Kodak Stock Down to $5.45

[RattyMouse]

The Levine article to me seems mostly snark and fails to really address what Kodak has actually said.

So what has Kodak actually said that he is failing to address?

 

[JWMster]

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, but he has a deadline, so he writes and it's entertaining. He's speculating based on what he knows about blockchain and bitcoin and presuming a similar implementation. Very big assumption. Don't have to go back very far to find an analogy where someone could only see one implementation where others found a 100. I don't waste my time with this kind of stuff. Frankly Kodak is not my type of company until it has something proven. 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. The fact that Kodak is looking to unlock value in different ways probably offends some, but it may be the only REAL way forward. I invest serious money for people who don't understand the risks they take and need someone else to manage it who does. Lots of people think they do understand this, and do fine for themselves until they don't. It's always easy when you study success. The road to experience begins with studying failure. The way in is almost always the same. The ways out are few. This kind of thing at this point is noise and Levine knows it. Sources and the axes they have to grind are as important as the noises they make. Take nothing at face value. Levine starts out with the premise that Kodak doesn't know what it's doing and the Board won't let it if it does. I'm not sure that's right or can be read into it at this point. Wait and see. Frankly as a photographer, I'd rather see their assets in safe, strong hands. I'm not sure that's an option though as even Ilford has suggested this would be harder without Kodak. All for now.

 

[faberryman]

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.

What tremendous assets does Kodak have that are being held back by distribution?

 

[RattyMouse]

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,

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.

 

[aldevo]

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

They are not questionable - they will be an abject failure. We can talk about the cost/pricing of this and how it's ridiculous but the underlying problem is that IP authenticity and moral rights is not a problem that blockchain can solve.

Blockchain is strictly/exclusively/and-in-no-way-in-any-fashion-whatsoever-other than about ensuring that intended addresses receive their crypto and intended addresses are debited them. This is most easily illustrated by the recourse available to those who have lost crypto or had it stolen. And that's to say that there is none at all. MtGox and Kraken have proved that.

If you wish to paid for a creative work - best be paid before your digitized asset is externalized. Events of the past 15-18 years underlie this to the point that I am genuinely shocked that there are still people who believe otherwise.

 

[aldevo]

What tremendous assets does Kodak have that are being held back by distribution?

They do not have any "tremendous assets" - but 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". And the losses incurred by the film division last quarter do stem from the costs designed to remedy that.

That being said - there really is no future growth story to speak of here - and the problem is no longer that there is less demand by Hollywood for Kodak's film than their is less demand for Hollywood's films.

 

[aldevo]

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.

The SEC is generally a great deal more concerned about insider selling than insider buying. No sign of that at KODK.

 

[aldevo]

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.

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.

e.g. - Small-scale mining of bitcoin is no longer remotely economical. Most mining of even-remotely-mature cryptos is carried out by combines employing 100s of K (or more) of GPU. And typically with some form of subsidization of electricity. For example, mining outfits in Yekaterinaburg, Russia (which has experienced explosive population growth that the electrical power utilities must be out in front of - at the cost of considerable, short-term overcapacity) negotiate heavily-discounted "off-peak" generation and distribution rates.

e.g - Nobody involved in mining solely mines a single currency. Pricing volatility can induce a mining combine to change their mining actions on a moment's notice and you need only study BTC and BCH price movements last summer to illustrate that.

You have a better chance of supporting yourself via...oh, I don't know...urban farming...than these ridiculous mining machines.

 

[faberryman]

...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"...

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.

 

[aldevo]

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.

There's a notion of private vs public blockchains at work here. Private blockchains are way behind public ones in adoption - but might have greater implications for the world in the long-term.

Unfortunately, this does not help KODK in the least.

I suspect the coins are really intended for the use of the Magnum Photography's of the world and content distributors of the world to use to rapidly license/authorize/fund distribution of work. The coins, themselves, are unfungible. They cannot be directly exchanged for anything of value.

KodakCoins would be a very low volume, private blockchain so there is ZERO chance of a Coinbase, etc. ever enabling you to exchange them to USD or whatever your local currency happens to be. So you'd either be stuck hoping a Changelly or Shapeshifter supports them and then convert them to BTC or ETH or something that a Coinbase does support (which is likely to have future tax implications that boggle the mind) and would later enable you to convert to your local currency - or you'd be reliant on your Magnum Photography or whatever to liquidate them for you in some fashion.

Convoluted and impractical.

And the Magnum Photography's and traditional media outlets of the world will be gone in an few years, anyhow, and photographers will be worse off than ever and hoping for a few crumbs from Amazon or Netflix or whomever - and I can't imagine they'll be using KodakCoins.

The 506(c) consideration? Surprisingly, that's less of a problem than you think. You'd be shocked at how unsophisticated many wealthy USA investors are and how naïvely they chase return. Doctors, for example, have wonderful cash flow - but there's a very-large-and-always-getting-larger market for financial advisors and accountants to dig them out of financial holes arising from their poor investment choices.

 

[aldevo]

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.

Sure - but why split hairs? They are not able to fully-capitalize on the demand for their product. Processing or distribution or whatever...they are leaving money on the table.

 

[RattyMouse]

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.

 

[aldevo]

The lack of understanding, if true, is mind boggling.

Yes, but they may have a match in the "desperation" department because it appears that Global Blockchain (a Canadian startup behind both the mining machines and the KodakCoin) has either paid (or had their backers pay) KODK are a non-trivial amount of money to get Kodak's branding behind both.

I'm very critical of KODK's blockchain-based offerings and their leadership - but maybe I'm losing the forest for the trees.

I work at a startup (not involved with blockchain or KODK) and every new VC-backed story is about blockchain right now. That is true almost without exception and to the extent that fundamentally-healthy startups are being liquidated so that VCs can go chase early-stage blockchain startups. VCs late to the party (assuming the bubble hasn't burst by then) will probably pay-through-the-nose to have some sort of blockchain-based narrative to pitch to all those return-chasing doctors that I mentioned in a prior post.

So maybe I'm wrong here and KODK foists these blockchain and mining machine offerings to just such a VC, pays off its debts, and all is well for them. But if I were to put money on that outcome - it would not be my own.

 

[aldevo]

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.

Anyhow - there are some pretty big hurdles to an "angel investor" from purchasing the Kodak film division. Forget about whether or not it's even possible to break even with such an investment - there are ongoing issues like torts to consider. IMO, it was truly a remarkable (and sadly one-time) stroke of luck that EK could (and needed to) sell the division to the UK KPP. As far as I know - they were the only perspective buyer -and I doubt that any late-arriving Hollywood consortium could have done anything to rescue the division had the UK KPP deal not happened. I don't see any such chance for Hollywood to rescue KODK in the future, BTW.

At the risk of going off-topic - I can't let your comment about Bezos & the Post slide.

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.

Bezos purchased the Post because it's enormously-influential in its coverage of the political scene in the USA - not just in the US - but overseas as well. As such, it's a handy asset for him to have in his pocket when troubling notions like an "internet tax" or "anti-trust legislation" bubble up and require the sort of "editorial refutation" needed to mobilize public opinion against their passage

In a similar vein, Amazon needs a second headquarters like the consumer imaging market needs a $2,800 Super-8 camera (couldn't resist ;-)) - but 50,000 jobs creates 50,000 human shields to keep the Elizabeth Warrens or Corey Boookers from halting Amazonn's relentless march - so you can bet on that 2nd HQ going to Boston or Newark or Cleveland (Sherrod Brown is not an Amazon fan).

 

[RattyMouse]

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

This is nonsense. The Post is in no way muzzled.

+1

 

[trendland]

Wrong logo!

...for all modesty - but we both might be wrong. Petapixel with its graphic seams to be correct.
L O G O U P D A T E :

This here is coming soon :

Reference : https://wired.com/2016/10/kodak-revives-iconic-logo-gives-little-twist

with regards

PS : I've done no extensive research for this - I just found this article by chance and remember.....

 

[removed account4]

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 couldn't agree with your statement more than i do faberryman !
i've been saying the same thing for about 15 years
this whole re-release is kind of the higher ups went to colorado for a weekend and "brain stormed"

 

[RattyMouse]

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.

 

[alanrockwood]

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.

That is very interesting. I was wondering how much short selling was going on.

Another play on declining stocks is to buy puts on the options market. Is Kodak listed on the options market (e.g. CBOE), and if so are the options positions as transparent as the short selling data on stocks?

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.

 

[mshchem]

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.

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.

 

[1L6E6VHF]

LOL at the article about "seventies and eighties artwork" Pony II in the 70s and 80s?

 

[mshchem]

http://fortune.com/2018/01/18/kodak-cryptocurrency-kodakcoin-stock/

 

[faberryman]

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!

I take it you sold your shares.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Nobody has noticed, but Xerox is in trouble. There is a scuffle at the highest level about what is to be done next, and some suggest a buyout.

PE