No, the Titanic sank because of it'screw's incompetence in not seeing clear and present danger of a hazard in the form of an iceberg, the Lusitania was sunk by an external source beyond it's control when it was torpedoed by a U Boat
No, the Titanic sank because of it'screw's incompetence in not seeing clear and present danger of a hazard in the form of an iceberg, the Lusitania was sunk by an external source beyond it's control when it was torpedoed by a U BoatMore like they moved the chairs to the Lusitania.
No, the Titanic sank because of it'screw's incompetence in not seeing clear and present danger of a hazard in the form of an iceberg, the Lusitania was sunk by an external source beyond it's control when it was torpedoed by a U Boat
They have taken the business out from under a management structure that was actively trying to kill it and given it new ownership that has a vital interest in its continued viability. It no longer has to support the rotting carcass of an organization that thinks it still belongs in the Dow index. They have removed all the burden of debt and past mistakes. Marketing and Sales professionalism can go a long way to turning a business around and building success. They have a lot of hard work ahead of them, but I am very encouraged that the "right sized" organization for the niche market will finally be able to create itself out of the disaster that it was.
No, the U Boat sank the LusitaniaExactly. Competent Navigators and Crew, dodging the external forces trying to destroy the ship.
It scares me that if they do manage to survive bankruptcy Perez will still crucially control the actual manufacturing of film. How long before poor decision making again results in a new crisis where he again needs to "impress" the analysts on Wall Street? And in his mind perhaps the way to do that will be to again start blowing up film buildings with the media cameras rolling?
And what if the building he chooses this time is the last Kodak coating line?
Sounds silly? Just look back at the last five or so years...
Ken
It scares me that if they do manage to survive bankruptcy Perez will still crucially control the actual manufacturing of film. How long before poor decision making again results in a new crisis where he again needs to "impress" the analysts on Wall Street? And in his mind perhaps the way to do that will be to again start blowing up film buildings with the media cameras rolling?
And what if the building he chooses this time is the last Kodak coating line?
Sounds silly? Just look back at the last five or so years...
Ken
It scares me that if they do manage to survive bankruptcy Perez will still crucially control the actual manufacturing of film. How long before poor decision making again results in a new crisis where he again needs to "impress" the analysts on Wall Street? And in his mind perhaps the way to do that will be to again start blowing up film buildings with the media cameras rolling?
And what if the building he chooses this time is the last Kodak coating line?
Sounds silly? Just look back at the last five or so years...
Ken
The last thing Kodak need in their current dire financial situation is to sell their products at a minimal profit, which even if they did the market for these monochrome films are so small I.M.O. the difference reflected in their actual sales wouldn't be significant.The new owners would sell more Tri-X if it was cheaper. Plus-X as well.
Remember the Maine!
The new owners would sell more Tri-X if it was cheaper. Plus-X as well.
My next concern though - what are the other creditors going to end up with. Creditors like Champion Photochemistry.
For a little perspective: I'm looking at a B&H ad from November 1982.
Tri-X:
135-36, $2.19.
120, $1.75
From the US Consumer Price Index's inflation calculator:
$2.19 in 1982= $5.28 in 2013
$1.75 in 1982= $4.22 in 2013
For a little perspective: I'm looking at a B&H ad from November 1982.
Tri-X:
135-36, $2.19.
120, $1.75
From the US Consumer Price Index's inflation calculator:
$2.19 in 1982= $5.28 in 2013
$1.75 in 1982= $4.22 in 2013
Ron,
Your 'old' Kodak stock (if you have any left) is about to be worth $0 per share - not even 30 cents
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?