Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 75,657   Posts: 1,668,893   Online: 788
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 30 of 30
  1. #21
    andrew.roos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    566
    Images
    13
    My take on this is that the "consumer" and "commercial" divisions are defined by market and sales channel - they have many products, using different techologies, that are sold in similar markets through the same sales channels. The old "film" group was defined by technology - it had products that sold in different markets, through different sales channels, but which shared the same technology base. This suggests to me that the are "end of lifeing" film - i.e. they will continue to sell existing products as long as they are profitable enough to cover the overheads and expenses and retain mindshare from the execs in charge of their respective divisions. However they aren't planning any further development. Cost savings will result from elimination of R&D expenses (if there are any left) and unprofitable product lines, reduction of marketing and sales related expenses since these will be shared with other "consumer" and "commercial" products, consolidation of administration and reduction in overheads. The danger is that if "consumer" film sales (probably all still film, as another poster suggested) without support from "commercial" (movie) film does not contribute meaningfully to the bottom line of the consumer division in the eyes of a non-film exec (since the head of film is moving to the commercial products division which leaves consumer products with a non-film head) it may be terminated. I may be reading too much into the shifting of some deck chairs, though.
    Last edited by andrew.roos; 01-11-2012 at 02:06 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #22
    clay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Asheville, North Carolina
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,124
    Images
    8
    The whole restructuring thing looks very confusing from the outside. It feels to me like Kodak based its restructuring more on some internal kodak management needs rather than external market needs. But who knows? It is really hard to make sense of it because it appears that some of the same production facilities will be producing stock for two different divisions. This is a recipe for trouble as the division heads try to lay off their costs on the other divisions. Seen it many times in good old corporate america.
    I just want to feel nostalgic like I used to.


    http://www.clayharmon.net - turnip extraordinaire

  3. #23
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,988
    Images
    63
    Given the fact that many of the problems we encounter with Kodak seem to be related to distribution inefficiencies, I am guardedly hopeful that the restructuring will result in an improvement in the distribution channels.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  4. #24
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,858
    There may be good reasons, but one thing it will do is make it no longer possible to see that the Film side is the only one making a profit.

    Gee, I wonder why.
    Last edited by lxdude; 01-11-2012 at 03:59 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  5. #25
    zsas's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,962
    Images
    74
    Let's hope they provide profit loss by each segment within the Comm. and Consumer divs
    Andy

  6. #26
    Aristophanes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    505
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    There may be good reasons, but one thing it will do is make it no longer possible to see that the Film side is the only one making a profit.

    Gee, I wonder why.
    Film was not making a profit. Look at the Q3 2011 AR. Go back a decade reading them and their "film and entertainment" side bleeds red ink, writedowns, and asset sales, mostly of depreciated capital.

    As a summary, for every $100 Kodak invested in a film asset hoping to make $400 over a 10 year period, they actually only made $60, and had to sell (or destroy) the asset for pennies on the dollar. Kodak sold factory land, and some think that made Kodak a " profit". Capital destruction on the balance sheet is not revenue.

  7. #27
    Rudeofus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,208
    Images
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
    Film was not making a profit. Look at the Q3 2011 AR. Go back a decade reading them and their "film and entertainment" side bleeds red ink, writedowns, and asset sales, mostly of depreciated capital.
    This is just funny accounting which in theory shows whether a corporation earns money but in practice ends up drawing a misleading picture. Look at the US$ 626 million goodwill depreciation: Kodak made some investments 10 or 20 years ago when things were running smoothly for them, then film sales tanked and in the year 2010 they finally decided to clean up their books for a little tax gain. So what does this mean? Did their buildings and investments just happen to depreciate that much in 2010? And not at all in the year before? Does this reflect in anyway whether they earned money from making and selling film in 2010?

    If PE (whom you like to quote fully when he seems to confirm your doom&gloom view) states repeatedly that film made Kodak a profit, he might state this based insights from former colleges inside Kodak which don't make it into corporate fiction literature written for the SEC and professional AAA raters. Also consider that a sizeable amount of their stated losses come from commitments Kodak made when they were a highly profitable near monopoly, and these losses will evaporate together with their debt when they go into chapter 11.
    Trying to be the best of whatever I am, even if what I am is no good.

  8. #28
    Aristophanes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    505
    Images
    15
    Kodak's film operations accounted for the vast majority of its legacy equity and revenues,a s well as its liabilities.

    Those pensions and medical commitments, plus land taxes, decommissioning, etc. are also liabilities of the film operations.

    Yet film demand has fallen by 10%+ YOY with a severe acceleration in the last 5 quarters, especially for motion picture film.

    Revenues continue to decline but those obligations, especially the deferred HR ones, remain a liability against vastly smaller revenues.

    It is mathematically impossible for film to have been profitable when outstanding obligations remain high but revenues decline by such staggering amounts. Kodak's rearguard action has been to focus on motion picture film and sell patents.

    The concept that film's decline for Kodak being caused by a resource shift to digital is pure fantasy. What resources? The consumer has been abandoning film depriving the company of revenues.

    In theory, the only way one can shift film into the black side is to remove those obligations through internal division mapping. This is not GAAP and no one buys that concept, which is one reason why EK is now a penny stock. Flailing about with pensions and patents is management desperation.

    EK's debt obligations look to have replaced losses from the film revenues, as well as re-tooled the company for its digital efforts. Digital has growth potential so that could be termed "good" debt, but we'll see because the gamble on the consumer printer market is just that...a gamble. But no one realistically expects film to make a popular comeback so any debt applied to covering lost revenues there can only be "bad" debt because there's no ROI.

    As much as we malign Kodak's management, they seem to have been quite good and managing film's decline, buying time and keeping as much loyalty as possible through consolidating products (Portra) and rationalizing their output. Very few companies could have taken a 90%+ collapse of demand, frankly, especially the loss of the pro market. It's their inability to maximize their early digital lead that is the corporate tragedy because it has robbed the company of options and a Ch. 11 will put a huge squeeze on the material supply, distribution, and credit of the whole rump film industry.

  9. #29
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,797
    Kodak.ca folded in 2005 and demolished once-busy cine and specialty film coating alleys in Toronto. Why?

    Informed reading of Kodak's published financial statements is about as close to clairvoyance as anyone will get here, Rudeofus. Counterfactual arguments don't cut it.

  10. #30
    Rudeofus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,208
    Images
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
    Those pensions and medical commitments, plus land taxes, decommissioning, etc. are also liabilities of the film operations.

    Yet film demand has fallen by 10%+ YOY with a severe acceleration in the last 5 quarters, especially for motion picture film.

    Revenues continue to decline but those obligations, especially the deferred HR ones, remain a liability against vastly smaller revenues.
    These obligations are gone the day Kodak files chapter 11, which seems a given under the current circumstances. After that Kodaks film business might well be profitable for a while, depending of whether they can handle the decline in movie film business. Ask Ilford how they did it. Ask Polaroid how not to do it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
    It is mathematically impossible for film to have been profitable when outstanding obligations remain high but revenues decline by such staggering amounts. Kodak's rearguard action has been to focus on motion picture film and sell patents.
    At the same time Kodak spent next to zilch on research and development, which saved them a bundle and makes mathematical possibility possible
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
    The concept that film's decline for Kodak being caused by a resource shift to digital is pure fantasy.
    Please tell me who claimed that. I have followed most of the threads regarding Kodak but I have not read this anywhere. You'll find more folks blaming HAARP on this than people claiming what you wrote.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
    In theory, the only way one can shift film into the black side is to remove those obligations through internal division mapping. This is not GAAP and no one buys that concept, which is one reason why EK is now a penny stock. Flailing about with pensions and patents is management desperation.
    Bean counters. Making the impossible possible since beginning of capitalism Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme was possible for much too long that I would trust in GAAP requirements.
    Trying to be the best of whatever I am, even if what I am is no good.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin