Optometry in 2035. Does it exist?

[Trina]

There are now only 13 days left before the deadline of June 1, 2018, for the worlds biggest event to happen any day in the optical eyeglass industry of wholesale as well as retail.

As Canada is an easier test market than the USA, and directly run by the French head office, the changes will very probably be felt faster, than across the border in the USA.

They will start advertising their by internet sold glasses, to be serviced by the LensCrafter and the Essilor owned "New Look" chain stores. That will provide them with some over 700 stores to start with, and become internet products sold service stations, besides their regular activities.

Opticians could be competitive by starting a similar system.

Every time I read something like this, my stomach drops. Whatever happened to the laws preventing a monopoly?

[Golfnorth]

There are now only 13 days left before the deadline of June 1, 2018, for the worlds biggest event to happen any day in the optical eyeglass industry of wholesale as well as retail.

As Canada is an easier test market than the USA, and directly run by the French head office, the changes will very probably be felt faster, than across the border in the USA.

They will start advertising their by internet sold glasses, to be serviced by the LensCrafter and the Essilor owned "New Look" chain stores. That will provide them with some over 700 stores to start with, and become internet products sold service stations, besides their regular activities.

Opticians could be competitive by starting a similar system.

Chris;

I was not aware that Essilor owned New Look.
Are you sure?

Regards,
Golfnorth

[Lab Insight]

Chris;

I was not aware that Essilor owned New Look.
Are you sure?

Regards,
Golfnorth

You are correct, New Look is it's own public stock company. Essilor and Shamir both currently supply lenses under contract, but no ownership stake.

[Chris Ryser]

Mr. Amiel held executive positions within Nikon Essilor Co. Ltd.,....................

Chris;

I was not aware that Essilor owned New Look.
Are you sure?

Regards,
Golfnorth

and

You are correct, New Look is it's own public stock company. Essilor and Shamir both currently supply lenses under contract, but no ownership stake.

Make you own conclusions. Yes they are a public company, however the boss is a high ranking livelong Essilor career guy.
Check out were they got the funds to make all these recent purchases of the other chains.

Mr. Antoine Amiel is President, Director of the Company. He was Vice Chairman of the Board of the Company. He is an experienced international executive from the optical lens industry.

Between 2009 and 2012, Mr. Amiel held executive positions within Nikon Essilor Co. Ltd., a Tokyo based joint venture between Nikon Corporation and Essilor International which manufactures and distributes Nikon ophthalmic lenses worldwide. From 2005 to 2012, he was Executive Officer, Vice President International Subsidiaries and CEO of Nikon Optical USA, Canada and United Kingdom. From 2002 to 2005, Mr. Amiel was Managing Director of Nikon Optical UK Ltd. From 1999 to 2002, he was Nikon Essilor’s Chief Financial Officer. Prior to his time with the joint venture he held several finance and marketing positions in Asia Pacific and North America

Chairman Since 2015

Amiel has a master in Corporation Finance from the University de Paris IX Dauphine.

source:
https://www.macroaxis.com/invest/man...-Antoine_Amiel

[Chris Ryser]

So Figure it out yourself, who is the pulling the strings in this venture............

So Figure it out yourself, who is the pulling the strings in this venture.

Here is some more .....................................

The company has accumulated 173.28 M in total debt with debt to equity ratio (D/E) of 123.2 indicating the company may have difficulties to generate enough cash to satisfy its financial obligations. New Look Vision Group has Current Ratio of 1.06 suggesting that it is in a questionable position to pay out its financial obligations in time and when they become due.

source:
https://www.macroaxis.com/invest/man...-Antoine_Amiel


So Figure it out yourself, who is the pulling the strings in this venture.

[Chris Ryser]

Look at the forecasts for 2050..................................

Look at the forecasts for 2050..................................

see at : https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fate-...vitor-pamplona

[optio]

I got something in the mail today. My sense is that this "invite" has been mailed to all ODs and OMDs across Canada. Given their target audience, some general MDs may have been targeted as well.

E-eyecare

https://www.e-eyecare.com/

It says it was launched on Aug 15, 2018. There isn't a lot of info in the packet that was mailed to me, so I visited the website, and from what I gather, it is a "telemedicine", remote-ophthalmology platform. It seems the idea is that any patients I need an OMD consult for (they claim an ability to manage glaucoma, cataract, cornea, neuro, and retina), I can send to them. Now as of today, not all the links on the website are working, so I only see various pictures and some title-headers, but my sense of the platform is as such: I'll have some internet-connected computer in my exam room. It'll have a camera. If I get a patient I need a consult for, I'll be able to do a face-time thing with a live ophthalmologist somewhere. He/she will be able to view what I see from my slit-lamp (so my slit-lamp will have a digital-camera as well). Because there is some sign-up involved, and they claim rapid access to my clinical charts, then for my computer to participate in their platform, it will have to download certain software and I will have to use "their" charts.

I have no idea if this will get off the ground. Is it futuristic? Yes. Is it conceivable that such a telemedicine platform can succeed? Yes. Is THIS particular group the one that will succeed in making such a telemedicine platform widespread? That I don't know. First, if they are going to announce a "launch" of their platform on Aug 15, and mail invites to professionals across the country, then they should at least ensure their website is up-to-date and working properly. The "Our Work", "Learn More", and "Join Us" links, and all links beginning halfway down the page aren't working. The "Medical Director", who signs the invite letter I got, a Dr. Mahta Rasouli, says in multiple online bios that she is the recipient of an "Outstanding Canadian Youth Medal". That particular bio is in several places online. When I Google "Outstanding Canadian Youth Medal" in order to see what it is, the only places on the web that reference such an award are links of the same biography. I think if you're going to feature a big award in a widely-circulated biographical profile, then you should at least get the name of it written correctly.

Anyways - just nitpicking some stuff. But if you're going to try to revolutionize eyecare, that will require a LOT of work, and a LOT has to be done right. If whoever is in charge isn't looking after little details like this, my sense is that there'll be another company that will.

[Chris Ryser]

e-eyecare is an innovative software that brings ophthalmic care to the 21st century

e-eyecare is an innovative softwarethat brings ophthalmic care to the 21st century. This ophthalmology softwareconnects Referring optometrists/general medical practitioners orophthalmologists to other Consultant comprehensive/sub-specialized ophthalmologists,for further assessment and suggestions on diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring.

No names, no physical address ..................................

Looks like an idea that has no real backup at this stage, and they are looking for participants that will commit to the idea.

Will take some time to build up.

[fjpod]

We all have to be careful of the proper definition of telemedicine (or telehealth). In it's true definition, a telemedicine encounter must meet very strict inter-active guidelines in order to be able to bill it to medicare, medicaid, and commercial insurance.

Virtually all of what is being sold over the internet is not telemedicine. It is opportunistic internet business. Oh,... they may say they are high quality, that they bring convenience to the patient, that they save money, that they are altruistic. Most of these vendors don't even accept insurance but are simply trying to get cash (credit card) payments. It may have a place. It may grow, or it may flop.

[optio]

There may be even bigger issues stopping optometry from existing in 2035. Without exaggerating, "modern" society "as the locals know it" may not even exist at that point. You can argue it already doesn't exist in some places in the world today.

There is a growing plethora of literature discussing the future of the world vis a vis climate change. The issue is, as the world warms, natural disasters increase in both frequency and intensity. This not also destroys communities, but a hotter world leads to droughts, famines, mass migrations, and war. You can argue the "apocalypse" already exists in some places in the world, e.g. hurricane-ravaged Puerto Rico and cyclone-ravaged Mozambique and Zimbabwe. I'm sure some of those living in fire-alley Australia today aren't feeling too well about their prospects. If your home is gone, it's hard to be thinking about other things other than survival. For kids growing up in such situations, it's probably hard to remain optimistic about one's future, or even to visualize it. And things will only get worst. It is very possible 2020 will be the coldest year of our remaining lifetimes.

Modern society is incompatible with a healthy planet, and we are running headlong into an unknown future. That said, chances are the economy will collapse before climate change kills any of "us" (first worlders who aren't living on the eastern seaboard or on the Gulf of Mexico). The next economic downturn will truly be catastrophic, especially with interest rates already at historic lows and debt levels at all-time-highs. It is entirely possible there will be "no recovery" from the next economic downturn. And while we're here, let's mention that we are decades past the "due date" for a worldwide flu pandemic (unless the current SARS 2.0 is the one we've been waiting for).

Hopefully we're all still around in 2035 to see how things have turned out.

[optio]

You can't time the stock market they say, and you really can't. But with values at almost all-time-highs, why would anyone want to be even more greedy with the Dow at 29000++? It was clear last week that coronavirus is an existential threat. It almost certainly, probably won't be, but the possibility can't be ruled out. Given the downside risk, timing a "sell" was obvious - things were obviously going to get worse before they got better. I exited 50% of my holdings last Friday afternoon, right before the post I made above. Stocks fell (as expected) on Monday, recovered a bit mid-week, and have crashed again. The timing to get back in, however, will be difficult. It'll depend on your risk tolerance. I don't have the crystal ball on that one, but last week's sell was a no-brainer for anyone who did. (as an aside, do your investing yourself, not through some sales person like a Primerica thief, so that you can stay on top of opportunities like this)

Getting back on-topic, the reality is that in the best-case 2035 scenario, the only thing we have to worry about is if online refraction (or robots or whatever) has threatened the livelihood of some optometrists. There are much bigger existential threats on the horizon.

There are some concerns that the entire world equities market is heading for a cliff. The current value of fossil fuel corporations worldwide is estimated to be worth anywhere between 5 and 20 trillion dollars. If, in a moment's notice, the prevailing attitude decides that all that equity should undergo a heavy devaluation because of a worldwide move away from non-renewables, then those corporations will be instantly worth trillions of dollars less, erasing enormous value off of people's balance sheets worldwide. This will cause a financial collapse of almost complete totality, far exceeding anything the world has experienced before with no obvious catalyst for recovery. At a point where the world would need the natural resources of a healthy, sustainable earth (bountiful fish stocks, healthy forests, etc.) for recovery, would be the very time the world would be unable to provide it. There is a very obvious reason why Aramco decided to go public last fall.

In addition to, preceeding, or perhaps compounding the above problem, is that interest rate policy, long used by central banks as their "Stormbreaker" for times of economic malaise, has not recovered anywhere near enough from 2008 to be an effective tool against the next downturn. So much of the market is based on greed and fear, and given that investors understand this (that further lowering already-depressed interest rates will not be enough to stimulate a distressed economy), people will head for the exists and fast. Possible "cures" such as MMT and QE are not going to work. With the world as indebted as it is, either of these "solutions" will cause some fixes in the system, but cause other problems elsewhere. A huge QE, for instance, could strengthen the US economy, but weaken foreign ones (like the Chinese). Given the interconnectedness of the world economy, it would be one step forward for one step back.

And of course, climate change. This will profoundly affect each of our lives, and likely far sooner than 2035. It will make, and is already making parts of the world unliveable. It will cause massive re-assessment of value and much value (e.g. real estate in hurricane or fire-prone areas) will be lost. Not to mention, as species go extinct and animal numbers collapse, there will be threats to food supply, security, and politically stability. This is the future.

It is my wish, that in 2035, all we have to concern ourselves with is online refraction and 1-800 Contacts.

[optio]

Back in April 2019, Mark Carney (the Canadian who was heading the Bank of England) along with 33 other Central Banks, wrote an open letter to the world about the risk a sudden devaluation of the fossil fuel economy. This is before Greta became a household-name, before the current Australia wildfires, and before the current zeitgeist that accepts that the world truly is on fire.

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/news/2019/april/open-letter-on-climate-related-financial-risks

"If the financial community acts on these recommendations we will be two big steps closer to ensuring an orderly transition to a low-carbon economy. We recognise that the challenges we face are unprecedented, urgent and analytically difficult. The stakes are undoubtedly high, but the commitment of all actors in the financial system to act on these recommendations will help avoid a climate-driven “Minsky moment” – the term we use to refer to a sudden collapse in asset prices."

No one knows when the pop will occur, but when it does, it will be catastrophic. 1929 will look like a mild recessionary bump. The world economy will be destroyed. And I believe it is reasonable to suppose this will probably happen before 2035.

[optio]

So still a bit OT for this board, but I wanted to add to the idea I alluded to above. A collapse in the oil industry (and therefore the world economy) may not be caused by a shift to renewables - it could be by a far worse "reason": the future inability of the industry to be profitable. This is serious.

Government Agency Warns Global Oil Industry Is on the Brink of a Meltdown (Feb 4 2020)
https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/8848g5/government-agency-warns-global-oil-industry-is-on-the-brink-of-a-meltdown
We are not running out of oil, but it's becoming uneconomical to exploit it—another reason we need to move to renewables as quickly as possible.

Bottom line is this. There is plenty of fossil fuels in the world. Problem is, we've mined all the "easy to get to" conventional stuff already. What remains, is ever-more-difficult and more-costly-to-access sources (deep offshore, oil sands, shale), so that the costs associated with extraction makes such ventures uneconomical - too little ROI and therefore a collapsing industry. This reminds me of the premise of some who say that the current world economy wasn't a product of democracy, capitalism, or economic policy, but from cheap energy. In the 1800s, all you had to do was stick a hole in the ground and out came liquid gold. It was, the argument goes, all that plentiful free energy (and not any particular financial policy) that powered the development of today's economies.

But the world relies on (requires?) oil to remain below a certain cost in order to keep its economy functioning. It can at most afford oil at $100/barrel, but it is becoming increasingly impossible to extract and sell oil profitably at that price. Bottom line is that the cheap energy that powered the creation of our civilization is nearing its end. There will be massive consequences for this. To say the problem is existential is not an exaggeration. If there is no gas to buy, how does the economy function?

“To phase out petroleum products (and fossil fuels in general), the entire global industrial ecosystem will need to be reengineered, retooled and fundamentally rebuilt," the report notes. "This will be perhaps the greatest industrial challenge the world has ever faced historically.”

[optio]

You may want to stock up on food.

[optio]

Covid-19 will be very unhelpful for young optometrists of the future. Historically, economic crises are what have always led to the biggest structural changes in the marketplace. The panic of 1907 led to the creation of the Federal Reserve, the WW1 economy led to women having a role in the workforce (as well as universal suffrage) and trade unions, and WW2 resulted in the creation of a huge consumer economy and widespread access to education. (I could go on. 2008 resulted in the disappearance of full time work/benefits and the creation of the gig economy...)

There will be an untold number of changes because of Covid-19, but one obvious change will be the growth and establishment of telemedicine. Actually, if I were in charge of one of those online refraction platforms today, I would be doing everything I could to leverage this pandemic to have as many people do at-home DIY "eye exams" as possible (one can easily conceive of some coronavirus-related "promotion" like a free trial, which would not only entice first-time users, but could also generate themselves lots of valuable publicity). A second thing I would do, is try to expand from refraction, by adding health elements of eye exams, since going forward, remote examination will have broad acceptance, so the only roadblock would be the mechanics of actually getting them done. Telemedicine will result in a decreased need for physical chair time, and as such, a decreased need for actual practitioners. I'd personally be very concerned if I was a Canadian optometry student who wasn't paying a Canadian tuition (e.g. a Canadian studying in the US) about my ability to make that financial investment pay off. It was already probably a very borderline investment to begin with and Covid just made it a lot worse. For Canadian students in the US right now, I imagine a delayed graduation is a distinct possibility, not to mention the uncertainty around arranging externships, board exams, etc. Not to mention the plummeting CAN/USD exchange rate.

Covid, perhaps the biggest economic shock of our lifetimes (and this saying a lot since we lived through the GFC, though climate catastrophe will be worse) will be a net negative for optometry going forward. There will be a smaller need for optometrists (in terms of how many of us are required) by 2035.