Kodak profit rises

[Juergen Sattler]

Kodak's latest figures. Everyone can draw their own conclusions.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-Earns-Eastman-Kodak.html?ex=1202360400&en=04c568d2d4ab888f&ei=5070&emc=eta1

Juergen

[Brian Ellis]

Wow. A 15% drop in revenues from film and paper sales. That's scary, considering that it comes on top of drops every year since the mid-1990s. I was hoping sales of traditional materials would level off at some point but apparently that hasn't yet happened for Kodak. Of course the article is talking about a decline in revenues which is different from profits. I have to think that the profits on film and paper are pretty good. Still, if this kind of decline keeps up there's bound to come a point where staying in the business just isn't worth it for a company Kodak's size.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Good for Kodak, I hope they continue to improve and their profits get stronger. A solid Kodak is good for the industry in my opinion. And, I hope they continue to grow their digital business.

Also, I am not surprised that analog products continues to decline. I wonder if the overall analog market has started to settle down and Kodaks revenue decline is due to people moving their business over to competitors such as Ilford, or if the analog market continues to decline overall. Not sure, but I am not surprised by this part of Kodaks business. As Brian mentioned, I am sure it is profitable for them.

I do find hope in that Kodak is rolling out "improved" film products, so it appears they continue to have some interest in this business segment.

Overall, I hope Kodak continues to improve and get stronger as a company.

[Gordon Moat]

I doubt if Ilford makes much of any dent in Kodak revenues. However, Fujifilm is the place to look. Apparently, after the demise of AGFA Photo, Fujifilm made out better in minilab replacements than Kodak, thus gaining some more market share.

A dig through the greater numbers in the SEC report indicates that traditional products are more profitable than in the past. This could be due to the streamlining and layoffs, or other efficiencies.

A weak US dollar can help export sales, but hurt them in any supplies from outside the US. You also have to look at global travel, since that is a huge part of one-time-use camera sales, still the greatest volume traditional product.

Also, when articles mention digital and Kodak, they are often lumping in commercial printing and graphic arts industry revenues. While that section is largely electronic (digital), it should not be viewed the same as sales to the public. Kodak also reduced the number of consumer digital cameras they produce, yet increased imaging chip sales to other companies, which seems to be another source of better profits.

More and more, Kodak is becoming a company that sells to other companies, and less of a consumer oriented company. This, I think, is better for the long term health of Kodak. Unfortunately, they have done nothing to change the perception of them being a consumer imaging company, which to me seems baffling . . . probably why the stock has tanked . . . though might be a good time to buy into it.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[Gerry Harrison]

We live in very interesting times, where like technology transitions like Kodak are very fast. Kodak will drop most films, then all.. and sooner than you think ... the only bright light I can see is a good inkjet printer make come of this. We all seem to use these right know anyway.

[Gordon Moat]

Why would they drop something that gets a higher profit than any other product they produce? Those revenues are still quite high, even if they are no longer at the all time level of 1988. Can you imagine how ecstatic Fujifilm would be if Kodak stopped film production entirely . . . quite simply this is just not imaginable.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[Gerry Harrison]

Hello Gordon,

Did you read the same New York Times article i did?

Gerry

[Vaughn]

If a company stops making, or reduces the range of, products, it is no wonder why revenue decreases from that particular range of products.

Vaughn

[matthew blais]

If a company stops making, or reduces the range of, products, it is no wonder why revenue decreases from that particular range of products.

Vaughn

ditto...

[Gordon Moat]

Hello Gordon,

Did you read the same New York Times article i did?

Gerry

Yes Gerry. However, when I read financial information, I go to the actual numbers in the SEC report required by law from Kodak. There you will find the numbers that the Times writer used for his article and opinions.

Ciao!

Gordon

[Gerry Harrison]

SincE Kodak share

[Gerry Harrison]

Since Kodak share

[Gerry Harrison]

Since Kodak shares are low who here would buy them if possible?

[Gerry Harrison]

Sorry about the repeats..have just converted to Mac from PC. I'm on a learning curve.

Gerry

[Stephen Willard]

Welcome to the Mac world fold Gerry. I have used both systems in an R&D setting extensively and find the Mac to be a much better platform.

[Gordon Moat]

Since Kodak shares are low who here would buy them if possible?

You tell me. I suppose if people buy on the rumor, then sell on the news, then stocks are only attractive when the share price is high. Those who buy low to sell high later would need to decide whether they think EK is at a low point, and if EK can improve in the future. EK is now the world's largest supplier to the printing and graphic arts industries; many of the charge-offs of the last few years, and their lack of profits, is because they were buying into many technologies and companies. Anyway, reading the forward looking statement in the latest SEC report, and then people need to decide on their own. Remember that everytime you see indications of shares selling at a low price, someone has to be buying those shares . . . wonder who that might be . . . . .

Disclosure: I don't own any EK, nor does anyone in my family.

[Jerry Flynn]

Vaughn and Matthew,

You have a point that there is no revenue from products you no longer produce.

Is your point that if Kodak started making paper again and introduced more film, snapshooters would all drop their digital cameras and start buying film again? And that production houses would go back to requsting images on film from professionals? Or that brides and grooms would want books of proofs rather than CD ROMs?

I love analog. I still shoot film and will do so as long as I can. Although I am a computer professional, I do not use Photoshop much at this time.

But Kodak has to return earnings to its shareholders and they cannot do that by embracing dying technology and cannot, try as they might, turn back the digital tide.

[Vaughn]

Jerry...no. just that the fact that when throwing stats around and one has to figure what were the causes, one should look at all the possible causes.

I personally do not look at analog as a "dying" technology, there is obviously still a market and profits do be made...as long as it is possible to manufacture at the proper scale for the market.

Vaughn

[Sylvester Graham]

Can someone remind me where Kodak is positioned in the sensor business? I heard somewhere that Kodak makes virtually all of the sensors in consumer digital cameras, but I of course am only vaguely remembering this.

[Gordon Moat]

Kodak and Sony are the two largest producers of imaging sensors in the market. However, they are far from being the only producers, and will soon have competition from a new facility being built by Panasonic.

[gr82bart]

If a company stops making, or reduces the range of, products, it is no wonder why revenue decreases from that particular range of products.It's a good thing you teach photography and not business. It's that kind of simplicity that's running the US right now.

Regards, Art.

[Photojeep]

It's a good thing you teach photography and not business. It's that kind of simplicity that's running the US right now.

Regards, Art.

Huh? :confused:

[kay tokugo]

I happen to think Kodak shares are worth looking at. I wouldn't buy it now while this subprime thing is going on. I'd also wait until the company has finished restructuring.
If Kodak does manage to sell anywhere near 2 million consumer inkjets, then it should be a winner. The time to look is after its second quarter results.

Their film division didn't do too badly...it still had sales of well over $2 billion. Do you think they are going to just give up on film and give all that revenue to Fujifilm? Not a chance. Ilford can only dream about that kind of sales.

I used about 1000 sheets of Kodak large format film this year so I would love to invest in a company whose products I love. I loved Apple computers since 1984. I bought Apple shares when everyone said it was no good, in the mid $20's. When the first iPod came out I bought one and thought it was the coolest thing around. I use gas for my car so I bought shares of Imperial oil. I like to put my money on stocks of companies whose products I use on a daily basis.

I wouldn't count out Kodak. People will always want photographs and Kodak will lead the way again. When I make portraits and landscapes, my customers always ask what kind of film I use...I always say Kodak. They ask why, and I reply because it's the best.

Kay