Is Kodak at risk?

Clearly you cannot read a balance sheet. Kodak has 2.15bio in cash, and 1.3b in debt. On top of that they were profitable last year...
 
Kodak is in danger. However, I also believe that they will survive as an independent corporation. As such, I have purchased Kodak stock. I had been considering it for some time. Last week, believing the bottom of the market for Kodak was near, I purchased. It has gone down even more since then, but I was buying for the long haul. I'll ignore it and see where it sits in ten years - if Kodak is still around, hopefully my investment will have done good things for me.
 
dfoo said:
Kodak has 2.15bio in cash, and 1.3b in debt. On top of that they were profitable last year...
Click to expand...

Add to that they generated almost US$ 1/2 billion in cash for the most recent quarter. They are using that to reduce debt and repurchase stock. Step back and think about a company who believes that it's stock is such a good deal that they are buying it themselves.

I will not quibble with Moody's bond ratings but only say there is some real great yields on lower rated debt.
 
Bob Michaels said:
Add to that they generated almost US$ 1/2 billion in cash for the most recent quarter. They are using that to reduce debt and repurchase stock. Step back and think about a company who believes that it's stock is such a good deal that they are buying it themselves.

I will not quibble with Moody's bond ratings but only say there is some real great yields on lower rated debt.
Click to expand...

Guess who just bought a lot of Kodak stock?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=ae5ayfK67YxY&refer=us
 
Bill, I find your investment in Kodak stock ironic, considering you are always beating the drum that film is dying if not quite dead. Personally, I got burned buying Kodak stock back in '99 when I foolishly took charge of my government IRA account, thinking it was a solid blue chip. Ha ha. It's entirely possible they are ready for a turnaround, and I know they have some industrial divisions that do well. But I would hold off if only because I think Kodak digital cameras still suck. And, these days there are plenty of other cheap stocks out there.....John.
 
I'll quibble with Moody's ratings. They're worse than throwing darts except for the few instances where they have solid, truthful insider information. The present conflagration (banks insolvent, to the score of hundreds of billions of dollars, rated AAA by Moody's and the other agencies to the bitter end) says about all that needs to be said. It's okay to say it out loud Bob. :)
 
sooner said:
Bill, I find your investment in Kodak stock ironic, considering you are always beating the drum that film is dying if not quite dead.
Click to expand...

Kodak is moving rapidly away from being a film company. I don't know if they woke up quickly enough or are moving fast enough, but they are trying.

And I don't 'beat the drum', I report the facts.

Personally, I got burned buying Kodak stock back in '99 when I foolishly took charge of my government IRA account, thinking it was a solid blue chip. Ha ha. It's entirely possible they are ready for a turnaround, and I know they have some industrial divisions that do well. But I would hold off if only because I think Kodak digital cameras still suck.
Click to expand...

I don't think their digital cameras are that great either. But they have a deep wellspring of patents that pay handsome royalties, and they make some awesome image sensors - as used in all the Hasselblads and large-size digital cameras. Nobody can even touch them there. They are still lead the nation in the number of patents filed each year, they've got some incredibly bright and inventive scientists working for them.

And, these days there are plenty of other cheap stocks out there.....John.
Click to expand...

One at a time. I'm also looking at some of them, but have limited discretionary funds to invest. Kodak was step one for me.
 
Moody's has lost virtually all credibility for rating all the bundled subprime mortgage derivatives (CDOs) "AAA". Now they are trying to regain credibility by exposing the names of 15% of the bottom of the list of "at risk" companies.

Once a liar, always a liar.

Do your own homework.
 
sooner said:
Bill, I find your investment in Kodak stock ironic, considering you are always beating the drum that film is dying if not quite dead. Personally, I got burned buying Kodak stock back in '99 when I foolishly took charge of my government IRA account, thinking it was a solid blue chip. Ha ha. It's entirely possible they are ready for a turnaround, and I know they have some industrial divisions that do well. But I would hold off if only because I think Kodak digital cameras still suck. And, these days there are plenty of other cheap stocks out there.....John.
Click to expand...

I'm looking at Ford and my local bank. Kodak has been on my watch list, but I'm not yet convinced they are moving fast enough in the right direction. But 100 shares of EK wouldn't break me.
 
Al Patterson said:
I'm looking at Ford and my local bank. Kodak has been on my watch list, but I'm not yet convinced they are moving fast enough in the right direction. But 100 shares of EK wouldn't break me.
Click to expand...

Yep, we're thinking the same. I went EK before F. It was a coin toss on which one to buy first.
 
bmattock said:
they've got some incredibly bright and inventive scientists working for them
Click to expand...

Bingo. Whether the suits on State Street can translate that into commercial success is another question. Thank God Pickett Wilson isn't one of them. In that case you could wave goodbye to your investment.
 
Kodak is neither great nor going to fail immediately. Film actually keeps them afloat, but it is shrinking.

From their 10-K, before other charges and expenses:
  • Their digital group lost $177 million. In 2006, they lost $206MM
  • Their film group made a profit of $196 million. In '06, they made $316MM.
So their digital group has always sucked, but their moneymaker is dying. Anyone wonder why they put out Ektar 100? Their cameras are geared toward the low end of the market and face a lot of competition whereas they only had a couple competitors in the film production. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see they have a long term strategy problem.

In the short term, they will be okay. Cash flow is key to survival, not income. It sounds confusing unless you know how our accounting system works regarding things like depreciation and impared assets.
 
chris00nj said:
[*] Their digital group lost $177 million. In 2006, they lost $206MM
[*] Their film group made a profit of $196 million. In '06, they made $316MM.
Click to expand...

We've been through this before. Anyone who believes that is not capable of reading a balance sheet. They lost money in film - they made it look like they made money in film by taking a non-GAAP depreciation on their physical plant and other accounting tricks that can't be repeated year on year. The biggest category percentage drop WAS from the film group.

However, believe what you wish, I'm not going to revisit that nonsensical argument with BEMs again. I can read a balance sheet, and that is why I made the investment.
 
Pickett Wilson said:
Unfortunately, Kodak has a history of announcing everything is going great until they pull the plug (B&W paper for one example).
Click to expand...

I think kodak pulling the plug on black and white paper was probably a smart move for both kodak and photographers. Sure, there is a little bit less choice in the market, but it was many people's last choice. There are other companies, notably ilford, that make better paper than kodak. On the other hand, lots of people still use kodak chemistry, color paper, and film. Kodak is in a position where they can't do everything they used to do, so they are focused on doing what they do the best, such as high-end sensors and film. The new Kodak Ektar has just come out in 120, their c41 black and white film is (imho) superior to ilford's, and myself and a number of other people i have talked to have a feeling that you will still be able to get tri-x when you can't get any other film. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if they made at least one more master reel of kodachrome, as it seems that the premature report of its demise has initiated somewhat of a kodachrome renaissance. You can't swing a dead cat around the internet without hitting someone talking about using kodachrome. If kodak drops anything out of their lineup of film and film related products in the next couple years, it will probably be some of their chemistry, or perhaps some of their less popular films.
 
Al Patterson said:
That is correct sir. I've been shooting steam engines at various tourist railroads for 15 years or so.
Click to expand...

The term was also used in a recent episode of 'Psych'. I'm not a fan of the show - in fact, seldom watch TV except for 'House' and the Cartoon Network's Adult Swim, but I happened to catch that one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom