Hang on, the numbers say that Kodak's film division makes good money.

bmattock, what are you trying to prove? What's the idea behind your posts? That film is dead, that Kodak is dead?

Just trying to understand your general idea.
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
McDonald's profits are up. This means this is the beginning of the end for vegetables!!

No, wait: vegetable profits are up. This mean it's the beginning of the end for McDonald's!

Points for the one who can spot a flaw in either argument.
Click to expand...

http://finance.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NYSE:MCD

http://finance.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:EK

McDonald's corporation - down 6.71 percent over the last year.
Eastman Kodak corporation - down 31.16% over the same period.

I want Kodak to survive - I want them to keep making film. I am seeing them in a lot of difficulty right now. Pretending that everything is great is just wishful thinking - they're in serious trouble, and by that I mean a lot more than the majority of the rest of the economy right now.
 
bmattock said:
McDonald's corporation - down 6.71 percent over the last year.
Eastman Kodak corporation - down 31.16% over the same period.
Click to expand...

http://finance.google.com/finance?q=OTC:NINOY

And Nikon's is down 65.8%

Hard cold numbers don't paint a picture, they only spell numbers. I'm not a "pro film" or "pro digital" guy. That's for hardcore sportsfans. How many people, as a percentage of the general population, is good with Math? Now, how many of that same population are good with sports stats? They confuse numbers with science. Numbers by themselves are numbers. Context and analysis of that context leads the road to informed conclusions which point to reality.

My point is that unidimensional arguments with little logic just lead to really fallacious conclusions.

And, btw, considering the October/November slump in McDonald's sales, and their current sales, I'd say that is a remarkable recovery (of about 12%); who in this economy has grown in the double-digits since last Fall?

And does this mean that it's good for your health. Methinks: not. 😀
 
Goldorak said:
bmattock, what are you trying to prove? What's the idea behind your posts? That film is dead, that Kodak is dead?

Just trying to understand your general idea.
Click to expand...

I am in favor of accuracy and truth. It has nothing to do with Kodak being dead or alive, or film being dead or alive. I want both Kodak and film to survive. I partake in discussions in which people say things which I sometimes feel are not accurate, and I offer my opinion. When challenged, I defend my opinions with facts - vigorously. The problem is mine - I tend not to know when my defense of my arguments begins to hurt people's feelings. My skin is thick, I can take a hit. I forget that a lot of other people can't.
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
http://finance.google.com/finance?q=OTC:NINOY

And Nikon's is down 65.8%

Hard cold numbers don't paint a picture, they only spell numbers. I'm not a "pro film" or "pro digital" guy. That's for hardcore sportsfans. How many people, as a percentage of the general population, is good with Math? Now, how many of that same population are good with sports stats? They confuse numbers with science. Numbers by themselves are numbers. Context and analysis of that context leads the road to informed conclusions which point to reality.

My point is that unidimensional arguments with little logic just lead to really fallacious conclusions.

And, btw, considering the October/November slump in McDonald's sales, and their current sales, I'd say that is a remarkable recovery (of about 12%); who in this economy has grown in the double-digits since last Fall?

And does this mean that it's good for your health. Methinks: not. 😀
Click to expand...

Losses in the short term can be absorbed. When the core value of the company begins to approach zero, the numbers do mean something - they mean the end.

Kodak is now in dire straits. They have been taking emergency action for over four years - it's now worse than that. They have to act quickly and very forcefully or it's all over for EK.

Nikon would have to lose a lot to find themselves in a similar position.
 
Rey, there doesn't seem to be "millions of film users" out there. According to Kodak, large format film comprises the biggest portion of their film sales, not 35mm. That makes sense, of course, because digital has hit 35mm the hardest and large format films are used in industry. I don't know how many people are actually shooting a significant amount of film (despite the fact that I'm trying to do my part). But I would guess it's not a huge number.
 
bmattock said:
Kodak is now in dire straits. They have been taking emergency action for over four years - it's now worse than that. They have to act quickly and very forcefully or it's all over for EK.
Click to expand...

If you are convinced, go out and short the stock. You will make millions.

Part of the recession is the continuous complaining about how bad it is.

My respects to Kodaks managment for cutting costs earlier than others.

Roland.
 
ferider said:
If you are convinced, go out and short the stock. You will make millions.
Click to expand...

I don't short stock. I buy and hold. However, I am a contrarian investor quite often - that part of 'buy low, sell high' that everyone says but no one does - I do it.

I am considering a stock purchase of EK. I considered getting in at 10, glad now I didn't, but I would not have been sorry if I had, I'd just hold it.

Part of the recession is the continuous complaining about how bad it is.

Roland.
Click to expand...

I am not part of the problem, I am part of the solution - I'm investing in the market, just like Warren Buffet said. That's loyalty to our nation. I'm convinced things will get better - I'm bullish on America in the long term and I prove it by putting my money out there.

I also don't hide from facts. Pretending things are rosy when they suck isn't being a loyal American, it's being foolish.
 
Last edited:
bmattock said:
I also don't hide from facts. Pretending things are rosy when they suck isn't being a loyal American, it's being foolish.
Click to expand...

You do hide from the fact that Fuji made hundreds of millions. You do seem overly preoccupied with the 'film is dead' mantra. Yes, it will be dead someday. Just as the internal-combustion engine will be dead someday. But not next year or next 5 years, but the bottom line is, we just don't know where the break even or profitability line is with regard to how many rolls it will take company K or company F to keep making the stuff.
 
Last edited:
Gumby said:
Good for who... the execs who will get a big bonus, or the workers who are standing in unemployment lines trying to get some financial support from another bankrupt system?
Click to expand...

Of course I did not mean good for the workers who got laid off. The context I was speaking was- It's good for the near term future of film that Fuji made money.
 
It amazes me the amount of time wasted by some trying to decode or interpret what these financial reports mean or don't mean. I for one am not a CPA nor do I pretend to be one. I think everyone here at RFF realizes that film is not the way of the future.😉 In addition it should be evident that anything the RFF members do won't influence the decisions made made by the likes of EK, Fuji, Leica,Nikon, Canon etc.

What it should SHOUT" don't waste time trying to be an armchair quarterback for these companies"!!!!!! GO OUT AND SHOOT FILM WHILE YOU STILL CAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Kodak is has been laying people off and shrinking for longer than I care to remember. As far as film is concerned $17-40 million is peanuts for a company with revenues of about $10 billion annually.

As far as depreciation is concerned the FASB permits changes to depr methods as long as it is consistent and makes sense. Its only impact of course is to reduce annual accrual expense -- the less expense for the year, the more profit showing on the books.

Where is Kodak headed? With $10 billion in annual revenue it would appear that it has products people want. The problem with Kodak in my estimation, like many if not most old companies, is that it needs to enter the 21st century. It must streamline its operations to compete for Wall Street money. It needs to make hard decisions.

Edit: yes I am a CPA.
 
Last edited:
I'm not a corporate executive, but I have done financial analysis at the corporate level. I am trying to look at these numbers in the way that Kodak execs will when they ask the questions: where should we cut? where should we invest?

ALL financial statements are smoke and mirrors to a certain extent, which is why financial analysts like to exclude one-time charges, write downs, etc. to try to get to real operating earnings. Still, the bottom line IS the bottom line. It is used to calculate earnings per share, which can very much affect stock price.

Executive question one: is the film division dragging us down to the point where we should get out the axe? The answer is clearly no. Despite the slowdown in that business, the division has cut costs aggressively, it still has revenue, and is making a profit. Maybe it's just a smoke-and-mirrors profit, but it's still a profit in a company where other divisions can't make ANY kind of profit.

Executive question two: is this an area where we should continue to make capital investments, or even increase our investments? That answer is less clear. The film market has been shrinking and will probably continue to shrink. Is there opportunity to grow the business modestly into niche segments (like fine arts, a la Ilford, or hip-retro, like Lomo)? Maybe, but it's impossible to tell in this economy.

If I were CEO of Kodak, my message to the VP of film would be: keep doing what you're doing. Keep the wheels turning. Watch the market as the economy recovers and look for opportunities to either grow revenue or shrink costs even more. If you smell something out there we'll talk about it, but don't stick your neck out.

Financial analysts are not going to be clamoring for Kodak to axe the film division like they were a few years ago. They're going to be focussed on digital, where the huge losses are. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to hear a few analysts saying that it's wise for Kodak to be diversified across several imaging segments, as protection against economic fluctuations.

And they know I'll shoot myself if they discontinue Tri-X in 120.
 
"Rey, there doesn't seem to be "millions of film users" out there."

I beg to differ, may not tens of millions, but more than a million, unfortunately most film buyers are in the third world, where Kodak and Fuji cannot reap huge profits by selling pro quality film. In Latin America, film is still used extensively, although most is Kodak Gold or Fuji 200, etc.
 
One thing is that film is a consumable. Your film camera eats film. A film company can do huge runs and warehouse it for quite some time. Digital cameras, however, are not a consumable. They're a product... To keep making money, digital camera makers bank on the fact you'll but the latest and greatest every couple years which is why they keep churning out cameras at such a feverish pace - they have to. One problem, thougn, just like you "hang on to your car" in lean times, you'll definitely hang on to your camera and not upgrade to this year's model.

Your film camera, however, will still need that consumable.
|
 
Film, also, does not depreciate as much when it sits in a warehouse like a digital camera does. Picture this scenario - a warehouse full of "hot off the press" Tri-X with a "best if used by" date 3 years from now. No picture a warehouse full of the latest Kodak digicam that nobody ordered. What percent of value did the digital cameras sitting in a warehouse lose in a year? What percent of value did the Tri-X lose after a year?
|
 
If you don't think digital cameras are consumable, you clearly haven't owned any digital cameras over the past few years. Let me count... I've owned 9 digital P&S, and 3 DSLRs... And those guys are not cheap! My parents, who are not camera junkies like me, have owned 5 digital cameras. IMO, people think digital cameras are cheap because they don't use film. I think that is a huge fallacy; for the money they've spent on those cameras they could have bought and piles and piles of film.
 
dfoo said:
If you don't think digital cameras are consumable, you clearly haven't owned any digital cameras over the past few years. Let me count... I've owned 9 digital P&S, and 3 DSLRs... And those guys are not cheap! My parents, who are not camera junkies like me, have owned 5 digital cameras. IMO, people think digital cameras are cheap because they don't use film. I think that is a huge fallacy; for the money they've spent on those cameras they could have bought and piles and piles of film.
Click to expand...

But that's my point - in order to stay in business, digital camera companies have to sell you a new camera every couple years. When times are tough, you'll buy them only if you have to - when one breaks, not because this year's model has 2 more megapixels. Or - you don't really need a camera, you might not by one at all and use a disposable film camera. Digital cameras are not a consumable product like film but they do have an insanely rapid upgrade cycle and really are a pure luxury item.

The digital camera business must be hellacious... highly competitive, and you gotta crank out those cameras, man... and the margins would appear to be shrinking...
|
 
kind of points out the genius in selling them a camera and making money off the film and processing. The costs of supplying the film are far lower than supplying the whole system every few years. Your hit in a slow year vs. a big year is minimal when your main product costs less than an hour's wage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom