Emerging Kodak

Discussion in 'Industry News' started by kuparikettu, Jan 31, 2013.

  1. kuparikettu

    kuparikettu Member

    Messages:
    118
    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2012
    Location:
    Tampere, Fin
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    While it's so nice to have so many threads about the bleak future of Kodak, maybe we could dedicate one thread to hopeful news on Kodak emerging from chapter 11.

    I'll start: http://www.pr-inside.com/multi-touch-technology-using-new-transparent-r3570023.htm

    So worry not, there will be coating happening in the future and while the machines churn out film for use in phones and pads and lcd screens, maybe once a year they might also run a batch of film for photography and cinema! :wink:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 31, 2013
  2. batwister

    batwister Member

    Messages:
    921
    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2010
    Location:
    Midlands, UK
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Sorry to put a downer on your thread, but this is a very different type of film. 'Conductive film coating' for 'touch panels and related applications'.
    Nothing to do with the light sensitive emulsion we so enjoy.
     
  3. AgX

    AgX Member

    Messages:
    11,168
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2007
    Location:
    Germany
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Another downer would be that this is not actually new technolgy. At least I don't see new technology in this.

    Agfa has been coating film with PEDOT for years. Furthermore they make PEDOT, including as screen printing ink.
    Kodak in contrast would do customized pattern coating. But this would just be job-coating (on their own base film) to my understanding.


    EDIT:
    Maybe the novelty lies in etching a full area coated film instead of screen printing it, to form that pattern.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 31, 2013
  4. pbromaghin

    pbromaghin Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,933
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Location:
    Castle Rock,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Ah, but if it uses the same machine, it keeps the lights on in between
     
  5. kuparikettu

    kuparikettu Member

    Messages:
    118
    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2012
    Location:
    Tampere, Fin
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Nah, the main point wasn't so much whether or not this tech has anything to do with photographic film per se, but rather on the fact that Kodak is involved in some research and production of technologies which aren't too tightly connected to photography but to other large business areas instead. This is important, because we have seen that Fuji is nowadays a company which produces even makeup products (http://www.fujifilm.com/news/n111205.html). It's for the best of us if these giants find other revenue streams in addition to traditional film business because we do know that focusing purely on photography and downsizing won't be possible due to the large coating lines and the cost of manufacturing new smaller machines.
     
  6. bobwysiwyg

    bobwysiwyg Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,623
    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2008
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, M
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Not to be Mr. Negative [pun intended] but I doubt other profitable aspects of their business will be allowed to 'fund' photographic production. It's either profitable on its own or not.
     
  7. kuparikettu

    kuparikettu Member

    Messages:
    118
    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2012
    Location:
    Tampere, Fin
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    That would be the case if film production, makeup and electronic film products were totally unconnected. However, because they share some parts (chemicals, coating, production lines, distribution) producing other stuff that is wanted keeps the production lines running and thus makes the losses of having equipment unused smaller.

    Thus it is like a factory producing wooden household items: if at some point there isn't as much demand for wooden stools, they might keep the production running at a smaller portion of stools being produced of the whole capacity but they can have the machines work on some other wooden articles as well. Stools are still profitable, but only doing wooden stools isn't -- widening the catalog is sometimes necessary.

    Film is still very much profitable and large business, but only producing film is bad idea. Innovations should be used broadly (Btw, Harman does this too: http://www.harmantechnology.com/DotNetNuke/Technology/Antimicrobial/tabid/185/Default.aspx)
     
  8. Athiril

    Athiril Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,887
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2009
    Location:
    Melbourne, V
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I don't think this is true at all. The digital imaging and printer aspect of Kodak was sucking everything else dry for many years before it caught up with them.

    IIRC they also shifted losses, costs and profits around to other areas.
     
  9. Sal Santamaura

    Sal Santamaura Member

    Messages:
    1,409
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Location:
    San Clemente
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
  10. Hatchetman

    Hatchetman Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,130
    Joined:
    May 27, 2011
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
  11. RattyMouse

    RattyMouse Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,812
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, M
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Kodak's losses are staggering. 400 million dollars and increasing. Sales are also down 24%. Really, how can this dinosaur keep on wheezing along? I guess I'll believe it when I see it, that they exit bankruptcy.
     
  12. Darkroom317

    Darkroom317 Member

    Messages:
    614
    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Location:
    University o
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    The stock is so cheap we should come together and buy a controlling interest in the company. :smile:
     
  13. Pioneer

    Pioneer Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,594
    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Location:
    Elko, Nevada
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Don't you know? That is the re-organization plan. Print and sell more stock...Oooops, sorry...that was Bernanke.
     
  14. Sponsored Ad
  15. dances_w_clouds

    dances_w_clouds Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,343
    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver B.
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Why did they invent the digital camera and not market it ? Everyone else did.
     
  16. iulian

    iulian Member

    Messages:
    69
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2011
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    If you add all the liabilities, they should give us money just to buy it :smile:

    This is what corporate arrogance looks like. It happened to Polaroid it (almost) happened to Apple, it happened to Silicon Graphics and it will happen to IBM and HP quite soon, I'm afraid.
    Others will be more dedicated to the customer and grow, starting the cycle all over again.

    I think it started with the useless film formats pushed onto the customers to sell more crappy cameras (just look up a list... 620 anyone?) culminating with the APS fiasco and the delay in marketing digital. Too many mistakes to survive. The fact that they were huge delayed the end, but the vision in Kodak is just a ECN product line.

    Sorry for the rant, but I see design-by-commitee and marketing-by-commitee everyday. No one takes charge and imposes a vision, and when they do it's usually crap like expensive inkjet with cheap ink and nobody dares to contradict them.

    Support the ones who care about us (Ilford, ADOX, maybe even Maco and Fuji) and let the dead rest already.

    Regards,
    Iulian
     
  17. Brian C. Miller

    Brian C. Miller Member

    Messages:
    495
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2010
    Location:
    Everett, WA
    Shooter:
    Large Format
  18. MattKing

    MattKing Subscriber

    Messages:
    15,194
    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2005
    Location:
    BC, Canada
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    However:

    "The Rochester, N.Y., company said it lost $1.38 billion in 2012, 80 percent more than the loss of $764 million the year before. Excluding reorganization costs, the latest loss would have been $308 million, Kodak said."

    So their reorganization costs were in excess of $1.07 billion.
     
  19. Roger Cole

    Roger Cole Subscriber

    Messages:
    5,202
    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Location:
    Atlanta GA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    And their loss excluding those costs was less than half the loss of 2011.

    Still they are bleeding heavily if not quite gushing as badly as in 2011.
     
  20. AgX

    AgX Member

    Messages:
    11,168
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2007
    Location:
    Germany
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Kodak had been forerunner with types as 126, S-8 which really cranked up the markets worlwide.

    APS had been a well designed system that had been outrun by digital technololgies just as the whole industry.
     
  21. alanrockwood

    alanrockwood Member

    Messages:
    789
    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Buying stock in Kodak prior to their emerging from bankruptcy is absolutely, without a doubt, the worst thing one could possibly contemplate. To begin with, even purchasing 100% of the shares will not give you control. The company is in bankruptcy, and control is now formally in the hands of the court and effectively in the hands of the creditors. Shareholders are powerless in this situation.

    Furthermore, the chance that shareholders will retain any value when the company emerges from bankruptcy is zero. For example, suppose you were to invest, let us say, $10,000,000 in kodak shares today and hold them until the company emerges from bankruptcy. When the company emerges from bankruptcy your shares will have a value of $0.00, that's zero, as in absolute zero, as in not worth even one penny.

    This is not a good investment strategy.

    It all comes down to how things work in a bankruptcy. Without going into much detail, in a bankruptcy there is a sort of prioritization that takes place for claims on company resources. Shareholders are last in line. This means that every class ahead of the shareholders must be made whole before the shareholders get anything. Since the company owes more money than the value of its assets, the current shareholders will be left out in the cold. If there is to be an operating company at the end of all this it will not be owned by the current shareholders.

    The typical scenario is for the old shares to be cancelled, and new shares are to be issued to the current bond holders. Thus, the current shareholders get nothing, and the company will end up being owned by the current bond holders.
     
  22. Darkroom317

    Darkroom317 Member

    Messages:
    614
    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Location:
    University o
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I was joking
     
  23. AgX

    AgX Member

    Messages:
    11,168
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2007
    Location:
    Germany
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    In case Kodak resurrects from bancruptsy as the same legal entity, the old shareholders are still in hold of their part/share of Kodak.
    This of course does not say anything of a future stock price nor of a future dividend from Kodak.


    Shareholders are debtors, how could they get their money back anyway?




    Or do I miss something?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 16, 2013
  24. bobwysiwyg

    bobwysiwyg Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,623
    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2008
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, M
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    It's my understanding that existing common shares generally become worthless as a result emerging from Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Sell if you got'm. :wink:
     
  25. alanrockwood

    alanrockwood Member

    Messages:
    789
    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I see you are from Germany. Perhaps bankruptcy laws are different there. Under US bankruptcy law the shareholder is last in line to get anything in a bankruptcy. It is virtually unheard of for shareholders to receive anything in a bankruptcy. Exceptions to this generalization are EXTREMELY rare and even those few rare exceptions virtually always involve special circumstances, such as the Texaco bankruptcy. I believe the shareholders survived that one.

    The priority for payout in a bankruptcy runs roughly like this. The government gets paid first (taxes). Then wages to workers get paid, including any back wages owed. Then various forms of secured debt, i.e. debt backed by collateral, then unsecured debt. At the very tail end of the priority list come the shareholders. If the creditors don't get paid what they are owed then the shareholders lose ownership of the company. Their shares are cancelled and become worthless. If the company emerges as an operating company it does so under new ownership, usually being owned by the former creditors as partial compensation for not having been paid all the money they were owed.
     
  26. alanrockwood

    alanrockwood Member

    Messages:
    789
    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Sorry, I didn't realize you were joking.