the management of the company. No one buys shares in a company unless they (sadly and more frequently these days) think they can then asset strip it or unless they expect it to thrive. Whether or not DJI will or need to invest extra capital into Hasselblad is clearly something than none of us on the outside know. But if they have spent a significant amount of money on increasing their shareholding and Hasselblad needs more working capital then I would expect they would make a loan to the company. Otherwise why bother?
There are a lot of other things that happened in 2016 that might make one think that the sky is falling. But this is hugely unlikely to be one of them.
stephengilbert
Active member
It may be that Raber doesn't know what he's talking about, but I bet he knows more than most of the people here who've been explaining what -- if anything -- happened.
Isn't it likely that HB needed capital, went to a large shareholder, and agreed to an exchange of money for shares? And that the shareholder felt that not contributing money would be detrimental to its investment?
Unless there's something troubling about that shareholder getting more control, who cares.
Isn't it likely that HB needed capital, went to a large shareholder, and agreed to an exchange of money for shares? And that the shareholder felt that not contributing money would be detrimental to its investment?
Unless there's something troubling about that shareholder getting more control, who cares.
A company cannot just issue shares as and when it needs money. It is limited to the authorised shares and can't just issue or sell more shares when it needs money. If there are unissued but authorised shares then the board of directors would have to agree to the company issuing them. The consequence of that would be that the existing shareholders' interests would be diluted - i.e worth much less.
Not sure about that. The writer was sitting on the information, according to himself, for a long time.
He selected to release the speculative article just at the moment that Hasselblad started to fulfill the orders of the X1D.
Taking into account the initial reaction. Few days before the materialization of sales "random" people started to demand proof of shippement. When day get it and people start to talk about the camera, this article appears, the author could not hold the info one more day.
This is not about people not understanding finances, or the racist fear of the Chinese. This is about changing the conversation, from the X1D reaching customers, to "Hasselblad is an evil company that hurt P1 closing the platform and now they are going broke and people are quitting their jobs, or: DJI invested in HB there is no way that this is good"
If it was Cannon, and they say we are going to invest 1billion dollars in Hasselblad, it seems to me, the rhetoric will be the same.
I'll take Nick T's word well over Kevin Raber's. As stated above, the board of directors would have to approve additional shares being issued, since an exchange of shares to obtain a majority interest would inject no capital into the company. The delay could have been caused by the frequency of the board meetings to approve such an issue that would have diluted current shareholders interests. And, it might have taken more than one board meeting to accomplish such a move.
Hopefully, Hasselblad and DJI will take legal action against Raber and that website if it (and I think it will) proves to be so blatantly false.
Hopefully, Hasselblad and DJI will take legal action against Raber and that website if it (and I think it will) proves to be so blatantly false.
stephengilbert
Active member
"A company cannot just issue shares as and when it needs money. It is limited to the authorised shares and can't just issue or sell more shares when it needs money. If there are unissued but authorised shares then the board of directors would have to agree to the company issuing them."
Really; is that Swedish corporate law? How many shares are authorized, and how many had been issued prior to the past week?
I assume you're familiar with Hasselblad's articles of incorporation.
Really; is that Swedish corporate law? How many shares are authorized, and how many had been issued prior to the past week?
I assume you're familiar with Hasselblad's articles of incorporation.
ejpeiker
Member
At least according to what I could find, Hasselblad is not a publicly traded company. Most of what is being batted back and forth with respect to shareholders, corporate law, etc. applies to publicly traded companies in the USA. Unless you know Swedish law on privately held companies none of that is relevant.
glenerrolrd
Workshop Member
Come on ..it not just business as usual . No issues... DJI just sees an opportunity to have a large say in HB future and Kevin Raber got it 100% wrong or he is an angry HB hater !
Just to be open ...I am not a HB hater . I grew up shooting HB 500 s . My father had one of the first HB 500 in the USA and we had all the HB moon shots on the walls in our darkroom . It was simply the very best camera system you could find anywhere . We watched all the HB movies about the company . I really like the HB X1D ...its exactly right for a travel kit ..can t imagine anything better for the type of trips I do. I admire how they positioned the three main product lines ..into H6D,X1D and Legacy V . But you must admit being a HB fan has been difficult over the last 10 years or more .
Has the X1D launch been well executed ?
They are in the ditch ..hopefully the backlog of orders is enough to get the investment that clearly need to get on track. I am rooting for them . :clap:
Just to be open ...I am not a HB hater . I grew up shooting HB 500 s . My father had one of the first HB 500 in the USA and we had all the HB moon shots on the walls in our darkroom . It was simply the very best camera system you could find anywhere . We watched all the HB movies about the company . I really like the HB X1D ...its exactly right for a travel kit ..can t imagine anything better for the type of trips I do. I admire how they positioned the three main product lines ..into H6D,X1D and Legacy V . But you must admit being a HB fan has been difficult over the last 10 years or more .
Has the X1D launch been well executed ?
They are in the ditch ..hopefully the backlog of orders is enough to get the investment that clearly need to get on track. I am rooting for them . :clap:
As I stated in another forum, I wish Hasselblad had announced the H6D, particularly the 100c, and X1D at least six months apart. Trying to deliver on orders for both cameras in a timely fashion is a difficult task for a small company with limited resources. This has resulted in a fair amount of frustration because of the delays. I have now been waiting five months for delivery on a 100c. On another note, Raber's article, in my opinion, was really unnecessary and full of obvious bias. Personally, I don't give a RA about his boyhood dreams or fantasies. I think Mr. Raber should focus more on the survival of LuLa now that he is solely in charge. Despite any opinions to the contrary, I believe Hasselblad will continue as a brand and maintain its loyal following.