If you haven't already read it...

[semi-ambivalent]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-30/kodak-said-to-weigh-bankruptcy-filing.html

s-a

 

[Athiril]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204138204576603053167627950.html
"As we sit here today, the company has no intention of filing for bankruptcy."


Also from your link

"Perez, who took the helm in 2005, has sharpened Kodak’s focus on the printing business to help revive revenue."

Good decision there..

 

[aldevo]

Not surprising

You could see the writing on the wall a week or more ago when they tapped their revolving credit line - which was a suprise to many people.

I think the company has been up for sale from the moment they went after the consumer inkjet market and I believe their strategy had always been to "inconvenience" a Lexmark or HP into acquiring them.

When the emphasis shifted to lawsuits over patent revenue - it was obvious that the end was near and a breakup was certain.

I'm not quite ready to say this is the end of Kodak film - but any group acquiring that division will have to accept some pretty hairy risks from toxic torts for the next century...

 

[Athiril]

Well it sounds more like the rest of the company that's not film production is the sinking ship, ironically.

edit:

If the film-production division was hurting the company that bad while the rest of it was fine, it'd obviously be axed or sold off.

If the film-production division was doing bad while the rest of it was fine, that wouldn't be news and their credit/finances would be fine.

I think it's obvious which part of the company is a problem. Not a part we have to worry about.

We have to worry about spill-over effects of decisions on the part we care about, and the rest of the company dragging down the film-division..

 

[Ian Grant]

Poor management for many years and no focus on how to take the company forward in the consumer market compounded by an extremely poor choice of CEO in Perez has brough t this on.

Ian

 

[semi-ambivalent]

You could see the writing on the wall a week or more ago when they tapped their revolving credit line - which was a suprise to many people.

I think the company has been up for sale from the moment they went after the consumer inkjet market and I believe their strategy had always been to "inconvenience" a Lexmark or HP into acquiring them.

When the emphasis shifted to lawsuits over patent revenue - it was obvious that the end was near and a breakup was certain.

I'm not quite ready to say this is the end of Kodak film - but any group acquiring that division will have to accept some pretty hairy risks from toxic torts for the next century...

I think the Bloomberg piece mentions the possibility of bankruptcy as a way to lessen chances of issues with the transfer of intellectual property, so as to make their patents more attractive. I'll re-read it later, but I agree, it looks pretty grim for the company as it is now.

Open letter to Kodak: If you keep making Tri-X I'll keep buying it. Probably some other stuff too.

 

[CGW]

Please, not another 300 "magical thinking" posts on what ails Kodak along with home remedies.

 

[MaximusM3]

Regardless of shooting or not shooting film, it is an absolute crying shame and disaster that such a great name and company, one of the truly greatest in the world from an historic standpoint, is going down the tubes this way. Extremely sad, really, and that's whether you love or hate Kodak.

 

[Athiril]

I don't think this is grim for the film division, I think it threatens the film division only indirectly as a result of what happens to the sinking ship part of the company.

In any case I wrote elsewhere that;

The article states Kodak has 19,000 worldwide employees. Nikon has estimated theirs about 25,000. Which is a comparable size. Nikon specialise in optical devices and cameras/lenses. Their public presence is basically only cameras/lenses and sporting optical devices (to a small extent, those with that interest know about it, Joe Bloggs not so much). Kodak generalise. Nikon's public presence dwarfs all of Kodak's generalisations/wide spread business.

Canon generalise. At 2007, their number of employees was put at 130,000. I guess you could say Canon does what Kodak is/was trying to do.


But they have more employees to put behind each branch of generalisation vs Kodak, as well as their products don't suck that much (for what they are) vs Kodak's.

 

[wblynch]

Thank the American MBA. The root of our problems since 1975.

For such an intelligent country how can we continually produce such disastrous business managers?

 

[Prest_400]

It seems unbelievable.
The 131 year old Yellow Giant, who pioneered film photography and became a culture icon is about to...

I hope whatever the outcome is, it will be good for the employees and the film industry. We saw it coming, but it lived until now. Let's see what will go on.

 

[CGW]

Thank the American MBA. The root of our problems since 1975.

For such an intelligent country how can we continually produce such disastrous business managers?

Thank digital technology and the MBAs on its side.

Where have you been over the last decade?

 

[michaelbsc]

Poor management for many years and no focus on how to take the company forward in the consumer market compounded by an extremely poor choice of CEO in Perez has brough t this on.

Ian

As someone quote *ME* about this very topic recently, there is nothing illegal about being stupid. And they're clearly stupid.

MB

 

[removed account4]

this is a long time coming ...

sad news just the same

 

[lajolla]

No panic out here on the west coast - as we are always three lucid hours behind the latest wall street anxiety. But there will be a restructuring and likely a split-up of various EK corporate components, in order to appease the big shareholders. With the share price now so low, various stock-split possibilities must be made available to these same big investors who have "hung in" while the digital efforts of EK over the last decades have proven futile. In the meantime, the traditional film and photo chemical biz have already been profitably cut to the bone and out-sourced and will likely be a prized nugget in any bankruptcy restructuring. There are any number of US and foreign companies that would jump at the chance to acquire EK's photochemical businesses. I always have thought and I have always given my humble opines here on the forum that EK should have long ago stayed away from the emerging digital world and instead should have remained focussed on what they did so well as the world-leaders in photo-chemistry. But obviously their corporate board was given some very bad advice very long ago by their own investment bankers?

 

[Aristophanes]

If they are exploring bankruptcy it's because their credit draw is against collateral not revenues. The foresee too little revenues to add repayment into the spreadsheet. Translation: their lenders have no faith in them. Not good.

 

[alanrockwood]

Regrettably, if the company's financial condition is as bad as hinted in the articles it is unlikely that the company will avoid bankruptcy. It is also unlikely that an acquisition or re-organization will save them. It will be a better deal for a potential buyer of the company or its assets to pick over the bones after the bankruptcy and get what they want at fire sale prices than to pay full price prior to a bankruptcy.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I sure hate to see that happen Kodak. I really like their products, T-Max, Tri-X, D-76, etc.

Jeff

 

[aldevo]

Well it sounds more like the rest of the company that's not film production is the sinking ship, ironically.

edit:

If the film-production division was hurting the company that bad while the rest of it was fine, it'd obviously be axed or sold off.

If the film-production division was doing bad while the rest of it was fine, that wouldn't be news and their credit/finances would be fine.

I think it's obvious which part of the company is a problem. Not a part we have to worry about.

We have to worry about spill-over effects of decisions on the part we care about, and the rest of the company dragging down the film-division..

But the film division is doing poorly. Kodak didn't really make any money in film for the past two quarters - demand continued to decline and raw material costs skyrocketed.

Remember - a business can report a "profit from continuing operations" for a division into which it is has to constantly poor money into downsizing in the interest of keeping it profitable. Kodak has poured billions of dollars - more than its ever lost in digital, actually - into downsizing its film operations to try to keep it profitable. And even then the incentive was, largely, to get money from tax depreciation in plant, property, and equipment - not to make profits on film.

And you are right to be worried. I don't see anybody buying Kodak's film division - at least not with the intent of keeping production in the USA. Their current USA-based production infrastructure is far too large for current (and still-declining) market demand and carries with it potentially massive toxic tort liability.

 

[aldevo]

If they are exploring bankruptcy it's because their credit draw is against collateral not revenues. The foresee too little revenues to add repayment into the spreadsheet. Translation: their lenders have no faith in them. Not good.

Exactly. All their businesses are either in secular or cyclical decline.

I think they are hoping to try to get "debtor-in-possession" financing sooner rather than later given that the global banking industry is again running off the tracks.

I'm convinced that any financing will have to be accompanied by a restructuring plan with asset sales or shutdowns.

 

[Worker 11811]

To be honest, I don't perceive that Kodak makes actually any products besides film.

Yes, I know they sell printers, inks and other digital doodads but they don't manufacture very much besides film.
Even the pack of Kodak branded inkjet paper I have says, "Made in Germany. Finished in USA for Eastman Kodak Company."
It says, to me that Kodak didn't make them paper themselves. They farmed it out to somebody else who stamped the Kodak brand on the finished product.

Kodak isn't a manufacture of anything. "Kodak" is just a word that gets stamped on things. It's just a meaningless brand name.

If something doesn't give, soon, Kodak is going to end up like Polaroid.
The Polaroid we know doesn't exist. Polaroid went bankrupt years ago. The thing that people see, nowadays, is just a logo that some company bought the rights to use so they could stamp it on packages.

I don't even know what company owns the Polaroid brand, anymore. I'm not sure it even matters.
That's what's going to happen to Kodak.

 

[Rudeofus]

It says, to me that Kodak didn't make them paper themselves. They farmed it out to somebody else who stamped the Kodak brand on the finished product.
[...]
Kodak isn't a manufacture of anything. "Kodak" is just a word that gets stamped on things. It's just a meaningless brand name.
[...]
I don't even know what company owns the Polaroid brand, anymore. I'm not sure it even matters.
That's what's going to happen to Kodak.

What you describe here has happened to quite a few very well known brands, as this article points out. Many great companies which stood for a well known and solid product lines (Polaroid being one of them listed in the article) are now only used for their brand name, under which random junk is peddled to the unsuspecting customer.

 

[removed account4]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfhsM15nElM&feature=player_detailpage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=ZwBlf3AeLRM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=cxwn2wQNVXs

KODAK nearly filed for bankruptcy years ago as well ..
hopefully they will come out a stronger company

 

[Ian Grant]

Kodak as a company and brand name is doomed, the film Division should be split off as a new company. The sooner that happens the better.

Meanwhile Perez and other exectives should be thoroughly investigated for ther mis-handling of the company and it's assets and their embezzslement of funds.

Ian

 

[CGW]

Meanwhile Perez and other exectives should be thoroughly investigated for ther mis-handling of the company and it's assets and their embezzslement of funds.

Right. So Perez from 2003 on singlehandedly convinced millions of consumers to abandon film for digital?