Kodak Alaris for sale Again April 17 2023

[Chan Tran]

If we all chip in we can buy it.

I'll go first. The cost of a Leica.

$10.

When I sold my Minolta 9xi for $10 I would chip in that $10. They could do the impossible project for polaroid I think we can do it too right?

 

[Trail Images]

Is that the same Sky News that is defending itself against a "damages" claim from some company who installed vote counting machinery at the last POTUS election?

Thanks

pentaxuser

If we finally see real justice that particular fake "news" outlet will be no longer......

 

[pentaxuser]

If we finally see real justice that particular fake "news" outlet will be no longer......

Thanks So there may be evidence that if Sky News was the source of the story then it may not be the most reliable source, especially if there are no other sources to help corroborate the story. Isn't the problem with any source that exists on the basis that its stories are its income is that its has to produce eye-catching stories to survive which I suppose raises the question of how reliable this Petapixel source is as well

pentaxuser

 

[Trail Images]

Thanks So there may be evidence that if Sky News was the source of the story then it may not be the most reliable source, especially if there are no other sources to help corroborate the story. Isn't the problem with any source that exists on the basis that its stories are its income is that its has to produce eye-catching stories to survive which I suppose raises the question of how reliable this Petapixel source is as well

pentaxuser

Yes, agreed.

 

[mshchem]

Don't veer into politics or the moderators will delete

 

[BradS]

... it is true that Kodak Alaris' owner - which remains the Pension Fund, which is being operated by the UK Pension authorities ...

Thanks for this reminder. One may reasonably infer that the current owners are not particularly interested in or committed to running, growing or perhaps, even sustaining the business long term. Which explains much with regard to product pricing, among other things.

 

[mshchem]

There's one business entity who would be a good fit, Pemberstone Ventures Limited, who is doing well with Harman Technologies. These folks seem to be able to see the long-term potential for film. Ilford (and Foma) makes everything needed to make great photos.

Sino Promise is bankrupt last I looked.

Honestly I don't think that anything is new in this news. UK is trying to fund pensions. Smoke no fire.

 

[Agulliver]

Thanks for this reminder. One may reasonably infer that the current owners are not particularly interested in or committed to running, growing or perhaps, even sustaining the business long term. Which explains much with regard to product pricing, among other things.

K-A can hardly sell film for less than E-K sells it to them.

But yeah....it's all Alaris deliberately pissing us photographers off and deliberately sabotaging their own business with high prices.

You do realise that the pension fund has to keep going? Just because they've stopped enrolling new people into the pension scheme doesn't mean their obligations to each and every existing member stop any time soon.

 

[Sirius Glass]

K-A can hardly sell film for less than E-K sells it to them.

But yeah....it's all Alaris deliberately pissing us photographers off and deliberately sabotaging their own business with high prices.

You do realise that the pension fund has to keep going? Just because they've stopped enrolling new people into the pension scheme doesn't mean their obligations to each and every existing member stop any time soon.

Yes, I can imaging the Alaris board members sitting in the board meeting with the number one agenda item, pissing off film photographers.

 

[BradS]

But yeah....it's all Alaris deliberately pissing us photographers off and deliberately sabotaging their own business with high prices.
...

I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say...or purposely extrapolated into the absurd....not sure which.

They are investors. When a company is taken over by investors, the investors don't typically have any interest or expertise in actually running or growing the company long term. Their only real goal is to sell their investment at a profit. This usually results in such actions as, breaking the company up and selling off the pieces, aggressive supplier management, delaying payment to suppliers for absolutely as long as possible and a host of other actions to make the company look better financially in the short term without regard for the long term. These actions invariably have significant implications on the quality, price and availability of product.

So, no. They're not intentionally trying to piss off the customer base but, in the long term, they don't really care about the customer base either (nor any aspect of the business). The investors only care about short term because they'd much rather divest themselves of the investment at a suitable profit in the short term so that they can free up their capital and move on to another investment opportunity. Don't you think they'd rather manage a nice balanced portfolio of stocks and bonds?

 

[BradS]

The cost of a Leica.

$10.

$10...strictly for personal use.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

Honestly I don't think that anything is new in this news. UK is trying to fund pensions. Smoke no fire.

The obvious solution here is to open film confectioning workshops in UK care homes. Every box of Alaris film now comes with a Werther's original and a pair of socks. /s

 

[MattKing]

I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say...or purposely extrapolated into the absurd....not sure which.

They are investors. When a company is taken over by investors, the investors don't typically have any interest or expertise in actually running or growing the company long term. Their only real goal is to sell their investment at a profit. This usually results in such actions as, breaking the company up and selling off the pieces, aggressive supplier management, delaying payment to suppliers for absolutely as long as possible and a host of other actions to make the company look better financially in the short term without regard for the long term. These actions invariably have significant implications on the quality, price and availability of product.

So, no. They're not intentionally trying to piss off the customer base but they don't really care about the customer base either (nor any aspect of the business really) in the long term. The investors only care about short term because they'd much rather divest themselves of the investment at a suitable profit in the short term so that they can free up their capital and move on to another investment opportunity. Don't you think they'd rather manage a nice balanced portfolio of stocks and bonds?

A pension funds obligations are long term obligations - they need to generate profit from their existing asset, and preserve the capital, in order to satisfy those obligations.
If selling the business for cash and then re-investing that cash is projected to yield longer term stability and income, then the Pension Fund should sell.
If retaining, running and building a business is projected to yield longer term stability and income, then the Pension Fund should retain the business..
They have entertaining offers for a long time - they may actually have to do that, in order to satisfy their public facing obligations. That doesn't necessarily mean that any of the offers has come close to being more valuable than retaining the business.
And as for Pemberstone, I doubt that they are large enough to even consider this.

 

[BradS]

A pension funds obligations are long term obligations - they need to generate profit from their existing asset, and preserve the capital, in order to satisfy those obligations.
If selling the business for cash and then re-investing that cash is projected to yield longer term stability and income, then the Pension Fund should sell.
If retaining, running and building a business is projected to yield longer term stability and income, then the Pension Fund should retain the business..
They have entertaining offers for a long time - they may actually have to do that, in order to satisfy their public facing obligations. That doesn't necessarily mean that any of the offers has come close to being more valuable than retaining the business.

Yes, Thank you. You've clearly and concisely stated what I was trying to say. It's all about their fiduciary responsibility to the pension plan and their proclivity for either running a business or managing an investment portfolio.

 

[MattKing]

Yes, Thank you. You've clearly and concisely stated what I was trying to say. It's all about their fiducial responsibility to the pension fund and their proclivity for either running a business or managing an investment portfolio.

One of their biggest assets is their continuing connection with the remaining goodwill associated with the brand name of Kodak. That asset might be less valuable in the hands of another entity, so the selling price may be less than it otherwise would be.
Unfortunately, it would be extremely unlikely that Eastman Kodak could raise the money needed to buy it back - they are too small and lack capital.

 

[BradS]

One of their biggest assets is their continuing connection with the remaining goodwill associated with the brand name of Kodak. That asset might be less valuable in the hands of another entity, so the selling price may be less than it otherwise would be.
Unfortunately, it would be extremely unlikely that Eastman Kodak could raise the money needed to buy it back - they are too small and lack capital.

No doubt, they (the people running K-A) are in a difficult position.

I cannot help but wonder if the proceeeds from the sale to Sino-Promise were used to meet current obligations (an act of desperation) or if they were invested in some instrument that generates ongoing passive income.

 

[MattKing]

No doubt, they (the people running K-A) are in a difficult position.

I cannot help but wonder if the proceeeds from the sale to Sino-Promise were used to meet current obligations (an act of desperation) or if they were invested in some instrument that generates ongoing passive income.

This 2014 report gives some interesting background: https://www.thepensionsregulator.go...files/import/pdf/section-89-report-kodak.ashx
That refers to $325 million - different than the $600 million I have always seen before.
I'm seeing if I can find info about KPP2.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Who makes the kiosks and dry labs for KA? Any idea how many employees (actual KA)?? What a mess.

Even if still film would come back to EK, the Alaris distribution people would (at least some) would need to stay on.

I was around when some of the big US and EU companies spun off their commodity plastics, paints, chemical etc businesses, it was a mess at times, but there were usually (mostly) the same people, just different ownership

First off, the film is made by EK for KA distribution. No necessarily need existing KA distribution. There are others who would be glad to represent and distribute Kodak film. MAybe even EK. What's Kodak's opinion on this?

Also, I suspect a Chinese company might buy it out as they bought out other film paper products I believe. The problem with someone buying it, is that they have to include EK and get guarantees from them. Maybe no one's buying because they aren;t sure if EK is in for manufacturing for the long run.

 

[Cholentpot]

$10...strictly for personal use.

I'm willing to go easy on that. For occasional pro work its fine too.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

That I understand. Which really makes no difference to KA being the name behind still film. And not many would notice a difference if simply checking out Alaris’ website for film information. For general information available at the Alaris takeover Kodak film would have gone dead without it.

We could speculate why Pension Plan took the distribution responsibility, but it was not just the noble idea of making photographers happy and well fed.

It was the only way the KA pensioners could make money from the EK bankruptcy. If they refused the distributorship, they would have gotten nothing and someone else would have bought the rights to the distributorship from the bankruptcy court.

Now it seems KA wants to sell it. They may be asking too much to satisfy their retirees, just as their markups on film might be too high to pay their retirees what they want. With a separate distributorship, prices for Kodak film could come down and be more competitive. Of course, that also depends on EK interest in keeping film going. The whole thing is too convoluted. That may account why no one's buying it. It's like buying someone's old camera. Who needs to buy someone else's problems?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Yes, Thank you. You've clearly and concisely stated what I was trying to say. It's all about their fiduciary responsibility to the pension fund and their proclivity for either running a business or managing an investment portfolio.

The Alaris pensioners may be pricing Kodak film and the value of its distributorship out of the market. They could wake up one day with no customers and no company worth anything.

 

[BradS]

..... They could wake up one day with no customers and no company worth anything.

It could happen regardless of what they do or don't do. All the more reason for them to want to sell the business as soon as possible and invest in something with less uncertainty.

 

[haliderollei]

Honestly I'm glad I've stopped shooting Kodak film altogether ever since the unreal price increases came to be, and after my batches of XTOL and D76 started ruining client negatives.

 

[Arcadia4]

The holding company is kodak alaris holdings ltd. The uk Pension protection fund (PPF ) is the sole shareholder. The annual report is on the uk companies house website.

Kodak Alaris is now structured with two businesses;

- Kodak Moments (and Film).
The KM business comprises prints and photo products such as printed mugs etc, plus film.
Interestingly it states film was responsible for 38% of the revenue growth over the preceeding 12 months ($30m/$ 72m increase). However there is no breadown of total revenues.
Revenue of $314m in ’22. Employs 480 staff.

- Alaris,
business data image capture and management.
Revenue of $196m in ‘22. Employs 700 staff

A further 300 staff are shared.

(To put this into context harman/ilford employs 200 staff with an annual turnover of £22m in 21)

According to the annual report the kodak moment kiosk products are sourced from original manufacturers and assembled by third party integrators located in US and Germany. Consumables are manufactured by a Kodak alaris facility in US and a third party supplier in Germany.

 

[BradS]

That does not seem to be nearly enough revenue for either company to be profitable. It seems both companies must have lost money in the years sited.