Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Graham Mitchell on September 30, 2011, 05:16:05 pm
-
Eastman Kodak Co. (EK), the unprofitable 131-year-old camera maker, is weighing options including a bankruptcy filing because of concerns raised by possible bidders for its patent portfolio, said three people with direct knowledge of the process. The shares plunged. Some potential buyers of the patents are reluctant to proceed with bids because a purchase may amount to a so-called fraudulent transfer if Kodak becomes insolvent, said the people, who asked not to be named because the talks are private. A number of suitors, such as Google Inc. (GOOG), have signed confidentiality agreements to examine the assets, said these people. If a sale were judged a fraudulent transfer, creditors could later sue for more money, said one of the people. A bankruptcy filing may help clear the way for the patent sale, said the people. The sale could fetch about $3 billion, according to estimates from MDB Capital Group.
Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-30/kodak-said-to-weigh-bankruptcy-filing.html
Not good at all! I wonder where that would leave its semiconductor division? Lucky for us Dalsa still seems to be in good shape.
-
Perhaps their 8x10 films sales have not been doing well...
Many companies go through bankruptcy fillings without going out of business. This is so they can restructure. I would assume their digital division would be a safer bet than their film divisions as far as sticking around.
-
Yes, I believe this isn't a case of shutting (Chapter 13), but is a Chapter 11 (reorganizational bankruptcy protection from creditors). sounds like there are some issues regarding the sale of some of their patent portfolio, and the bankruptcy may protect their ability to maximize the sale of those assets (could be just lets them have more control of what the cash does rather than having to just hand it over to creditors). A 3 billion cash infusion certainly would be helpful to Kodak. Kodak has several profitable divisions, but others are sucking money out of those divisions. they face challenges similar to many large business as their market and business model contracts ... too much corporate overhead, not enough direction, and an inability to penetrate or invent new markets.
-
the people running kodak over the past decade should be lead out of the company in handcuffs. They have spent about a decade killing off, selling off, and destroying this company. They entire time they have just been floundering, switching back and forth between options, and selling their names to bargain basement items.
Kodak was absolutely posed to lead in the modern camera world... and they failed. My Kodak SLR/n is still a winner over almost any camera and offers colors and features that even the D3 can't do and it's over 7 years old. after that, fail. Then they cancel kodakchrome... Rest In Piece.
-
the sale of some of their patent portfolio
that is all they do no. f them.
-
Kodak was absolutely posed to lead in the modern camera world... and they failed. My Kodak SLR/n is still a winner over almost any camera and offers colors and features that even the D3 can't do and it's over 7 years old. after that, fail. Then they cancel kodakchrome... Rest In Piece.
They were a using a sensor by a Belgian start up...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Nothing wrong with that Belgian company. I just happen to know one of the designers of the pro Slr sensors.... Even at that time, when they were designing the camera, Kodak still did not believe that digital would become the future. They still believed digital was just an extra next to film. They were so cheap that when "the Belgians" proposed alternations to the Chip design that would outperform every existing camera but would cost an extra bucket of Euro's they refused and just went with the existing design at that moment. I have had several 14n and pro slr-n kamera's and they were great. No other camera has a larger dynamic range that the original 14n..... but it was not to easy to obtain :-)
-
They were a using a sensor by a Belgian start up...
Cheers,
Bernard
I believe that at the end that Belgian company (Fillfactory) was bought by another company (Cypress was the name) and that Kodak ended up owning both. Four years ago the previous owners of Fillfactory, formed a new company called CMOSIS. Its strange that Kodak was buying all those sensor constructors (they used to own Dalsa isn't it?) and yet they did not introduce nothing new in the imaging sensor market than the original 9 & 6.8μm sensors, they even ceased the production of the 9μm a few years ago, thus "killing" 16x multishot capability. Cheers, Theodoros www.fotometria.gr
P.S. Fillfactory and CMOSIS only were into the Cmos sensors....
-
Hi,
You know, incompetence is not a crime, and it is really up to the shareholders to assert that the company has a competent management.
Handcuffs? No! Great pity? Yes!
Best regards
Erik
the people running kodak over the past decade should be lead out of the company in handcuffs. They have spent about a decade killing off, selling off, and destroying this company. They entire time they have just been floundering, switching back and forth between options, and selling their names to bargain basement items.
Kodak was absolutely posed to lead in the modern camera world... and they failed. My Kodak SLR/n is still a winner over almost any camera and offers colors and features that even the D3 can't do and it's over 7 years old. after that, fail. Then they cancel kodakchrome... Rest In Piece.
-
the people running kodak over the past decade should be lead out of the company in handcuffs. They have spent about a decade killing off, selling off, and destroying this company. They entire time they have just been floundering, switching back and forth between options, and selling their names to bargain basement items.
Of course it's too bad, you're right. Scary is something else, the same people are greeted in other companies with open arms ... Owners of small businesses believe that they have something special, and this is just ticking time bomb. After all, these people do not change their habits. And they will continue their work of destruction.
Best regards,
DF
-
I have had several 14n and pro slr-n kamera's and they were great. No other camera has a larger dynamic range that the original 14n..... but it was not to easy to obtain :-)
Yep, I used to own a SLR-N and there were pretty nice things about it, starting with ISO 6 mode.
It is pretty puzzling how Kodak could get in this situation considering the huge pile of cash they were sitting on top of.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
You know, incompetence is not a crime, and it is really up to the shareholders to assert that the company has a competent management.
Handcuffs? No! Great pity? Yes!
Best regards
Erik
I could not agree more. But, and this is a big But, we should have to examine the bonus and salaries they got during all this going no where days. If it's abusive, and don't reflects Kodak performance, then by all means have them arrested.
Best regards,
James
-
I could not agree more. But, and this is a big But, we should have to examine the bonus and salaries they got during all this going no where days. If it's abusive, and don't reflects Kodak performance, then by all means have them arrested.
Why would the executives need arresting since it's the board of directors who determine their pay?
Besides, it's up to the board of directors and shareholders to ensure that the executive team is competent, and that their actions are good for the company, not for the courts - except for clearly criminal instances, like the Madoff case.
-
Besides, it's up to the board of directors and shareholders to ensure that the executive team is competent, and that their actions are good for the company.
As the HP example has shown clearly... this ends up boiling down to the (in)competence of the board and therefore of the key shareholders. They are always the ones making or breaking a company.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
As the HP example has shown clearly... this ends up boiling down to the (in)competence of the board and therefore of the key shareholders. They are always the ones making or breaking a company.
Cheers,
Bernard
+1, .....for more than 20 years in THIS company.
-
Why would the executives need arresting since it's the board of directors who determine their pay?
Besides, it's up to the board of directors and shareholders to ensure that the executive team is competent, and that their actions are good for the company, not for the courts - except for clearly criminal instances, like the Madoff case.
+1
... for the record ... EK officers have not been paid bonuses since 2006.
-
I think someone needs to point out, Kodak has not declared bankruptcy--that is simply speculation on the part of the author.
-
I think someone needs to point out, Kodak has not declared bankruptcy--that is simply speculation on the part of the author.
That's clearly stated not only in the OP quote, but also in the title of the thread itself...
-
That's clearly stated not only in the OP quote, but also in the title of the thread itself...
You would think that would be enough, but many seem to be posting as if Kodak is definitely in or going into bankruptcy. There actually may not be a problem...
-
You would think that would be enough, but many seem to be posting as if Kodak is definitely in or going into bankruptcy. There actually may not be a problem...
Fair enough. Although saying there's no problem at all is ignoring the abysmal financials of the company.
-
Fair enough. Although saying there's no problem at all is ignoring the abysmal financials of the company.
But I never claimed there was no problem. Why do we always point to extremes?
-
But I never claimed there was no problem. Why do we always point to extremes?
Your "there actually may not be a problem..." can't be an accurate assessment of Kodak's financial status on any level.
-
Your "there actually may not be a problem..." can't be an accurate assessment of Kodak's financial status on any level.
The point was in juxtaposition to what was being posted. I was really referring to Kodak declaring bankruptcy--that has not actually happened.
-
Why would the executives need arresting since it's the board of directors who determine their pay?
Besides, it's up to the board of directors and shareholders to ensure that the executive team is competent, and that their actions are good for the company, not for the courts - except for clearly criminal instances, like the Madoff case.
I am not advocating arrests, but the board-senior management relationship is often far from its arm's-length appearance. It is more complicated than that and often incestuous: it is the same circle of senior managers who serve on each other's boards, simultaneously or not, scratching each other's backs, tacitly or explicitly. Once you are in that "circle of trust", your loyalty is to the circle (and your own self-interest) not to shareholders. I'll approve your outrageous salary/bonus today, you'll do the same for me tomorrow.
When the times are good (read: the tide lifts all boats), the board will reward me with an outrageous bonus, as if it is to my credit only. When the times are bad, I'll cry to the board "it's not my fault, it's the market, please reprice my options", and they will. When I do something right, I'll claim the credit (privatize profits). When I screw up, I will ask for a bailout (socialize losses). And when I really and royally screw up, the board might fire me, but once again with an outrageous golden parachute package. I can not lose. Losing is for losers (read: shareholders, stakeholders, employees).
-
You know, incompetence is not a crime, and it is really up to the shareholders to assert that the company has a competent management.
If I crash my car and kill a person, I can go to jail. Since companies are people, I would think that the execs could be brought up for killing this person in this slow motion firey crash.
-
... Since companies are people...
"Not until Texas executes one" ;)
-
Since companies are people
???
-
???
"Companies are people" is a reference to the recent Supreme Court decision to treat companies as having freedom of speech (as people do) for campaign contribution purposes.
-
Without knowing the specifics of Kodak's balance sheet, as a professional image maker, I see no joy in Kodak's fall from grace.
Even in decline, Kodak is a very large company and in my dealings with them from film to the transition to digital, depending on which group I was talking to I found them kind, innovative and forward thinking, or conversely, arrogant, obtuse and protective.
Contrast Blockbuster, HP, Polaroid, GM, Chrysler, (this list can go on for a long time) to Apple, Netflix, Canon, Toyota and IBM and you will see the ability to survive in today's ultra competitive market is directly proportional to a company or person's ability to adapt and market
that change.
End result, if you've been in photography for 15 years, then the decline of Kodak means something to you. If you're starting out, your probably won't notice it.
IMO
-
"Companies are people" is a reference to the recent Supreme Court decision to treat companies as having freedom of speech (as people do) for campaign contribution purposes.
Perhaps referencing the more recent statement by Mitt Romney about corporations being people too? There's also a pretty popular book entitled "companies are people, too". There is some truth to the statement.
Kodak was a very large company that got caught in a radically changing technological shift. Their cash cow (film) dried up far more quickly than they anticipated, and despite numerous attempts at reorganization, they've targeted the wrong strategy on several occasions as they've struggled to stay afloat.
Related to the thread itself, Kodak has denied plans for filing a bankruptcy. From what I've picked up it seems they hired a law firm to advise them in reorganization, Of course any firm working on corporate turn arounds would certainly be involved in a large number of bankruptcies so they are labeled as "bankruptcy experts", but it's part of the strategy quite often. GM and Chrysler recent high profile examples.
-
Related to the thread itself, Kodak has denied plans for filing a bankruptcy. From what I've picked up it seems they hired a law firm to advise them in reorganization,
I agree...I think the Bloomberg article is disingenuous...
I think it's highly likely that the law firms have been retained to make sure any sale of IP is locked down and "light tight" so that Kodak can maximize the value of that IP...
Any time a corporation starts selling IP, there is a real question of the true value of the IP and how secure a sale will be. We've seen a lot of patent sales lately...Apple and MSFT teamed up to buy a lot of Nortel IP and later Google put in a bid to buy a lot of Motorola IP...there's a lot at stake since the major players seem to like suing each other as an opening bid on eventual licensing agreements.
Look, Kodak has been a prolific patent applier...they own tons of IP relating to digital imaging and storage and transmission of digital images. What is in question now is the relative value?
While Polaroid was forced into bankruptcy because they simply couldn't finance their debt and had little revenue, Kodak could almost survive on IP licensing alone–if the value was placed high enough.
Yes, I agree that Kodak's fall from grace was and still is staggering...Kodak COULD have owned the industry. But their "experts" mis-predicted the industry trends because all this stuff happened a lot faster than most predicted. Hindsight is 20/20...
I hope Kodak well...but they are not all that different from many old school rust-belt corps that had the rug pulled out from under of them because they couldn't, as a corp entity, react quick enough to adapt and adopt.
Apple literally was on the verge of blowing up before Steve came back and pulled themselves from the brink. Talk about revenge of the nerds...look at Apple and then MSFT. Who would you rather have had stock in the last 10 years? And no...I couldn't pull the trigger on buying Apple cause I really thought they were going away. Course the upside is I didn't buy MSFT either :~)
-
Apple literally was on the verge of blowing up before Steve came back and pulled themselves from the brink. Talk about revenge of the nerds...look at Apple and then MSFT. Who would you rather have had stock in the last 10 years? And no...I couldn't pull the trigger on buying Apple cause I really thought they were going away. Course the upside is I didn't buy MSFT either :~)
I did buy a 1000 shares at around $12 (which would now be 2000 shares) but then wasn't willing to ride out the bet when it shot to $28 6 weeks later. (still kicking myself frequently)
-
Share price chart for Friday:
(http://forums.rennlist.com/upload/ke.jpg)
-
But remember how good financial experts are:
Home prices are guaranteed to increase 10% annually--invest in Mortgage Backed Securities
Lehman Brothers is solvent
Dot Coms are a great investment
Reducing taxes and regulation produces a healthy and robust economy
Rating agencies are alway right
You can't beat the market unless you invest with Bernie Madoff.
-
I am not advocating arrests, but the board-senior management relationship is often far from its arm's-length appearance. It is more complicated than that and often incestuous: it is the same circle of senior managers who serve on each other's boards, simultaneously or not, scratching each other's backs, tacitly or explicitly. Once you are in that "circle of trust", your loyalty is to the circle (and your own self-interest) not to shareholders. I'll approve your outrageous salary/bonus today, you'll do the same for me tomorrow.
When the times are good (read: the tide lifts all boats), the board will reward me with an outrageous bonus, as if it is to my credit only. When the times are bad, I'll cry to the board "it's not my fault, it's the market, please reprice my options", and they will. When I do something right, I'll claim the credit (privatize profits). When I screw up, I will ask for a bailout (socialize losses). And when I really and royally screw up, the board might fire me, but once again with an outrageous golden parachute package. I can not lose. Losing is for losers (read: shareholders, stakeholders, employees).
+1