I was poking around and can't find a Harman/Ilford quarterly rpt. Where did you find this (I am not doubting you, just want to read more about Harman/Ilford and didn't find anything on their site- are they privately owned?)
Originally Posted by tomalophicon
Andy, they are a private company.
Originally Posted by zsas
Their director, Simon R. Galley, posted the fact on here somewhere.
We have no direct information on Ilford.
There is a photo show here in the US in a few weeks. Interestingly enough, Kodak will be there, but for the first time in years, Fuji will be absent from what I hear.
Hmmm. Wonder how things are for Fuji then.
But, Kodak is expected to go belly up soon from local reports.
I thought Kodak pretty much came out and said they want to change from being 'traditional' to being 'digital', lets just re-read what Perez had to say in the second quarter report:
Originally Posted by clayne
“We are investing in these growth businesses to create a new profitable, sustainable digital company by 2012,” Perez said. “At the same time, we continue to fund legacy liabilities associated with the traditional businesses."
* Earlier they defined the company’s core digital growth businesses as – Consumer and Commercial Inkjet.
What are "legacy liabilities associated with the traditional businesses"? The cost of silver? I believe the subtext is quite clear, its like Franz Kafka's The Metamorphosis - they(CEO/board) want to move on, they are trying to transform to a digital business but are not here now bear hugging their 'traditional business' customers in their own quarterly report - why? Maybe I am being too sensitive, but I get the feeling that they (board/CEO) want to move away from film, they have said it many times...."We are investing in these growth businesses to create a new profitable, sustainable digital company by 2012" Maybe they could have said something more, non-polarizing to a major segment of their revenue, in my opinion because I feel slighted... I dont want them to fail at all, but it would not surprise me if they divested film to really uphold their (board/CEO) own desire of becoming a "sustainable digital company".
Last edited by zsas; 01-04-2012 at 11:32 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Reason: fix quote
They are paralyzed!
They cannot move forward in digital without using film profits. If they use film profits, the film end stagnates. They are using the film profits to fun digital causing problems in film! How much simpler can it be?
As for Kafka, I don't easily see a large roach in the view here!
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I think PE is right. They've been flopping around like a fish out of water for years and finally the lack of oxygen is killing their brain cells.
The Catch 22 with them selling the film business are the trademarks. I don't know that anyone is going to want to buy a film business that doesn't have rights to "Kodak" and all of the other brand names. But EK needs the Kodak name to sell its digital printers. No one is going to buy one unless it has the Kodak name on it.
It is a real quandary.
"I only wanted Uncle Vern standing by his new car (a Hudson) on a clear day. I got him and the car. I also got a bit of Aunt Mary's laundry, and Beau Jack, the dog, peeing on a fence, and a row of potted tuberous begonias on the porch and 78 trees and a million pebbles in the driveway and more. It's a generous medium, photography." -- Lee Friedlander
I will quote what I wrote on another forum for ease as it may help: "It is easy to find out the data as Ilford Photo (per their website) is a trading name of Harman Technology Limited, a company registered here in England. As a result it has to annually submit accounts to UK Companies House, which are publicly available for inspection by anyone who wishes to see them, along with other legally required filings they have to make.
Originally Posted by zsas
According to their latest publically available accounts they had revenue of £22.6m and profit after tax of £1.4m for calendar year 2010 (though made a loss in 2009). So they were profitable in 2010, but there is no data to allow the reader to split revenue between film sales and other lines."
"The legacy liabilities" that require funding are their liabilities for retirees, plus their significant responsibilities relating to the historical environmental damage at their various manufacturing sites.
Kodak has been very responsible environmentally for a long time, but their historic sites pre-date that. Environmental re-mediation is hellishly expensive.
The biggest problem with using bankruptcy as a survival tool is that is does nothing to effectively remove those liabilities for the historical environmental damage at their various manufacturing sites. Any entity that tried to take on the responsibility for those sites would most likely automatically assume those liabilities as well.
So if they were to sell those businesses, the purchasers would have to start up manufacturing at different sites, most likely with different equipment.
In many jurisdictions, all or part of those liabilities can be personally enforced against corporate directors. I don't know whether this would apply to Kodak.
“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
I expect a legal defense could be mounted successfully, but that would eat the profits of a marginally thin business.
Originally Posted by MattKing
So the business model of buying the film becomes 1) buy Kodak film, 2) fight with environmentalist movement, 3) watch movie theaters go digital, 4) hope to break even unless a union gets involved so you can go broke.
It's a private company, but (in common with all UK Limited Companies) the annual accounts are on public record (and available online for a small fee) from www.companieshouse.gov.uk (If you need anything like this, go to this official Government site, don't get caught by paying extra to so-called "company search agent" sites. )
Originally Posted by zsas