View Full Version : Kodak 45% chance going down?
Lenny Eiger
11-Mar-2009, 14:35
Don't know if this has been discussed here or not. Just saw this....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/mar/10/moodys-insolvency-list
Moody's list of 283 companies in trouble includes Kodak.
What do you all think?
Lenny
What do you all think?
Lenny
I think Moody's is full of sh*t. :) If their financial research and analysis services are so hot how come they totally missed the boat on the subprime mortgage mess? It looks more like a piece of crappy advertising for Moody's services and since so much of financial stability is based on confidence--I think it's also highly irresponsible because of the potential to be self-fulfilling.
Kodak stays.
Jeffrey Sipress
11-Mar-2009, 14:53
What criteria is used to calculate the 45%
Bruce Watson
11-Mar-2009, 15:28
Don't know if this has been discussed here or not. Just saw this....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/mar/10/moodys-insolvency-list
Moody's list of 283 companies in trouble includes Kodak.
What do you all think?
Lenny
Moody's hasn't done its credibility much good lately. Their predictions have been less then stellar of late, and finance is a "what have you done for me lately" kind of place. I find them less creditable than I have in the past.
That said, just about every company is worse off now then it was a year ago. Only the extremely conservative continue to perform well, and these companies were way out of favor just a year ago because they were so extremely conservative. I'm just saying that it's easy to predict a company is in trouble when so many actually are. So they made a list. So can anyone. And they probably will.
It really comes down to how well management can play the finance game in difficult times. There's no way Moody's or anyone else can predict this accurately, because it's been so long since we've seen times this difficult that most corporations' management teams are basically untried. They have no record in these conditions and therefore have no record to use to make anything like an accurate prediction.
I'm not too worried about Kodak. They are a big diversified company and one of the few who has experience living in tough times. This decade has not been good for Kodak. The current crisis is just a little worse for them, but it's not like they haven't seen this stuff before. I suspect they understand this kind of environment somewhat better than most, and they had made most of the needed corrections long before Lehman Bros.' criminal misconduct came to light in the form of their collapse.
So what I think is that weather conditions should be about right tomorrow for me to take another pass at a particular set of rocks and trees that I've been trying to photograph for the last, what? seven years? (It's not that bad, it's just that it only looks right to me in the middle of March for some reason) I know there's a photograph there but it always seems to elude me. Not this time! Conditions are right, I've got 20 sheets of TMY-2 in my holders and all tomorrow afternoon to work.
Maybe if I use enough TMY-2 I can keep Kodak afloat single-handedly. Or maybe I've got a hell of a fantasy life. ;)
Charles Carstensen
11-Mar-2009, 16:31
Kodak is in deep trouble, the stock is in the tank. "Eastman Kodak Co.'s (EK) shares tumbled 8.6%. Standard & Poor's Rating Services lowered Eastman Kodak's corporate credit rating to B- from B. (Marketwatch)"
It sells for $2.01 today. It's fundamentals absolutely suck. Kodak is at the bottom of it's industry group. Do not be surprised if it fails this year. I think Moody's is on target if you are an investor.
pkphotog
11-Mar-2009, 16:33
Kodak's response:
Kodak, a newcomer to the Bottom Rung, immediately disputed its inclusion.
"Any speculation, however informed, suggesting that Kodak is less than financially sound is irresponsible," said David Lanzillo, a spokesman for one of Rochester's largest employers. "Kodak is financially solid, and we are taking the right actions to ensure that we remain a strong and enduring competitor."
Lanzillo said Kodak ended 2008 with more than $2.1 billion in cash, a debt balance of $1.3 billion and no significant debt payments likely until late 2010.
In early February, the company told investors it expected to end 2009 with more than $1.7 billion in cash.
"We also told investors that in 2009 we will be a smaller, more profitable company, we will continue to maintain or grow market share in our most profitable digital businesses, and we will enter 2010 as a much stronger competitor," Lanzillo said.
Mark Sampson
11-Mar-2009, 17:30
Gloom, defeat, and despair always sells. Now more than ever. Moody's is just trying to make a big buck out of it. If they publicize someone else's troubles it's easier for them to hide their own greed and incompetence; just like JD Power's main deal is to promote themselves and raise the price on their 'ratings'.
only 283 companies ? yea ok. 284 I guess, since a few weeks ago, the company next door now has an empty parking lot.
Frank Petronio
11-Mar-2009, 18:04
The news media should share the blame for this recession along with the banks and government. For years now they've been crying "recession" and "depressing numbers", using every chance they could get to report the slightest negative numbers. Since our stock market and the whole basis of our economy is based on confidence and trust, then our overly dramatic, so-called "journalists" have really done a number on us -- all because they wanted to sell a few more papers and a few bored a-holes -- err... "reporters" -- spun things negatively whenever possible.
I don't think there should be censorship but people need to stop glooming onto these reports like they are gospel when they are really bullshit. If I believed everything that the popular media reports then I might as well shoot myself right now.
Our economy, this recession, is no worse than it was circa 1983 but if I read the papers then we should have famine, riots, and fascist dictators coming next week....
Brian Ellis
11-Mar-2009, 18:09
I think I could put a list of every company on the NYSE, AMEX, and NASDAQ up on the wall, throw 243 darts, and predict about as well. I have no faith whatsoever in S&P or Moody's after it turned out they were rating mortgage backed securites and derivatives they didn't even understand.
Kodak's response:
Kodak, a newcomer to the Bottom Rung, immediately disputed its inclusion.
"Any speculation, however informed, suggesting that Kodak is less than financially sound is irresponsible," said David Lanzillo, a spokesman for one of Rochester's largest employers. "Kodak is financially solid, and we are taking the right actions to ensure that we remain a strong and enduring competitor."
Lanzillo said Kodak ended 2008 with more than $2.1 billion in cash, a debt balance of $1.3 billion and no significant debt payments likely until late 2010.
In early February, the company told investors it expected to end 2009 with more than $1.7 billion in cash.
"We also told investors that in 2009 we will be a smaller, more profitable company, we will continue to maintain or grow market share in our most profitable digital businesses, and we will enter 2010 as a much stronger competitor," Lanzillo said.
ID buy it. When every jackass is a seller you MUST BUY BUY BUY!!!
mandoman7
11-Mar-2009, 20:08
I was getting into photography in the 80's when Kodak was cutting back on a lot of products for b/w. Only when the imports showed them that how to serve that market did they come forth with products for people like us. Papers like Oriental and Forte, for example.
I going by my experience (OK?), but they didn't appear to support the average working photographer, even though he may be buying thousands of dollars of product per year. They were running constant ads telling people they didn't need a pro and could take pictures themselves, for one. A trend that persists, although I'm sensing that people are tiring of the do-it-yourself look.
I think there are other examples where manufacturers work with the producers of the product more sympathetically. I'm sure other people will have different opinions. When I shot my first roles of Kodachrome I couldn't believe how beautiful they were, and pretty inexpensive. We called them "the Yellow Father", and read their pamphlets as gospel.
Having just gotten a Chamonix, and being impressed with the design and execution, though, I would guess that any shortage of film availability here would be followed quickly with chinese film, or another asian country perhaps.
JY
....then our overly dramatic, so-called "journalists" have really done a number on us -- all because they wanted to sell a few more papers and a few bored a-holes -- err... "reporters" -- spun things negatively whenever possible.
......and fascist dictators coming next week....
interesting. in Mynamar the newspapers is NOT allowed to report domestic "bad" news! ......and they are a military dictatorship.....go figure.
I going by my experience (OK?), but they didn't appear to support the average working photographer, even though he may be buying thousands of dollars of product per year. They were running constant ads telling people they didn't need a pro and could take pictures themselves, for one. A trend that persists, although I'm sensing that people are tiring of the do-it-yourself look.
Kodak never has been a company which focused on professional products. Eastman invented neither the dry plate nor film - most relevant patents which he held were bought. His one true invention was tie-in catering for Joe Average with a all-inclusive-solution from camera over film to lab and prints. You push the button, we do the rest...
Sevo
evan clarke
12-Mar-2009, 07:09
The global economic problem is bigger than 283 companies. Consumer debt, corporate debt and government debt are sinking us and all the world governments think the solution is to move debt around,create some more and con the public into borrowing...Evan Clarke
neil poulsen
12-Mar-2009, 08:08
If I may suggest, let's stick to Kodak and photography and not let this thread go political.
mandoman7
12-Mar-2009, 08:08
Kodak never has been a company which focused on professional products. Eastman invented neither the dry plate nor film - most relevant patents which he held were bought. His one true invention was tie-in catering for Joe Average with a all-inclusive-solution from camera over film to lab and prints. You push the button, we do the rest...
Sevo
We agree. They have a limited concern about filling the needs of professionals or serious hobbyists.
JY
W K Longcor
12-Mar-2009, 08:34
The news media should share the blame for this recession along with the banks and government. For years now they've been crying "recession" and "depressing numbers", using every chance they could get to report the slightest negative numbers. Since our stock market and the whole basis of our economy is based on confidence and trust, then our overly dramatic, so-called "journalists" have really done a number on us -- all because they wanted to sell a few more papers and a few bored a-holes -- err... "reporters" -- spun things negatively whenever possible.
I don't think there should be censorship but people need to stop glooming onto these reports like they are gospel when they are really bullshit. If I believed everything that the popular media reports then I might as well shoot myself right now.
Our economy, this recession, is no worse than it was circa 1983 but if I read the papers then we should have famine, riots, and fascist dictators coming next week....
Frank -- You are SO right! A couple of weeks ago, Jay Leno had a good laugh (but, it wasn't so funny, really) over a news reporter who practically pushed a woman corporate public relations person off camera as she was telling how good things were for her corporation. This past Sunday morning on CBS -- Ben Stein ( who SOMETIMES irks me) was very correct in saying that what this country needs is more "Cheerleaders" pointing out that 90% of us have jobs - pay our bills and our mortgages and live a pretty good life. Reporting doom and gloom will become a self fulfilling Prophecy. --- Getting back to the original thread -- lets all go out and buy film and other supplies from Kodak. Then they will stay in business and be here when we need them. For that matter -- go out and shop at all your small local stores and keep America in business ( forget the big box stores who import all their inventory) -- (this coming from the owner of a small - local retail store.:D
For that matter -- go out and shop at all your small local stores and keep America in business ( forget the big box stores who import all their inventory)
i am in....doing my part!
from a "mom and pop shop" employee.....
Getting back to the original thread -- lets all go out and buy film and other supplies from Kodak. Then they will stay in business and be here when we need them. For that matter -- go out and shop at all your small local stores and keep America in business ( forget the big box stores who import all their inventory) -- (this coming from the owner of a small - local retail store.:D
Why?
Kodak, as well as all the other businesses, large and small, have one goal in mind and that's not my benefit, it's their profit. That's why it's called business. Ergo, my interests do not coincide with theirs, they simply intersect at some point, that usually but not necessarily and not only being the price point.
Kodak film - and I'm talking about b&w only - costs some 20% more than Ilford. Provided that they offer the same level of quality, I see no reason to buy the more expensive product.
As for the local stores, everything I buy locally automatically costs me 10% in gas and sales tax compared to ordering online. And that's if the prices were same, which they are not, so the same logic applies as above.
Gordon Moat
12-Mar-2009, 15:48
Anyone who thinks Kodak (EK) is in trouble, might consider buying Fujifilm (FUJI), their largest direct competitor. However, when one looks at the share prices, this is not an obvious conclusion. Fujifilm (FUJI) are not thriving on bad news at Kodak (EK). I am including a chart from a recent Fitch report on EK, and it is easy to see they are bleeding from digital imaging, their printing arm is down, and film products only holding on (though still profitable).
Like any big company, Kodak needs to borrow money for continued operations. When Moody's, S&P, or Fitch reduce ratings or warn about a company, then the cost of borrowing money increases. So in this situation it costs Kodak (EK) more to do business, which means reduced profits in the future, unless they find more ways to reduce costs, or to increase revenues and profit margins.
Disclosure: I do not own EK nor FUJI
mrladewig
12-Mar-2009, 16:04
Well, I'm hoping that Kodak keeps it going and I believe they will. My primary choice in E-6 film is Kodak's E100G and E100GX. I can live with Fuji, but I prefer these.
Kodak has been playing the game both ways for a long time. On one hand they've been telling Joe Snappy that he can get great results with Kodak film and on the other hand, they've had a professional line of products, specialty films and their higher tier Q-labs catering to the professional market. I don't have a problem with that. They've been making good quality films and they are a business trying to make a profit. Unfortunately Joe Snappy found that he can get good snapshots from a digital point and shoot and Kodak's constant revenue stream went over a cliff.
Wayne Crider
12-Mar-2009, 19:54
It's nice to know that there are others besides myself that aren't out there boo-hooing everything about the economy. I just wish that the news agencies would report both sides of the story and not just what is sensational. It's so easy to think negatively economic problems or not. What we need to hear is the 90% good news about people working and not the evil "we're all doomed" crap that the journalist world seems to want to give us. I know alot of people lost money in the market and are interested in saving whatever they can to offset the losses, but a couple three years down the road things will change. It always does. Kodaks problems, if any, and besides the news comments, are oft times heralded by a minority of those that have been upset by the changes that have transformed the industry, and lets face it, it's a slim profit margin industry nowadays and you have to sell a shit load to keep up research. Not like the good ole days of film only. Personally I think digital kicked the industry into life. It may not bode well for film and chemicals eventually but they couldn't be left behind. You either lead or get out of the way. So all this will play out and I think it's getting close to time to make some investments. Till then go out to dinner, buy some film or supplies and give to charities.
Merg Ross
12-Mar-2009, 21:21
My comment is not about the future or demise of Kodak. Rather, it is to dispel earlier remarks about EK's concern for the professional photographer.
Perhaps my perception is different from some, due to a longer association with professional photography. However, in this country, when my father was doing advertising photography during the late 1930's into the 1950's, Kodak was the preeminent supplier of photographic materials. Their quality control, research, and concern for the professional was unsurpassed. They provided lenses, cameras, film holders, film, chemicals, and a myriad of related products that are still in fashion.
When I hung out my commercial photography shingle forty years ago, I used many of the aforementioned Kodak products. They were not always the best available, but from the standpoint of a professional, it was a name with a product that you could rely on for quality control and support.
I realize, this thread is about a different look at Kodak, and I offer no defense for their present stature in the marketplace. I did want to give credit where due, and in times past, Kodak served the professional photographer admirably.
Jim Galli
12-Mar-2009, 21:35
When I came on the scene just 11 years ago with responsibilities to spend a large concern's dollars for film product Kodak still had an army of people at the other end of the phone lines to do anything they could to help me. It was an impressive support organization even then. Things began to slip almost immediately after that time though. I guess I got in at the tail end of the tail end. I wish them well.
pkphotog
12-Mar-2009, 22:12
I have used Kodak films for 25 years and not once did I have a bad sheet of film. Not one. Fuji is the only other maker that is in the same class. Kodak's quality control is the best, in my opinion, and I will continue to buy their film until I can't physically photograph any more.
In Vancouver the price of Kodak and Ilford are about the same ($60 Cdn /50 sheets 4x5) so I always stock up with Kodak.
Ivan J. Eberle
12-Mar-2009, 22:42
Kodak may have believed in their own infallibility once, along before about 1990. Then through a series of blunders they lost what had been nearly a natural monopoly. It was nothing short of astonishing how they churned through perfectly good emulsion technology, only to snatch it away as soon as they began to get a loyal following if it didn't turn out to be a blockbuster. (Anyone remember Supra print film? Tremendous emulsion they extincted for no discernible reason. I lost track at one point of what their latest pro E6 emulsions were named.)
If they're to last in the photo business they might need to proceed in the boutique direction Apple took in the late 80's and 90's. The high-volume low-margin open-source WinTel hardware juggernaut left Apple at the gate, yet they nevertheless kept clicking along on life-support with a more comfortable profit margin and gross revenue in the single billions.
Mere survival is nothing to be ashamed of as a business model right now-- even if it's not an investor's wet-dream.
Gordon Moat
12-Mar-2009, 23:08
It's nice to know that there are others besides myself that aren't out there boo-hooing everything about the economy. . . . . . . .
While not entirely related, I thought about this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoGYx35ypus
We really do live in interesting times, and things are quite good most of the time.
Gene McCluney
13-Mar-2009, 05:59
In the USA at least, Kodak has been the ONLY full-line supplier of photographic materials. Everything you need (until recently). For every snap-shot taken by an amateur, there needs to be a full service lab to develop and print, and Kodak made everything for that lab, including all the equipment, supplies, etc.
Even now, Kodak and Fuji are the ONLY full-line film vendors, providing b/w, color neg, and color transparency film. There are no other full-line vendors.
I don't think the average photographer is aware of the full extent of Kodaks commercial and industrial catalog. While I can't speak for today, right now in March 2009, over the 35 years I have worked in photography, Kodak has offered thousands of products that are aimed at professional studios and labs, including huge printers and processors you would never encounter if you are just a user of Kodak film and paper.
I'll bet there isn't a darkroom that has been operating for 20 years that doesn't have some Kodak hardware. Items such as graduates, sheet-film hangers, sheet film developing tanks, safelights, tongs, trays, cubetainers, etc.
Robert Budding
13-Mar-2009, 06:30
Kodak's film business is profitable. It requires very little R&D and the production lines are mostly depreciated. It's the digital business that's pulling the company down.
Rakesh Malik
13-Mar-2009, 10:06
Kodak is in deep trouble, the stock is in the tank. "Eastman Kodak Co.'s (EK) shares tumbled 8.6%. Standard & Poor's Rating Services lowered Eastman Kodak's corporate credit rating to B- from B. (Marketwatch)"
A company's stock rarely has anything to do with how well it's doing. I've seen Intel's stock drop because Intel showed a smaller profit margin than usual (only 58% rather than the usual 60%) because of an industry downturn, for example... they were still spending billions on R&D and capex, earning bilions in profit, but their stock continued to trend downward... was Intel unhealthy? Is it now? I'd say no; the company is still profitable, and I suspect that the layoffs have more to do with appeasing the shareholders than not being profitable based on the fact that the company is still profitable, but there you go.
The stock price more often than not reflects what the media thinks will sell newspapers and such, rather than reality, IMO.
I'm not saying that Kodak is as healthy as Intel, only that the stock price isn't a good indicator one way or another, most of the time...
Ivan J. Eberle
16-Mar-2009, 12:27
Stock chart? Sheesh, I thought that was my histogram!
So much for "nice shoulders without blowing the highlight".
Kodak's film business is profitable. It requires very little R&D and the production lines are mostly depreciated. It's the digital business that's pulling the company down.
thats exactly what I see. Film costs very close to nothing to make and their fabrication equipment is depreciated and probably sitting at a value close to 0 on the books.
look at how much money they have thrown into digital technology its sad.
I just wish they would bring back E64X, E64 and LPP.
Anthony Lewis
17-Mar-2009, 01:11
The news media should share the blame for this recession along with the banks and government. For years now they've been crying "recession" and "depressing numbers", using every chance they could get to report the slightest negative numbers. Since our stock market and the whole basis of our economy is based on confidence and trust, then our overly dramatic, so-called "journalists" have really done a number on us -- all because they wanted to sell a few more papers and a few bored a-holes -- err... "reporters" -- spun things negatively whenever possible.
I don't think there should be censorship but people need to stop glooming onto these reports like they are gospel when they are really bullshit. If I believed everything that the popular media reports then I might as well shoot myself right now.
Our economy, this recession, is no worse than it was circa 1983 but if I read the papers then we should have famine, riots, and fascist dictators coming next week....
To blame this recession on the media is more than a bit rich and just plain ignorant. Basically it was triggered by the sub prime lending practices in the States, where huge numbers of people were lent over 100% on value of the houses and to people who had no chance of repaying these loans.
Because the States is such a huge market it has enveloped the whole world. Many countries including Australia where I live, had very sound and expanding economies -(where it is impossible to be lent more then 90% value of your house). Because of irresponsible lending practices to thousands in the States, the world is now suffering.
Come on Frank, just use a few brains before you make a post - what you write is nothing but bulls---t - blaming everything on the media! Kodak's problems are a result of a real global recession - not a media beat up.
"we should have famine, riots, and fascist dictators coming next week...." Please Frank, quote a news outlet in the world that is saying these things. Frank you are suffering from exactly the form of exaggeration that you accuse the media of!
When there are major financial institutions in the world collapsing then it would be incredibly irresponsible for the media not to report this - that is the role of the media, Frank. Please just be sensible and face up to the fact that there is a real recession and it was not caused by the media. If you face up to reality then you can understand the real reasons why Kodak may be having trouble!
Robert Budding
18-Mar-2009, 08:51
"Because the States is such a huge market it has enveloped the whole world. Many countries including Australia where I live, had very sound and expanding economies -(where it is impossible to be lent more then 90% value of your house). Because of irresponsible lending practices to thousands in the States, the world is now suffering."
There were asset bubbles in many parts of the world - UK housing was even crazier than in the US. But it is, of course, a much smaller market. And the problems are not simply with lending. It also involves credit default swaps and other 'financial innovations' - and a complete lack of regulation and oversight.
Lenny Eiger
18-Mar-2009, 09:16
Because of irresponsible lending practices to thousands in the States, the world is now suffering."
There were asset bubbles in many parts of the world - UK housing was even crazier than in the US. But it is, of course, a much smaller market. And the problems are not simply with lending. It also involves credit default swaps and other 'financial innovations' - and a complete lack of regulation and oversight.
I don't know why I'm getting into this.... A lot of folks, some talk show hosts, have maligned the people who borrowed more than they could afford. This is pure, unadulterated bull. The problem is that banks leveraged these loans 30 times out. I have one of these mortgages. The truth is, the economy is pretty bad. I have much less money than when I purchased my house, my expenses on everything from gas to milk to film are up. If one buys a house, then loses one's job, it isn't the fault of someone who borrowed for something they couldn't afford. This is all on the banks. It's not about predatory lending, its about leveraging out investments and watching the economy go south...
I think the interdependency of the world is actually a good thing. The more we depend on each other, the more likely is it that we will evolve to being civil and getting along... I wouldn't mind if Australians, who do have a stake in this, insisted that American banks pursue proper avenues of making a living - we need the help.
Lenny
Charles Carstensen
18-Mar-2009, 11:40
How did this thread evolve into derivatives? Incidentally, this economic mess is a worldwide problem from day one. Dart tossing is a parlor game.
George Kara
25-Mar-2009, 19:08
[
Our economy, this recession, is no worse than it was circa 1983 but if I read the papers then we should have famine, riots, and fascist dictators coming next week....[/QUOTE]
Respectfully Frank, I disagree. A great amount of earnings has been siphoned off by the management teams of public companies. The disclosure has been limited and justified via "trade secrets".
Dirty little secrets, like total compensation to management need to become fully and completely transparent.
Personally I have become an economic atheist. With my clients I suggest investing in enterprises close to home.
The stock market has little credibility. I am all for a world currency. Maybe if money becomes more expensive in the US, we will once again rebuild our manufacturing and industrial infrastructure. The outsourcing and Walmart style of supporting our borrowed lifestyle should be reconsidered. :)
Wallace_Billingham
26-Mar-2009, 11:53
[
Respectfully Frank, I disagree. A great amount of earnings has been siphoned off by the management teams of public companies. The disclosure has been limited and justified via "trade secrets".
and was that not also the case in 1983?
Since the dawn of humanity people have wanted to make money and people have wanted to spend money (or sheep, rocks, fire, gold, etc)
As long as people are willing to buy something someone will sell it to them. If one seller goes away another will take it's place as long as their is still a market for what they sell.
Kodak could die tomorrow and never sell another sheet or roll of film and that would only make Fuji, Ilford, Efke, etc stronger, or someone else will start marking film in someplace like China, or India.
I used to love to shoot Kodak HIE, but since I can't buy that anymore I love to shoot with Efke IR820 now to feed my Infrared habits. Efke IR820 was around even with Kodak selling HIE but my guess is that they have seen an increase in sales over the last year.
If Kodak were to stop selling Tri-X which is another film that I love, I would just shoot more HP5. I am sure that would make the fine folks at Ilford very happy.
Charles Carstensen
26-Mar-2009, 12:56
You guys keep talking about Kodak and film. Kodak has transformed itself to a digitally oriented company. Workforce is cut in half. Film manufacturing is not in Kodak's future. It is looking for partners and alliances in the digital arena. Kodak's R&D (and manufacturing) in digital sensors is state of the art. Stock is up to around 4.25 today. If it does not get bought out or merge it would surprise me.
Drew Wiley
26-Mar-2009, 15:09
Chuck - this is similar to the malarkey posted on another thread. Kodak has a microfilm
division, a gelatin division, a demand for aerial film, and a GIANT market for movie film
and X-ray film. This means that film base, coating machines, and slitters are going to
be around for quite awhile. While specific products will inevitable change from time to
time, the notion that digital is going to bump all these categories off the log is utterly
preposterous. There are still big bucks in making film. Folks need to look at the big
picture, not just what the local camera stores are stocking.
Charles Carstensen
26-Mar-2009, 17:52
Hi, Drew, thanks. Kodak operates three divisions. Consumer digital, Film, Photofinishing and Entertainment, and Graphic Communications. You are certainly correct about the Film, Photofinishing and Entertainment Group being big bucks. EK is a 8.5 Billion per year revenue company down from 13.5 B in 2004. Film use is being replaced in the movie industry, the medical industry, and even aerial photography. I see the film group as a declining part of the big picture. Only 5 analysts are now following Kodak. Four of them say sell. Maybe 2010 will be better for EK.
Andrew O'Neill
26-Mar-2009, 18:10
Folks need to look at the big
picture, not just what the local camera stores are stocking.
...or what the camera store people are saying. They always say "film is dead" because they are told to say that. I always have a heated argument with one store manager near my house. They stock a few roles of HP5 35mm and Ilford MG RC paper. Even though fim is dead according to him, people are still coming in and buying it.
Drew Wiley
26-Mar-2009, 18:31
Yeah, Chuck. I deal with several of these oversize corporations. The problem is that
they can't concentrate on all their divisions at the same time, so even though the
potential business exists, someone more specialized might steal it from them. I
believe that film is still the overwhelming product for movies even in this country,
with digital taking over special effects and animation. But in Asia, where the movie
industry is even larger than Hollywood, film unquestionably dominates. And with
Kodak moving some of the production lines to China, forming the equivalent of joint
ventures, they might be hedging their bet by joining the enemy. On different posts I
have explained why film is still essential to aerial survelliance, although this need
can be met by periodic large production runs of specialized film. And although medical imaging in this country is also going digital (something Kodak is capitalizing on), the international use of X-ray film is still enormous, along with dental X-rays, etc. The whole question is how well Kodak keeps up with their competition overseas in this cumulative market. Large format film is a very small part of the whole, but will probably remain profitable for some time, given the fact that this too has warranted new production options overseas as well as ongoing improvements in product R&D. Job losses,etc, at Kodak don't tell you where the money is or is not being made. It wasn't that long ago that oil companies timed their largest layoffs during record profits - with massize bonuses to the bigshots! But Kodak like many companies is hurting for the moment. US layoffs are not a total clue, however, since
a serious degree of film production has begun in China. That does not automatically
imply a reduction in quality, since companies sometimes go there not so much for
the labor savings as for cheap land with few environmental restrictions or building
permit complications. Incidentally, all the old Technicolor cameras and dye stocks
have been bought by the Chinese too, with the intention of using this once the right
movies come along, with the requisite budgets. The biggest logistical problem right
now is that older DuPont and Agfa film base stocks are slowly running out, which
were bought at closeout pricing, and a change in the stock will inevitably affect the
characteristics of the film. Obsolescense of a specific polyester stock was allegedly
why TechPan had to be discontinued.
And with Kodak moving some of the production lines to China, forming the equivalent of joint ventures, they might be hedging their bet by joining the enemy.
Drew, you have to share the source of all these great news you seem to have! Try as I may, all the reference I manage to find about Kodak in China is several years old. Why do you keep us all in suspense and don't tell us which ventures and what products are those?
Could it be the new microfilm line to keep up with all those "major libraries" or "major corporations" that "are switching back to film"? And since they all seem to be very hush-hush, Kodak tries to keep it all under wraps as to not upset such big clients?
Oren Grad
26-Mar-2009, 20:34
And with Kodak moving some of the production lines to China, forming the equivalent of joint ventures, they might be hedging their bet by joining the enemy.
Drew, that's over (http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20071113/kodak-china-lucky-film.htm).
Drew Wiley
27-Mar-2009, 08:43
Thanks Oren, but I wasn't referring to the official joint venture with Lucky, but to the
tendency of overseas coating facilties to become subcontractors. More and more, it is
getting hard to determine exactly where a product is made, and in what stages. In the
past, Kodak even used a coating facility in Eastern Europe for certain films. The machines are still there, but not the people who knew how to formulate those particular emulsions.
Gordon Moat
27-Mar-2009, 21:02
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=448491&postcount=21
Already posted, but perhaps overlooked. Division declining is not the same as losing revenues. As long as the film division generates revenues, as indicated in those graphs, then Kodak (EK) will continue with that. Oh, and in case anyone needs a source for those graphs, I have the full report from Fitch Ratings, where I have an account to access that information.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.