Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

James Dyson has voiced his feelings in regard to what it will take to save Britain's manufacturing industry in a report commissioned by the country's Conservative Party.  An interesting read and plenty of UK reader comments follow.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/recession/7400742/Sir-James-Dyson-plan-to-fill-UKs-engineering-vacuum.html

M00seUK and vacmanuk, I'll be glad to learn what you think.

Venson

Severus wrote:

Hi Severus:

Forbes is "the" list for the world of the "rich" and "famous."  Sort of like Consumer Reports and product sales/recognition. 

On all other points, I agree with you.  Harkens back to a statement I made here and elsewhere years ago that engineers make terrible CEO's especially of their own companies.  Steve Jobs and Apple are the rare business exception.  Typical of Sir James, he took too long to come to that business realization.  Not choosing a family member, as one would naturally expect, to take the reigns of the helm speaks volumes.  As well it will be a constant cause of problems for the new dyson CEO and its employees.  Many of which are already insulted and demeaned by Sir james.  Expect a cut in the 2500 dyson Malmesbury employees as the first order of business by the new CEO.  Wonder how secure Dibster's job is?  Should have gotten out when the gettin was good.  As the saying goes:  With all your getting, get wisdom.

Dyson's stepping down now from all operational business ties [Chief Designer is a made up job for him to stay on the company dole] guarantees with almost absolute certainty that he will not make the Forbes list next year.  I'd say he came to the realization this was his last year on the list.  Good timing for a change on his part.  Last year and last place. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Carmine,

I don't subscribe to Forbes, but I was curious whether there were any other vacuum related people on the list.   It would be curious to know if their personal fortunes dropped similarly to Sir Jame's. 

CarmineD wrote:
Hi Carmine, can you explain to me why I should pay any real attention to the 'reported' values placed on people who compile for Forbes and the various 'Rich lists'?

While these 'estimated' values make for entertaining league tables and interesting figures for news articles, the accuracy of them is open to interpretation.

The difference between exact net worth and estimated will vary from person to person. If you know from public filings that Steve Jobs has x stock in Apple, y stock in Disney and assets worth z you can calculate an approximate net worth at that moment in time and track it as the investment markets rise or fall. You might add a figure for cash in the bank, based on past returns, but it's likely the estimated figure would be far out from the actual by a fair margin.

With someone in James Dyson's position, there's even less to go on. The Dyson family's biggest asset is 100% ownership of Dyson Ltd. Being a privately-held company, next to no financial information is publicly available. There's no quarterly release of comparative sales data with margins, no stock market value.

How well the business is doing is solely based on what spectators think might be happening on the balance sheet. They might conclude: "Hrmm... recession, people with less money, credit. It's possible this will have a negative impact on high priced goods, such as vacuums. Dyson will possibly sell less than in previous years, so we'll knock x off our valuation of the business."

If we're to believe what James Dyson said in the interview, sales are even better than previous years. Also, if as reported, a business has been able to reinvent a desktop fan and sell it $330, clearing out their 3-month allocation in a matter of weeks, I'd say that it's a reasonable indicator that they're in good form and while subjective, you might conclude that James Dyson is worth more than two years ago ...for all it matters to some.

M00seUK wrote:

MooseUK,

Is there any news of other companies wanting to buy motors or license the motor technology that Dyson has developed for the tiny yet powerful motors?   It would seem like these would have a lot of potential applications in other products - if they can get the noise level lowered. 

Severus wrote:

Hello SEVERUS:

To my knowledge Sir James Dyson is the only vacuum maker on the list, to his credit.  But, dyson is wholly owned by him and his family members so it is expected he would fall and rise based solely on the company's fortunes.

To summarize:  The 2008 list had 793 names.  This year [2009] saw a rise to 1,011.  Only 12 percent of the returnees from 2008 saw their fortunes fall in 2009.  The majority saw their fortunes soar in 2009.  Average net worth of the Forbes Richest is $3.5 Billion in 2009.  This is up $500,000 million from the average in 2008.  There are 97 new members.  30 members fell off the list from 2008.  Another 13 died.

It is my understanding based on what Forbes prints that over 2/3 of the consistent Forbes subscribers have a minimum net worth of at least ONE MILLION DOLLARS.  I have subscribed since the 70's.

Carmine D.

PS: I was more a fan of the Forbes magazine when the current editor-in-chief's father, Malcolm was in charge.  Steve is a smart and savvy business man and I met/enjoy talking with him.  But Malcolm was a business man from my era.

M00seUK wrote:

Yes I can.  If you are in business these persons on the Forbes list are excellent source of business.  If you are an investor [read gambler], the businesses run by these individuals are excellent places to put your money. 

Carmine D.

i think we're going off topic here though. It's one thing being in a business, owning a business and building investments. A lot of it has to do with Economy.

vacmanuk wrote:

As I recall the evolution of Forbes wealthiest and Sir James Dyson, it originated in March 2008 when Sir James was featured by and in gthe Forbes World's Richest for his $1.6 B dyson enterprise with Forbes commentary and numbers on his latest business invention the dyson Air Blade.  At that point in time, Dib-ster a fellow country man of yours, posted the Forbes link and summary here and ir received alot of follow up posts.  I don't recall any objections then that such posts/discussions are off-topic: i.e economic related versus vacuums related. 

Recent and past discussions about irobot for the most part have been off topic but related to vacuums on the fringes.  The fact that in the first 6 months of their launch in the Fall of 2002 in the US, over a half million irobots were sold.  Since then, the sales estimates in the US are tens of millions.  In the spring of 2006 when the company went public, irobot's stock price was $12 plus per share.  Recently, SEVERUS posted a link here which reported irobot's international sales increased in the last quarter by over 30 percent.  To which I posted that the stock price, despite the worse recession since the Great Depression of the 1930's was holding steady at $17 plus.  Are these discussions off topic?  In the strictest sense, perhaps.  But with a more broad view they probably explain why other vacuum makers, who were talked about as developing robotics for years and years here, have not entered the market. 

As a courtesy to those who ask here, if questions are directed to me whether directly on topic or on the fringes, or economic in nature, I will answer here if I know the answer.  Posters frequently PM me too with questions and I will answer in that venue when they do.  As you have in the past.  I much prefer that the questions posed directly to me be edited out before I post the answers, if they are deemed off topic.  Rather than have my posts with the answers edited off and be told that the answers are off topic. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
Carmen,

 Let's hope people avoid putting their hard-earned money and their kids into so-called Ivy League universities you attended. These educations seem to a tanked for you... or certainly in terms of dollar value they been a loser. Again, you're in no position to criticize men like James Dyson outside of your scope... that is, swapping parts, stocking your store and maybe just maybe evaluating apples to apples.

You need to haul-a$$ to a shrink and have that jealously and lying beyond belief checked out.   But of course, many in your trade suffer with this too.


Dyson Invents Big

Dibster:

I attended and graduated with these degrees on a full ride scholarship making the dean's list every semester and graduating in just 3 years working full-time all the while.

I know you are jealous of me/my success.  But isn't this thread about Sir James Dyson?  Not me.

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote: