Kodak Stock Triples!

Ambro51 said:
I don’t want cheap Advil I want Kodachrome!
Click to expand...

Well, at least you can cure the headache caused by the lack of Kodachrome, knowing the Advil was Made in the USA!

Plus this could take some financial pressure off Kodak in making decisions going froward regarding photographic film. I am concerned that it could impact chemistry if Kodak still produces some key compounds, and they need that capability for pharmaceuticals.
 
Things like this make me long for a country that handles these kind of corporate rich people bailouts with some creativity and imagination. Like: OK, Chrysler, we will bail you out, buy your stock, gain an equity position in your company, and then give the stock to a huge group of disenfranchised people who have historically been excluded from access to any capital. Individuals keep their shares while a new group of shareholders is grown.


But no, the US keeps giving more and more to those who already have.
 
Dan Daniel said:
Things like this make me long for a country that handles these kind of corporate rich people bailouts with some creativity and imagination. Like: OK, Chrysler, we will bail you out, buy your stock, gain an equity position in your company, and then give the stock to a huge group of disenfranchised people who have historically been excluded from access to any capital. Individuals keep their shares while a new group of shareholders is grown.


But no, the US keeps giving more and more to those who already have.
Click to expand...

Lot of Kodak retirees were in a lousy situation after driving the development of film to new limits, at least until today. Of course many of them may have dumped the stock long ago.
 
What puts this in perspective is Kodak is valued at $300 million.
They just received a $750 million loan.

And yes, this is to produce pharmaceuticals in part to fight the pandemic.
 
Don’t think Kodak could ever again be a stable business. To keep film alive they need the movie industry to commit to buy billions of feet of movie film. This small (in comparison to what was 30 years ago) steady sale of movie film will keep film used for still photography available.
Already we see steady and beyond inflation increases in all sizes of film. Fuji has reintroduced Acros 100, but of course the tetail has doubled from the price when discontinued. I’m beginning to think that that $12/roll of film is the real price of profitability in our new film users world.
 
zuiko85 said:
I’m beginning to think that that $12/roll of film is the real price of profitability in our new film users world.
Click to expand...

In 1957 Kodak Tri-X 36xp was $1.15/roll.

Using an inflation calculator that would put it at $10.74 now.
You can buy it for $6.49

Film is not more expensive than it has been. "We" just don't want to pay for it.
 
CameraQuest said:
Odd to see Kodak's execs found happiness producing drugs,
instead of producing anything so old fashioned as film.
Click to expand...

Kodak has always produced chemicals, so this is not out of line. Hopefully this is a move that keeps Kodak alive. If the new venture becomes successful, I could see them spinning off the photographic division at some point (or the pharmaceutical division).
 
Dan Daniel said:
Things like this make me long for a country that handles these kind of corporate rich people bailouts with some creativity and imagination. Like: OK, Chrysler, we will bail you out, buy your stock, gain an equity position in your company, and then give the stock to a huge group of disenfranchised people who have historically been excluded from access to any capital. Individuals keep their shares while a new group of shareholders is grown.


But no, the US keeps giving more and more to those who already have.
Click to expand...
I'm with you, give them stock. Pays no dividend so they'll have to open a trading account to sell the shares and get the money. they got a LOAN to produce drugs to fight virus. How is that a giveaway?
 
Huss said:
In 1957 Kodak Tri-X 36xp was $1.15/roll.

Using an inflation calculator that would put it at $10.74 now.
You can buy it for $6.49

Film is not more expensive than it has been. "We" just don't want to pay for it.
Click to expand...

Ok, here is my experience. In 1969 I bought my first ‘good’ camera, Minolta HiMatic 9. My more experienced friend convinced me bulk loading was the way to go. At that time I got change back from a $10 buying 100 ft. bulk Tri-X. Now the price is $100. Me thinks Kodak knows few are sold and figures, ‘why not’.
Using an online inflation calculator for $10 in 1970 the 2020 price would be $66.
So, at least bulk film has went up faster than inflation. Soon I bought a pair of used Pen F’s and the bulk loading proved handy when I didn’t need 72 exposures.
 
zuiko85 said:
Ok, here is my experience. In 1969 I bought my first ‘good’ camera, Minolta HiMatic 9. My more experienced friend convinced me bulk loading was the way to go. At that time I got change back from a $10 buying 100 ft. bulk Tri-X. Now the price is $100. Me thinks Kodak knows few are sold and figures, ‘why not’.
Using an online inflation calculator for $10 in 1970 the 2020 price would be $66.
So, at least bulk film has went up faster than inflation. Soon I bought a pair of used Pen F’s and the bulk loading proved handy when I didn’t need 72 exposures.
Click to expand...

agreed that Kodak's bulk offerings are no longer a deal.

Arista and Fomopan is almost 50% cheaper and some Ilford is 30% cheaper for 100 ft.
 
Huss said:
agreed that Kodak's bulk offerings are no longer a deal.

Arista and Fomopan is almost 50% cheaper and some Ilford is 30% cheaper for 100 ft.
Click to expand...

And truth is, now I shoot very little so film price is not much an issue. I’m now more likely to be out with either a Minox 8x11, super cheap to do reloads and developing at home. Or bounce the other way with a 6x9 that only gets 8 exposures on a roll. Mostly that format is on a tripod and the essential accessories are cable release and a notebook, very contemplative photography. In my homemade 4x5 photo paper is used for 25 cents per negative not including cost to develop at home but that probably works out to maybe 2 cents a shot.
An Oly EM10 often serves as a spotmeter for the 6x9 and 4x5.
 
Thinking long term, many investment bank research organizations predict a side effect of the SARS-2 pandemic will be increased citizen and government concern about health and medicine. These organization also predict in the decade to come domestic sourcing for pharmaceutical production will become a national priority.

If today's Kodak gets a head start on this trend they could become a leader in domestic pharmaceutical production.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
  • Article Article
The Rise & Fall of the Kodak Empire:Part 2: How the Colossus of Film was broken by a disruptive technology
2
Replies
23
Views
4K
Muggins
Muggins
J
  • Article Article
Film fanatics freak out as Kodak Alaris is sold to venture capitalists! Is Kodak film now an endangered species? As they say, it’s complicated.
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
Retro-Grouch
Retro-Grouch
J
  • Article Article
The Rise & Fall of the Kodak Empire:Part 1: How Kodak came to dominate the photographic industry
Replies
10
Views
3K
rick oleson
rick oleson
J
  • Article Article
What exactly is a point & shoot camera? Glad you asked!The Kodak of 1888 may have been the first, and even Leica got into the act!
Replies
17
Views
1K
Mos6502
Mos6502
J
  • Article Article
What's happening with Photographic Film in 2025? Is this robust niche still growing?
2 3 4
Replies
72
Views
10K
Erik van Straten
Erik van Straten
Back
Top Bottom