MattKing
Moderator
Thanks Simon.
Maybe you should consider adding "A few facts to go with the speculation:" to your signature line.
Dear All,
A few facts to go with the speculation :
Yes, as Steven Brierley has said our film sales are up in 2011, we put this down to maintaining the range, all films and all formats and no deletions:
We never 'dump' or 'over produce' we make film every month, as much as we need.
We have ALWAYS run promotions, all over the world, these add value to our products, its called marketing and promotion, we have done it for years and we will continue to do it, on film and paper products.
Our market share for monochrome paper overtook KODAK's in the 90's long before they withdrew from the paper market.
HARMAN technology is focussed on monochrome photographic products, we are profitable and we remain profitable, whilst we are a private limited company our full accounts are always ( for a fee ) available from companies house in the UK.
Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :
We have ALWAYS run promotions, all over the world, these add value to our products, its called marketing and promotion, we have done it for years and we will continue to do it, on film and paper products.
Does anyone know for a fact that Kodak is still coating ordinary photographic film such as tri-X, etc.? A Kodak employee very recently told me that the company has shut down some of their production lines and that these days they only coat motion picture film. It is possible that he is wrong, but given the fact that he works for the company his information should not be discounted altogether.
The previous discussions have indicated that they are down to something like 3 places that can make film, with only one actually making film. The difference in the quantity of Motion Picture print film made, compared to almost any other product means that 99% of the time that is likely the only run scheduled. a single 120 Minute film print uses 10800 feet of film not including waste and leaders, and that puts one movie in one theatre. (The waste comes in as the labs are generally only allowed one splice per reel and depending on the length of the reels, they may have a few hundred feet that they can't use.)
New movies come out in a few hundred theatres at a time, every week or two. (which is why the switch to digital projection is killing this particular market)
Given the state of Kodak's health and Finances, I would hate to be the manager trying to get approval to make 10,000 feet of Tri-X (30 some odd 35mm wide strips at a time of course.)
Companies have in the past closed their doors one day and opened them up the next with new stock and zero debt. I have lost a little money in a company that did just that.
s-a
On the other hand, do you remember TWA? It was once one of the largest airline companies. TWA declared bankruptcy three times, gradually shrinking to practically nothing before it was mercifully put out of its misery by being acquired by AMR, the parent company of American Airlines.
I think you are describing bankruptcy. It can be done. but generally it only works if there is a viable business model post-bankruptcy. Fruit of the Loom may be a good example (though strictly speaking Fruit didn't exactly become an operating company post-bankruptcy, though its product line and trade name did continue.)
Kmart is a good example. They went through bankruptcy and are still around in some form or another, still doing what they used to do. I'm unclear on the details of its merger with Sears, but still - they have discount department stores still open. I think if Kodak went through bankruptcy and emerged from the other side and the film division continued to make great films, even if someone else owned them, we would be happy.
Oh, and obviously Ilford is another good example, and a particularly relevant one at that.
I'm thinking that could happen, but Kodak's culture would die and that could be grim for the pensioner's. Film is film but there's a human side to things like this and often fairness is tended to last in the process.
Bankruptcy would result in the Kodak shares being worthless - just a little bit sad for all those Kodak employees (and others) who hold those shares because they believe in the organization.
I know belief is a lousy investment strategy, but for a very long time it was one that made Kodak a very good place to work (and invest in).
Kodak shares have lost over 96% of their value in a little over four years (since June of 2007) and more than 98.6% of their value since since peaking 15 years ago (October of 1996). With a negative net asset value and slim profit margins, much of which are in a business sector with rapidly declining revenues, it is hard to see how Kodak can recover.
The recent sale of some of Kodak's intellectual property may or may not bode well for the long term, but a one-time sale of key technology (if that's what it was) is not a good sign for the long-term viability of the company.
Kodak shares have lost over 96% of their value in a little over four years (since June of 2007) and more than 98.6% of their value since since peaking 15 years ago (October of 1996). With a negative net asset value and slim profit margins, much of which are in a business sector with rapidly declining revenues, it is hard to see how Kodak can recover.
The recent sale of some of Kodak's intellectual property may or may not bode well for the long term, but a one-time sale of key technology (if that's what it was) is not a good sign for the long-term viability of the company.
So when did you short the stock? With your constant drumbeat of negativity, it sounds like you might have an ulterior motive.
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?