Kodak Stock Dives After Credit Line Is Tapped

robbeiflex said:
Roughly 254.25 million USD for majority control (50% +1 share). Better to buy the trademark and production line that makes Tri-X, the part that we really want! ;)
Click to expand...

Might have to sell of the Sonnar collection for that.

Plus the Star Trek Comic Books.

Maybe we can wait a year and trade the Star Trek comics for it.
 
Kodak's mistake is simple. They didn't stick to their successful model of 1970 to maybe 1990. When 35mm first came out - they wanted to make cameras and film - ulitmately surpassed by Japanese and Germans with superior equipment, but it still used their film.

What does everyone really want? A full frame sensor that works with their existing investment. Kodak had some of the first full-frame sensors, but decided to pursue the model of the 110, disc, and Advantix disasters - let's make and "Easy Share". Of course the Chinese will make it easier, cheaper and faster.

However Kodak's real core in the past was Imaging Science - the physics of photography. They instead should only worry about making sensors, high res, larger size, cheaper, faster, lighter, more sensitive and totally expand that. Forget about making lenses and shutters. If they put the talent they have into basic research, and expand their "disposable/consumable" model from one roll to two years, they will do a lot better.

Given that Leica could resolve their full frame issues, although at a steep price, why not do something to really attack the sensor market.

Unfortunately, I think it's too late in the game now. Sony has their NEX, Oly their 4/3, Nikon and Canon CMOS. Kodak's cameras are only me-too.

They needed to swallow their pride, buy Foveon and develop that into a truly unique, high res product and ulitmately figure out how to coat that on a flexible surface, which is really the core of their business. Then they'd really have something.

Perhaps the CEO's will just cash it out.

For what it's worth, I'll continue to buy their film and hope they wise up.
 
Wouldn't it be great if they spun off film and photo products?
A smaller company might be able to make a go of it.

Chris
 
There's no real reason why a film company should make a successful transition to a digital camera (or sensor) manufacturer, any more than a producer of horseshoes should become a great tyre maker.

The electronics firms had a head start here; I'm surprised that Intel or AMD didn't jump on the sensor bandwagon, but Sony certainly did.

What is amazing is that Kodak has managed to make some great sensors; no-one complains about the quality of the M9 sensor, only the JPEG software which by most accounts is dreadful, so you have to shoot RAW and convert it on the computer. CCD can't compete with CMOS on price though, and I don't know whether Kodak have any CMOS patents or expertise.
 
I work in the Motion Picture trade and Kodak has been discontinuing stocks left right and centre. The real nail in the coffin for Kodak will be the demise of the film labs. Studios will stop making 35mm prints for cinema in 2013 turning to digital instead. This will have an effect on labs no longer developing vast quantities of film/chemistry. Of course there will be directors that still want to shoot on film but that will be a smaller minority.
I hope they do keep on in someway like Ilford did. I like a lot of Kodak stocks and it would be sad to see them go. I shoot with a Bessa-R by the way so not just thinking about motion stocks.
 
It puts a nail in the coffin but it seems Leica is going to have to look elsewhere for the M10 sensor.

There are other companies making film. The holdouts will get by.

I'm not going to say this is the end of Kodak. Just look at Apple in 1997. Left for dead and now it rivals oil companies. But they really need to reinvent themselves in some way. Keeping the film business alive at a loss would simply be out of nostalgia.
 
Calzone said:
GE a DOW component had a record year of profits, paid no taxes, and recieved a $270 billion dollar tax credit.

There's a lot of not paying taxes in the U.S.
Click to expand...

That statement is blatantly wrong. Now I am sure that Calzone did not intentionally set out to deceive people here. He just read a snippet from one NYT article and did not follow up. It is a very complex situation.

More info at the Fortune article: The truth about GE's tax bill.

Or one could digest their actual financial documents such as their Form 10K filed with the SEC.

Yep, Kodak is between a rock and a hard space. I continue to believe there are too many companies making b&w film. There will be some attrition. In the end, the remaining companies will do well.
 
I read this story sometime yesterday (or was it on the weekend) - anyway, I considered posting it here till I read the reason for the credit line issue.

I'm cool with Kodak - everyone else can continue with the chicken little routine - I would opt to by more stock of Kodak right now... "If you liked it at $10, you'll LOVE it at $1.50"

Cheers,
Dave
 
I want to see Kodak continue very much, but I feel the best thing would be for them either to spin off the film division or simply stop making film. The former is by far my favoured outcome, but at least if they stopped making film, then Ilford, Fujifilm etc. should see a huge upturn in sales and maybe revitalize the industry.

All that said, I want to see Kodak turn things around and keep going.
 
"...last Friday reinforced concerns about the viability of the company’s turnaround strategy, which relies on selling inkjet printers..."

People still buy inkjet printers to make photos?

EPS = ($3.95); Closed today at $1.82; Net Income = - 1 billion; YTD = -67.5%
Yeah - I'd say stock up on Tri-X...

toastSliceWhiteBkgd.jpg
 
I partly agree with the article Kodak's main problem is it's public image. Kodak should have sold it's digital stuff under another name, everyone associates Kodak with old style low tech film and not with the newest digital technology. Kodak may have invented digital photography but it was never able to convey this fact to the public. Take Apple for instance Apple did not invent the tablet pc but the public and even judges believe it did, Apple did not invent the smartphone HTC did but everyone believes the Iphone was the first smarthphone. Apple was able to do what Kodak wasn't it appears to be modern innovative and Hip. Kodak is probably a hundred times more innnovative than Apple but nobody would believe it. Had Kodak founded a purely digital company to market (e.g. emagine) it's digital products and hidden all association with Eastman Kodak, Kodak would very likely be in a better position. The Kodak brand would produce film and digital effect for the motion picture industry, and emagine a 100% subsidiary of Kodak would produce sensors and digitalcameras. Emagine would be the hip company that produces the newest and coolest gadgets, that nobody associates with old style film. The Kodak problem is mainly its PR Department and of course its Managers who don't know anything about the public's perception.

Dominik
 
For black and white we have options. I'm just praying we can keep at least one form of Kodacolor alive, if nothing else.
 
The stock won't do me much good. I'd rather have the film. Might be time to fill up the freezer w/ Tri-X.

It's such a popular and legendary film, if Kodak does go under I imagine someone will buy the formula and manufacturing rights and get it going again. You'd be amazed (maybe not) how many people assume it no longer exists anyway.
 
Steve M. said:
The stock won't do me much good. I'd rather have the film. Might be time to fill up the freezer w/ Tri-X.

It's such a popular and legendary film, if Kodak does go under I imagine someone will buy the formula and manufacturing rights and get it going again. You'd be amazed (maybe not) how many people assume it no longer exists anyway.
Click to expand...
Dear Steve,

Unfortunately, it's not that easy. Ask anyone who has moved a film line (Ilford, Kodak), let alone anyone who has tried to resurrect an old film (Efke/Agfa). Film coating is a bit like brewing: far more site-specific than you might think, and dependent on the art and craft of the head brewer. On a running emulsion works and coating line, there's a body of shared, informal knowledge that is passed on to new recruits. Break up the team and you have to re-create that.

Cheers,

R.
 
I'd say start buying Tri-X if that is your thing. I'd bet there is plenty of stock held by those who don't give a hoot about anything but profit. No matter how many of us here buy stock we won't be heard. Just a drop in the ocean.

The only real hope seems to be a spin-off, or something like Ilford pulled off. But the digital movie theaters have done film in- that and a public who doesn't care about paying $8.50 to watch a glorified projection TV in an uncomfortable seat...
 
Kodak shares hit a 38 year low, the lowest since 1971. This doesn't bode too well. Kodak compounded the problem by not making a public statement. The market likes transparency. Being tight lipped about borrowing isn't transparency.
 
Kodak just needs to revamp itself. I think their wounds maybe self inflected. I really wonder what is going on when a company has to sell something in the millions to turn a profit. I think they have to many things going on. If i had a film company I would be happy with just selling to the members here.
I think they need fresh people at the top with fresh ideas. They need to do what the car companies done and cut back, reinvent something that sells and reach out with some cool advertising.
I just hope they don't turn into another Sears or Kmart kind of company.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom