Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,205   Posts: 1,531,736   Online: 983
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 49
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    655
    Quote Originally Posted by keithwms View Post
    obsoleting their own inventions... if done properly, it works very well.
    This was done by Hewlett Packard, who stayed in the inkjet business even after the advent of laser printers. Instead of abandoning the "obsolete" technology they made a great deal of money in both markets.

    s-a

  2. #22
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,798
    I'm not seeing vulture capitalists like Carl Icahn in the picture. He's likely poised to squeeze value out of RIM but Kodak? Where's the value?

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    95
    I'd like to gently sprinkle some cold water on hpulley's optimism:

    The $3B figure for patents is too high. One research firm published this guess, but subsequent patent sales by others have shown the patent buying frenzy to be short lived. Kodak has been monetizing these patents for some time, and most major companies already have licenses. Those who won't pay have been doing well in the courts to squash the patents. Expect no more than $2B, and could be under $1B

    Kodak only has 6-10 months before serious cash flow issues appear. The debt is junk status and sells for 25-45 cents on the dollar. Their pension liabilities are much greater than they admit due to their overly optimistic predictions on rate of return (~8.7%). A more realistic assumption would have their losses increase by at least 10% a year and adds $2B to total liabilities.

    Kodak expects their turnaround to take another three years. To avoid a cash crunch they will be forced to sell not only their patents, but other valuable assets as well. They have already sold off many divisions, including the space and OLED divisions to name a few.

    The patent sale won't net them as much cash as you think. Due to Kodak's debt obligations and terms (~$1.2B), assets sales such as this cannot be used to fund ongoing operations and must first go toward repaying debt. The cash from patent sales won't tide them over through the restructuring plan, and will buy them only a maximum of 2 years cash.

    Can the company be restructured in bankruptcy?: Bankruptcy would slow the cash outflow enough for kodak to finish the restructuring, assuming the boat can be turned around.

    Is liquidation still a possibility: ?

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by CGW View Post
    I'm not seeing vulture capitalists like Carl Icahn in the picture. He's likely poised to squeeze value out of RIM but Kodak? Where's the value?
    Actually, Icahn bought 7% of EK stock in November, 2003. I don't know if he has retained that stake or not. I think around 2005/2006 he had the option of increasing his stake but he opted not to...

    I really don't know if Kodak has any hope of restructuring with a plan that allows its film division to continue operations. Most of the "value" of the company seems to be in its display technology patents - but a good 'ol fashioned Chapter 7 "smash and grab" auction could determine who receives those.

    It's unfortunate, but as far as Kodak's debt holders are concerned the company may be worth more dead than alive.
    Digital Photography is just "why-tech" not "high tech"..

  5. #25
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by arpinum View Post
    Is liquidation still a possibility: ?
    Always is. But the question is whether it makes any sense to keep EK's structure. I would say no, hell no. They need to fragment into smaller, viable units. I can imagine, within EK's [too] broad range of expertise, a subset of smaller companies, perhaps private for a year or two, which could pounce on the inevitable economic upswing and make big waves. Look, it is a probably a good thing to make an nonviable company go away right now, ASAP, in these market conditions. You kill the legacy costs and sit and wait for the upswing and pin your hopes to that. What you don't do is hemorrhage money and credibility waiting for an upswing that could be many years away.

    One has to remember that the most valuable quantity that a company has is not its patent library nor its brand. All of those things have fiat values, especially if the company is public. It is the quality of its people right now... and to a much lesser extent the company history. The patents come form people and those people still have the same brain cells. They may be tired of fighting and jaded and all that, but... one hopes that some of the core creative abilities are still there in the bowels of the company. If not then liquidate all and forget it, like polaroid.

    If I were on the EK board I would march a bunch of venture capitalists into the room, get them to sign NDAs, show them the patents, and award the name EK to the best idea to keep some fragment of the company alive. The harsh reality is that the company as a whole is probably not viable.

    I am assuming there is some really nice IP in there somewhere which can generate the next big thing. I could be wrong, it could be one big mirage. The venture capital will tell us which is true, and very soon.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by arpinum View Post
    I'd like to gently sprinkle some cold water on hpulley's optimism:

    The $3B figure for patents is too high. One research firm published this guess, but subsequent patent sales by others have shown the patent buying frenzy to be short lived. Kodak has been monetizing these patents for some time, and most major companies already have licenses. Those who won't pay have been doing well in the courts to squash the patents. Expect no more than $2B, and could be under $1B

    Kodak only has 6-10 months before serious cash flow issues appear. The debt is junk status and sells for 25-45 cents on the dollar. Their pension liabilities are much greater than they admit due to their overly optimistic predictions on rate of return (~8.7%). A more realistic assumption would have their losses increase by at least 10% a year and adds $2B to total liabilities.

    Kodak expects their turnaround to take another three years. To avoid a cash crunch they will be forced to sell not only their patents, but other valuable assets as well. They have already sold off many divisions, including the space and OLED divisions to name a few.

    The patent sale won't net them as much cash as you think. Due to Kodak's debt obligations and terms (~$1.2B), assets sales such as this cannot be used to fund ongoing operations and must first go toward repaying debt. The cash from patent sales won't tide them over through the restructuring plan, and will buy them only a maximum of 2 years cash.

    Can the company be restructured in bankruptcy?: Bankruptcy would slow the cash outflow enough for kodak to finish the restructuring, assuming the boat can be turned around.

    Is liquidation still a possibility: ?
    You're right about those patents. And the number of buyers for those patents is swiftly declining as the markets to which those patents are relevant begin to mature (just ask Nokia, RIM, Motorola, HP, etc...)

    I think seeking Ch. 11 protection sooner rather than later is the right thing to do because we're again faced with the potential of a serious global banking crisis - which could make it much, much harder for them to get "debtor-in-possession" financing.

    Given that all of their operations remain in cyclical or secular decline and the risk-aversion of lenders, yes, I think Ch. 7 liquidation is a definite possibility. In fact, Kodak's debtholders may prefer that the company go that route immediately because Kodak's assets are not likely to appreciate as time passes.

    And even if they do obtain financing for continued operations, I think that that financing would only come about as a result of a restructuring plan that breaks up the company.

    I'm not sure where all of the above leaves the film division but I suspect that if Kodak film continues to be manufactured, it will have to be made outside of the USA. The current USA-based production infrastructure is now too large and there is the ongoing matter of toxic torts...
    Digital Photography is just "why-tech" not "high tech"..

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,535
    Seen in a shop in Austria last week.....current Agfa Vista 200 color negative films "Made in China".

    Could we also expect to see our favorite Kodak films with this printed on their cartons, in the near future?

  8. #28
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    I think it's possible that this is actually *good* for film. Film is a well-defined product with a brand name that a company can crank out and sell. Right away. No need to reinvest in research etc. A company like 3M or Fuji, with good systems engineers, could probably reduce the production line to bare bones and robots and take the profit from the brand names alone.... for some years to come. Companies like Philip Morris know very well how to take good profit in a troubled sector during a declining market.

    I would guess that some digital imaging technologies and algorithms are at the core of EK's hopes for patent sales. Who knows, maybe they have some good stuff for digital xray or whatnot. That should be portioned off and made viable as a separate entity, and not tied to film at all. That would be beneficial to both sides... film and digital.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Burnaby, BC
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    582
    Quote Originally Posted by MaximusM3 View Post
    I did my very best over the years..bought a ton, shot a ton, and still doing it....my conscience is at peace
    Same here. I used Kodachrome, Pan-X and Tri-X from the day I first picked up my first camera. Shot Kodachrome until 25 December 2010; and still have 140 rolls deep-frozen (ran out of time). I switched to E100G and E100VS with some reluctance. Tri-X is currently the only EK product I use - but for how much longer? I guess it's time I reunited PanF Plus with its family member (HP-5).

  10. #30
    hpulley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,214
    Images
    75
    You may be right, the patent value on paper may not approach the sale value.

    With Fuji trimming its own lines I can't see them picking up Kodak's. Why would Fuji make Kodak brand films when they have their own? I don't see it unless they somehow admit that Portra is better than 400H and 160S, Ektar better than Reala.
    Harry Pulley - Visit the BLIND PRINT EXCHANGE FORUM

    Happiness is...

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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