Is Kodak at risk?

bmattock said:
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.
Click to expand...

I just took a look at their 10-K for the first time, so I don't think i've been through it before. Any charges are made on an income statement not a balance sheet.

The group had a large decline, but it made money versus losing money in the digital group.

Despite any benefits gain from the change in depreciation, they had a large decline in the film group, but it was still profitable whether you look at it from an accounting standpoint or a cashflow standpoint.

I don't think buying EK at $2.30 is a bad thing. Options go for that. I don't think it's going to go to $0. However, in order to regrow the company to the point of sustained profitability it's going to have to reconcile an declining film group and an unprofitable digital group.
 
chris00nj said:
I don't think buying EK at $2.30 is a bad thing. Options go for that. I don't think it's going to go to $0. However, in order to regrow the company to the point of sustained profitability it's going to have to reconcile an declining film group and an unprofitable digital group.
Click to expand...

I bought a bit higher, didn't quite judge the bottom, but then I wasn't trying to (just hoping I might have). I bought as an investment, long term. I'm a contrarian investor but I buy and hold. Time will tell if my decision was wise or not.
 
bmattock said:
I thought a stock was only a 'penny stock' when it hit the delisting limits on NASDAQ, NYSE, etc?

In any case, you are right about limited downside. And frankly, buying one share of Google would not make me as happy as the equivalent in EK.

Hard to say - but it doesn't matter. I may revisit and buy more, once I've made the rounds of my primary picks (which requires time for me to earn more money to set aside discretionary funds). I'm buying to hold, so what EK does or does not do between now and 2019 doesn't concern me much as long as it stays in business.
Click to expand...

A "penny stock" is generally considered any stock under $5. The allure is that if the stock goes from $2 to $4 you double your money and could happen faster than a stock goes from $50 to $100. However, under normal circumstances, the stock is at $2 for a reason (usually high amounts of debt interest in comparison to their gross profit) and tends to go lower. However, this is NOT a normal time, and overall market fear is pushing stocks down much lower. GE is even at $8!
 
chris00nj said:
A "penny stock" is generally considered any stock under $5.
Click to expand...

Interesting - I really thought it was stocks under a dollar that traded on the 'pinksheets'. I remember reading the 'Penny Stock News' back in the halcyon days before the S&L Crisis, when I thought someday I'd be a gozillionaire.

The allure is that if the stock goes from $2 to $4 you double your money and could happen faster than a stock goes from $50 to $100.
Click to expand...

Well, yes. It seems more likely that a stock would go from $2 to $4 than from $200 to $400 in a short period of time.

However, under normal circumstances, the stock is at $2 for a reason (usually high amounts of debt interest in comparison to their gross profit) and tends to go lower.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is my opinion as well. The market in general tends to value stocks correctly over a long period of time.

However, this is NOT a normal time, and overall market fear is pushing stocks down much lower. GE is even at $8!
Click to expand...

I agree that market fear is driving stock prices like never before. That seems like an opportunity to me. If people want to be driven by fear, I can't stop them - but I can bet against them. I'm an optimist on America. I think we'll be OK. It might end up being a new political and financial landscape, not like it was before, but still OK.
 
One could buy 1,000 shares of a dollar stock, and if it goes up 25 to 30%, take out your originl investment and ride the rest for years or to zero. No different than playing the lottery $20 a week really.
 
If you really want to help any company in the USA, UK, Old Europe, Japan. or OZ-NZ. The single best thing you can do is buy "product" not stock. The problem will be now and for sometime a total lack of earnings due to lack of consumer spending. This is what every "consumer" product company is facing.

Also if you buy product...like film batteries, chemicals, Printers, paper, ink cart's, filters, or any other camera related product you will be helping the cash flow...bottom line earnings. That is what will make it possible for all these companies from Leica to Epson and Kodak to stay afloat. Kodak has been making bad decisions for over 40 years. These problems accumulate and now comes crunch time. Corporate "Bonds" and "commerical paper" are the highest risk fixed income tools around. The entire recovery depends on earnings from consumer spending....not bailing out banks or government spending on programs that will not actually.

Also if you spend or vote with your wallett you will also be the winner in the event the company vanishes. You will have film, chemicals, paper in the freezer for years. So keep buying something every week. Target the level you need and then keep trickling in orders or buy in bulk every month. the key here is steady spending that is comfortable...you are the recovery.

The fact that Kodak killed Kodachrome is not our fault but rather they priced themselves out of the market years ago. And yes I have been working as a investment advisor for over 25 years to many large funds and public groups.
Bad things are excellerating and losing companies like Kodak is again helping the snowball of unemployment and mortgage defaluts, credit card defaluts swell. So support the companies and products you like with your spending it makes a massive difference...for Kodak it is most likely to late.

Best Regards.....Laurance
 
I'd like to see Kodak stick around. I've always liked Tmax film, scrounge all of the Royal 400 110 film they can throw at me, and they are still a presence (albeit a smaller one) here in Rochester. Besides - if they ever shut down, I'd miss the smell of Blix that wafts through my backyard every morning.

- Andy
 
I was reading an article this morning, can't remember where right now, that had EK listed as one of the top 10 companies most likely to fail.

My observation over time is that Kodak is trying to aggressively move into the future while keeping one foot in the past. I think their long range success might depend on some short range pain by letting go of that past completely. At this point, I'm not convinced they have the money to burn in doing that.
 
I don't know where I remember reading it, but the article listed Kodak as one of the top 10 companies to rule the universe. Again, I don't know where I read it, but I'm repeating it here anyway.
 
Robert Lai said:
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.
Click to expand...

I did my homework. The financial statements show Kodak's cash position and debt position. It isn't a matter of lying....it's a matter of being able to read.

Now if for some reason you are claiming those cash/debt positions are false, please provide your proof. If you can't, please stop with the accusitory posts backed by nothing but vacuous opinion.
 
All long hauls end in the cemetery.

bmattock said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Inter-relationships are a bear, I was hearing (rumor of course) that the failure of the Ritz chain, and the $24 million they owe Nikon is a problem for Nikon, and may be related to recent price increases there? Perhaps a stretch?

I wonder if Ritz owes Kodak?

Seem to be more ways to fail than succeed?

May have to resort to "Spanish Pipe Dream" by John Prine.

Regards, John
 
JohnTF said:
I wonder if Ritz owes Kodak?
Click to expand...

http://delawarebankruptcy.foxrothschild.com/tags/ritz-camera-bankruptcy/

$426,530.31.

This is in comparison to what they owe Nikon (26.6 Million), Canon (13.7 Million), and so on. Not really all that much.

What is more likely to hurt is the money owed to smaller companies such as TOCAD, Tamrac, Tamron, and even C.R.I.S. Camera Services, all of which are owed more than Ritz owes Kodak. Those losses are liable to hurt the smaller companies a lot.
 
My impression that the sell-off of GE, like just about every company on wall street, is way over done.
 
dfoo said:
My impression that the sell-off of GE, like just about every company on wall street, is way over done.
Click to expand...

There is still, minimum, $600 billion in basically worthless derivative trash to be unwound. That's only what people are admitting to, and those watchdogs with something of a clue (the folks who called this whole mess four years ago) are targeting the reality to be more than twice that.

GE is a huge player in this market--between that and the impact of the downturn on their other holdings it's not unlikely that their losses will be more than their current market cap. They may not be actually insolvent as Citibank, AIG and others clearly are, but they're not in good shape either.

The sell-off isn't overdone; it has a long way to go. Stocks still haven't fallen to 1993 levels, which is about what they need to hit to undo all the growth that was strictly due to funny money "created" by nominal investment holdings fueled by the various bubbles of the last 15 years.
 
climbing_vine said:
There is still, minimum, $600 billion in basically worthless derivative trash to be unwound. That's only what people are admitting to, and those watchdogs with something of a clue (the folks who called this whole mess four years ago) are targeting the reality to be more than twice that.

GE is a huge player in this market--between that and the impact of the downturn on their other holdings it's not unlikely that their losses will be more than their current market cap. They may not be actually insolvent as Citibank, AIG and others clearly are, but they're not in good shape either.

The sell-off isn't overdone; it has a long way to go. Stocks still haven't fallen to 1993 levels, which is about what they need to hit to undo all the growth that was strictly due to funny money "created" by nominal investment holdings fueled by the various bubbles of the last 15 years.
Click to expand...

I don't know how much more the stock market will fall, but I agree with you that we don't know GE's exposure yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom