So what has Kodak actually said that he is failing to address?
The Levine article to me seems mostly snark and fails to really address what Kodak has actually said.
What tremendous assets does Kodak have that are being held back by distribution?At this point, the proven assets have tremendous value if you can solve distribution. But getting distribution from a market that doesn't care is the whole of the problem.
Yes he does. He knows what a 506(c) exempt offering is. I didnt know that and Levine shows why this is a HUGE problem with Kodak's plan. Only people with a $1 million dollar net worth can buy Kodakcoins. Just think about what that means. Kodak is creating a blockchain to solve the problem of photographers getting paid for their images. Now we learn that only photographers with $1 million dollar net work can buy this currency. "...middle-class individuals will not be able to buy KodakCoins."Nothing exists. Speculation on a product / service that doesn't exist at this point is a waste of time and energy. Levine doesn't know anything more than you or I do,
This is probably the best article that shows how questionable Kodakcoins are.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-01-10/good-luck-spending-your-kodakcoins
What tremendous assets does Kodak have that are being held back by distribution?
Speaking of the SEC and such, based on my direct experience with them (I tipped them off about some funny business in a company I was aware of), their usual course of action is nothing. At least that what my experience was. The SEC did not even lift their little finger to come down on those who had misbehaved. After a few years the stock exchange did take some action against them... delisting, but it was too little/too late for most of the shareholders who had been taken in by the company's schemes.
This proves nothing.
Kodak created this cryptocurrency scheme VERY quickly; in just a few months. The created it and timed it perfectly around an established stock trading pattern. That too could be a way to execute an insider trade.
No one outside of Kodak thinks that this idea has much validity. It's not going to generate significant revenue nor profits. Two things Kodak sorely needs.
At the end of the day, Kodak's new cryptocurrency and bitcoin mining hardware made a lot of press and juiced their stock. But this came at a significant cost of devaluing their brand and credibility.
Just looking at both of these announcements by Kodak and you see either a total lack of an ability to sell the idea (new currency) or obvious mistruths about them (leasing mining hardware).
It is impossible to understand how the executive leadership allowed this to happen.
A lack of processing is not a distribution problem. The way to address that is to create processing capacity. If there is no shaving cream you don't create more razors....a case could be made (though possibly only for a limited time longer) that their motion picture division revenue is being - to an extent - held back by a lack of film processing infrastructure "hotbeds"...
Yes he does. He knows what a 506(c) exempt offering is. I didnt know that and Levine shows why this is a HUGE problem with Kodak's plan. Only people with a $1 million dollar net worth can buy Kodakcoins. Just think about what that means. Kodak is creating a blockchain to solve the problem of photographers getting paid for their images. Now we learn that only photographers with $1 million dollar net work can buy this currency. "...middle-class individuals will not be able to buy KodakCoins."
Another point: Crytocurrencies already exist. Why does there need to be yet another one to solve this problem? Kodak does not explain this.
A lack of processing is not a distribution problem. The way to address that is to create processing capacity. If there is no shaving cream you don't create more razors.
I don't think there are "mis-truths" at work here per se - in the sense that KODK is trying to willfully-mislead people.
This reflects a mixture of desperation and a comprehensive lack of understanding about crypto mining works.
The lack of understanding, if true, is mind boggling.
Yeah, sort of like what Jeff Bezos did with the Washington Post. Newspapers all across the country are in serious financial trouble. Bezos put a floor under the Post and now they are doing OK. Some rich guy who loves film needs to buy *just* the film part of Kodak, let the rest die, and keep film going.
The Washington Post was not - I repeat, not, purchased by Bezos as an investment or because he in any way has reverence for its journalistic standing. The Post is not any more commercially-viable than it was formerly - though Bezos, as the richest man in the world at the time of this writing, can surely accommodate it's losses.
He didn't put a floor under the Post - he put a muzzle on it.
This is nonsense. The Post is in no way muzzled.
Wrong logo!
i couldn't agree with your statement more than i do faberryman !A lack of processing is not a distribution problem. The way to address that is to create processing capacity. If there is no shaving cream you don't create more razors.
That is very interesting. I was wondering how much short selling was going on.Investors (rather than speculators) are not buying Kodak's cryptocurrency scheme to save the company. Short selling data was released today and it shows that short interest in Kodak is at an all time high. #1 on the list of companies being shorted by investors is Kodak, with 98% of all shortable shares gone. For those who may not know, shorting a stock is borrowing the shares, selling them immediately, and then re-buying them when they decline in value and then repaying your loan. This is how you make money off of declining stock value.
Before Kodak's cryptocurrency announcement only 30% of Kodak's shares were held short (still very large amount). After the announcement, 98% of the shortable shares were taken. A LOT of people are putting their money on this scheme failing.
SO True, I'm sure that part of the initial blast off on the day that Kodak announced the block chain was a short squeeze. The scene in "Trading Places" where all the traders going nuts.By the way, for those who are interested, the risk in a short sale is that if the market goes up instead of down the amount of money one could lose is, in theory, infinite, but with a put option the most one can lose is the purchase price of the option.
I take it you sold your shares.I bought some Kodak stock a few weeks ago at $3.55 a share. Now it is $11.55, more than tripling my investment. You can argue all you want, but I’m laughing all the way to the bank!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?