Kodak Financial Report August 2019

errr... just a sec...
Are we talking Kodak or Alaris?
I thought film was now produced by Kodak-Alaris that is another company.
 
sanmich said:
errr... just a sec...
Are we talking Kodak or Alaris?
I thought film was now produced by Kodak-Alaris that is another company.
Click to expand...


I've always been confused by the difference between the two.

Is HHPhoto/Skiff on vacation? He usually pops in with an explanation before we get too far afield.
 
css9450 said:
I've always been confused by the difference between the two.

Is HHPhoto/Skiff on vacation? He usually pops in with an explanation before we get too far afield.
Click to expand...


Eastman Kodak makes ALL Kodak branded film. Every last drop of it.


Kodak Alaris sells still film (not motion picture film) made by Eastman Kodak.


Kodak Alaris is not the topic of this thread.


Kodak Alaris is definitely tied into Eastman Kodak however.
 
Phil_F_NM said:
What is 120mm?
Phil Forrest
Click to expand...

My guess is he meant 120 size film. Just a number someone came up with years back. 120 (and 220) film have a vertical limit of the frame size of 600mm (or 6 cm). You see cameras are that use that film that has frame size 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9. There are several others, but those are the most prevalent.

220 film is much the same as 120, but longer (more frames per role) and without paper backing. Far fewer cameras accept 220 and usually they will be marketed towards professionals.

120/220/620 (a mostly proprietary Kodak size from years back) are the film for what most folks call Medium Format. The film is between 135 and larger sheet film (4x5, 5x7, 8x10....), hence the name.

Not sure if that helped, hope it did. Your comment might have been a dig and in which case, in the immortal words of Ms. Emily Litella, never mind.

B2 (;->
 
135, 120, 220, 620, 126...
all are codes for film formats and have nothing to do directly with the film dimensions.
 
Looks like I can't make a sarcastic criticism without having my post deleted. I don't use bad language and I'm not overtly ranting. My last post which was deleted was about 120 film and that I knew what the format number meant but how adding mm to it is irritating. I also brought up recent grammatical errors which have appeared here as well as all over various online forums, news, editorials, etc. Either way, my post was deleted and I didn't even receive a PM as to why. I guess bringing up bad grammar really rubs folks wrong.
Phil Forrest
 
Sorry Phil, I meant to PM and got side tracked. I PM`d you now. I just didn`t think the response to your original post was headed in the right direction. It was getting personal.
 
Phil_F_NM said:
Looks like I can't make a sarcastic criticism without having my post deleted. I don't use bad language and I'm not overtly ranting. My last post which was deleted was about 120 film and that I knew what the format number meant but how adding mm to it is irritating. I also brought up recent grammatical errors which have appeared here as well as all over various online forums, news, editorials, etc. Either way, my post was deleted and I didn't even receive a PM as to why. I guess bringing up bad grammar really rubs folks wrong.
Phil Forrest
Click to expand...
I'll take good taste over good grammar any day.
 
Ted Striker said:
Maybe this thread helped. Buyers moved in and Kodak's stock moved up in today's trading. Only a few percent, but it's a start!

If you REALLY believe in Kodak's future, now is the time to buy their stock.
Click to expand...
I'd actually suggest buying their film, or at least simply promoting its many virtues to others might be more important than buying their stock right now - they apparently hurt for revenue.
 
David Murphy said:
I'd actually suggest buying their film, or at least simply promoting its many virtues to others might be more important than buying their stock right now - they apparently hurt for revenue.
Click to expand...

Actually, Kodak's stock price can affect it's future. Should Kodak fall below $1/share, it will be delisted from the NYSE and then be forced to trade on the pink sheets. The vast majority of Kodak stock is held by institutions and they will not hold pink sheet trading shares. There will be a massive sell off of Kodak stock if they get near the delisting price.

And to think, Kodak was once part of the Dow 30! Now they are more likely to end up on the pink sheets than the Dow 30. The truth is stranger than any fiction.
 
Ted Striker said:
Actually, Kodak's stock price can affect it's future. Should Kodak fall below $1/share, it will be delisted from the NYSE and then be forced to trade on the pink sheets. The vast majority of Kodak stock is held by institutions and they will not hold pink sheet trading shares. There will be a massive sell off of Kodak stock if they get near the delisting price.

And to think, Kodak was once part of the Dow 30! Now they are more likely to end up on the pink sheets than the Dow 30. The truth is stranger than any fiction.
Click to expand...
I am personally a skeptical of the idea that anyone is really better off by allowing businesses to restructure under Chapter 11 as Kodak did. A break up and sell-off of assets may in fact be more efficient and in the long run may be more beneficial to society in terms of created jobs and efficient commerce. In fact, I get the impression that Chapter 11 is actually often now used as a weapon in management-labor relations - against labor. I believe part of the original rationale for it was just the opposite - to save jobs and help workers and communities.

How many companies actually recover well and benefit their employees substantially post-Chapter 11? I'm not sure, but it does not seem like very many, and so far Kodak seems to typify this (as a casual outside observer of economic matters).

Also, BTW, so what if their stock does tank to pink sheet levels? This means it will be harder for Kodak to borrow money from lenders or raise money by issuing new shares. It also means they will need to extract themselves from their problem with desirable products and strong sales. OK, well is that really so bad?

Why should a company having difficulty making money be borrowing money or issuing new shares anyway? The best companies out there are debt free (or nearly so) with free cash flow and many are engaged in share buy-backs.
 
David Murphy said:
I am personally a skeptical of the idea that anyone is really better off by allowing businesses to restructure under Chapter 11 as Kodak did. A break up and sell-off of assets may in fact be more efficient and in the long run may be more beneficial to society in terms of created jobs and efficient commerce. In fact, I get the impression that Chapter 11 is actually used as a weapon in management-labor relations - against labor. I believe part of the original rationale for it was just the opposite - to save jobs.

How many companies actually recover well and benefit their employees substantially post-Chapter 11? I'm not sure, but it does not seem like very many, and so far Kodak seems to typify this (as a casual outside observer of economic matters).
Click to expand...

I share your concerns. Some companies do survive Ch. 11. GM and Chrysler both went bankrupt and survived, as did several airlines. The problem with Kodak is that they have not solved the problem that caused them to go bankrupt the first time. They have been shrinking ever since they emerged from bankruptcy because the core problem remains. Their film business cannot sustain the size company that they are, and so they shrink. Fixed costs are going nowhere and they need more and more revenue sources to cover those costs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom