I'm here BECAUSE of the 60 Minutes piece. From a different point of view, you could say the 60 Minutes piece was quite flattering: The crux of the story was that this company has been fabulously successful at protecting (and even improving) its market share, and also its profits. Isn't that what businesses are supposed to do?
Certainly one could cry "foul" and invoke anti-trust rules. Except that seems to be water under the bridge: (Why) wasn't there any government oversight BEFORE they were allowed to buy Oakley? or Pearle Vision, or Lenscrafters? You can't blame the company for trying. And they paid for those "brands" so you can't expect them to throw away the brand names. Its common business practice. Hint: Have you bought anything from the Radio Company of America (RCA) in the past 26 years?
Gerry (below) likens LUX to the "mob". Personally, I think they are doing exactly what a capitalist society demands. Pity that its a once-small company in Italy that's pulled off this coup, rather than a grand, respectable, capitalist American company that's done this.
Here's the thing:
As a potential investor (I first heard about LUX tonight, on 60 Minutes) I took a simple look at Yahoo's financial statistics and was surprised. Forward P/E of 20-ish is a little pricey but not so much for a well-protected highly-profitable (I thought) company. What's amazing to me is that their profit margins and ROA etc are so low. Going by the 60 Minutes piece one would have expected HUGE profit margins. Yet one line in the Income Statement "Selling G & A" really stands out -- and explains the lack of (reported) profits.
Why is G & A so high? Should 60 Minutes have "followed the money" a little farther?