stunsworth Posted January 20, 2012 Share #101 Â Posted January 20, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) The message from Kodak is quite clear... Â If the business is losing 1bn overall, but one division is making a profit of a few million, the business is still in the mire - I made up the figures so let's not have an argument about them being inaccurate, it's the principle I'm discussing. Â I don't know American law - or UK law for that matter - but after declaring Chapter 11 are there any restrictions on what a company can do regarding selling or floating off profitable sections of the company? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 20, 2012 Posted January 20, 2012 Hi stunsworth, Take a look here kodak bankruptcy. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pgk Posted January 20, 2012 Share #102 Â Posted January 20, 2012 "Film (still and cinema) remains a profitable business for Kodak, and we have the broadest and most respected portfolio of films in both segments," Bulk users of film like the film industry must be also now considering their position with regard to remaining with film or moving to a fully digital workflow as a result of Kodak's woes. Given the possibility of supply not being as stable as it was (because no-one really knows how this will all pan out) then businesses dependent on film will be examining their options carefully. Kodak really is in a catch 22 and somehow hiving off the film division (even if it still retains the Kodak name) and safeguarding it from the loss making sectors might be a real matter of priority if it isn't to shrink and lose viability itself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted January 20, 2012 Share #103  Posted January 20, 2012 If the business is losing 1bn overall, but one division is making a profit of a few million, the business is still in the mire - I made up the figures so let's not have an argument about them being inaccurate, it's the principle I'm discussing. I don't know American law - or UK law for that matter - but after declaring Chapter 11 are there any restrictions on what a company can do regarding selling or floating off profitable sections of the company?  The ideal solution: Kodak sells the profitable film division, and the new, enthusiastic, crusading, slimmed-down film company flourishes without the leaden superstructure of the demoralized, loss-making Kodak behemoth on its back.  The reality: In order to make it even harder for the profit-making film division to be floated off from the incompetent lump of wasted opportunities that forms the 'new vision' of the digital Kodak so beloved of news organizations around the world*, this formerly separate section of the company is split up and integrated and merged into the other divisions. The intention apparently being to suck it dry of profits in order to feed the digital monster, before that eventually dies leaving nothing behind.   *by this I mean the endless stories in the press that invariably describe Kodak's problems as originating in their inability to ditch 'old-fashioned' film even earlier. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Studio58 Posted January 20, 2012 Share #104 Â Posted January 20, 2012 Debt totalling 4.5 billion GBP and 100,00 creditors..... what a mess. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted January 20, 2012 Share #105  Posted January 20, 2012 Bit of useful info separating the continuing use of film to record and digital to project in cinemas. That's what many of us are doing with our film images.  World's premier image makers will not give film up for video capture whilst film remains available (below). Without ongoing R&D costs and the massive Kodak overhead, that will be a long time. Ironically, the Kodak re-structure may make the future of film more secure, with or without them.  Daily Mail quote:  Demand for celluloid 'peaked' in 2008, says IHS, when the world used 13 billion feet of (35mm ?) film. By 2012, we will use as little as four billion. By 2015, the film will no longer be used commercially - although libraries storing old celluloid releases will continue to exist, and private projectors will exist to show them.  Once celluloid is no longer used to project films in the cinema, it won't cease to exist - directors may still use the format to shoot films, then they will be converted to digital to show at the cinema  Two-thirds of UK cinemas are already digital. But the 'switch' to digital might not mean that the technology disappears - directors can still use celluloid to film, but it will be projected digitally. Many directors favour the 'warm' look of celluloid - with directors such as Stephen Spielberg having spoken out in favour of the format. 'There is an emotional attachment to celluloid,' says Hancock, 'It does produce a particular, recognisable effect. Digitally shot films are cleaner and neater, and some film-makers are against that.'   Read more: Digital cinema 'will eclipse' 35mm film by early 2012 - and celluloid will disappear by 2015 | Mail Online Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 20, 2012 Share #106 Â Posted January 20, 2012 Let's see - we have about 45.000 forum members at a guess (I did not look up the actual figure!), let's all donate 10.000 $ and buy Kodak I'm sure the offer would be accepted. That way we would have secured the film supply...:D:D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Studio58 Posted January 20, 2012 Share #107 Â Posted January 20, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) We could probably run it better Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 20, 2012 Share #108  Posted January 20, 2012 The intention apparently being to suck it dry of profits in order to feed the digital monster, before that eventually dies leaving nothing behind  But as a plan it's doomed since the profits of the film division are a pittance compared to the overall debt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted January 20, 2012 Share #109 Â Posted January 20, 2012 But as a plan it's doomed since the profits of the film division are a pittance compared to the overall debt. Â Steve, Is that the gross profit, or the net contribution of the film division ? Â Do you have a $number ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted January 20, 2012 Share #110 Â Posted January 20, 2012 Let's see - we have about 45.000 forum members at a guess (I did not look up the actual figure!), let's all donate 10.000 $ and buy Kodak I'm sure the offer would be accepted. That way we would have secured the film supply...:D:D Â I will just go an find that $10,000 I left behind the tea caddy in the kitchen... Â Shall I send it to you, so that you can send it to Kodak on our behalf? Â Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 20, 2012 Share #111 Â Posted January 20, 2012 Yes please - Zim dollars? It seems to fit the Kodak company profile to use that currency : Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted January 20, 2012 Share #112 Â Posted January 20, 2012 IMO, to save the Kodak film division we just need to persuade Azzo to start using Portra. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted January 20, 2012 Share #113 Â Posted January 20, 2012 I bought ten rolls of Tri-X on Monday. I've done my bit. Â The fact that I also bought 20 rolls of Delta 100, is by-the-by... Â Mathers have stopped selling any Kodak colour film now, apart from the very cheap stuff and Ektar, so that's no good to me at all. Portra has to come via mail order. Â But the VAT-free mail order house has stopped selling Ilford film, so there is no one-stop offer any more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted January 20, 2012 Share #114 Â Posted January 20, 2012 But the VAT-free mail order house has stopped selling Ilford film, so there is no one-stop offer any more. Â Surprisingly, they are selling Ilford HP5 at the moment. Maybe things will change. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted January 20, 2012 Share #115 Â Posted January 20, 2012 I emailed them about their lack of Delta 100 last year and they told me that they had stopped selling Ilford flm completely. Either their policy has changed, or they still have soem HP5 left. Â We are talking 7dayshop, btw. (At least, I am ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted January 20, 2012 Share #116  Posted January 20, 2012 I emailed them about their lack of Delta 100 last year and they told me that they had stopped selling Ilford flm completely. Either their policy has changed, or they still have soem HP5 left. We are talking 7dayshop, btw. (At least, I am )  I knew you were. They haven't sold any Ilford film for a long time and I understand that was their policy.  Whether they have had a policy change, or bought a batch from a 3rd party, I know not. All that's evident is that they are listing HP5 on their site.  Not being a 'doom and gloom' merchant, I'm pleased it's there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 20, 2012 Share #117  Posted January 20, 2012 Steve, Is that the gross profit, or the net contribution of the film division ?  Gary, there are some Kodak documents here...  Kodak: Investor Center: Quarterly Earnings  This quote is from the 3rd quarter 2011 release...   "Film, Photofinishing and Entertainment Group third-quarter sales were $389 million, a 10% decline from the year-ago quarter, driven by continuing industry-related volume declines. Third-quarter earnings from operations for the segment were $15 million, compared with earnings of $28 million in the year-ago period. This decrease in earnings was primarily driven by significantly increased raw material costs, particularly silver, and industry-related declines in volumes, largely offset by cost reductions and price actions across the segment."  So they earned $15m, down from $28m in the same quarter the previous year.  Even if earnings had remained at $28m that's not enough to compensate for the overall losses - from further on down the same document...  "Kodak is now targeting a 2011 loss from continuing operations in the range of $400 million to $600 million. Previously, the company forecasted a loss in the range of $200 million to $400 million." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted January 20, 2012 Share #118  Posted January 20, 2012 Gary, there are some Kodak documents here... Kodak: Investor Center: Quarterly Earnings  This quote is from the 3rd quarter 2011 release... So they earned $15m, down from $28m in the same quarter the previous year.  Even if earnings had remained at $28m that's not enough to compensate for the overall losses - from further on down the same document...  "Kodak is now targeting a 2011 loss from continuing operations in the range of $400 million to $600 million. Previously, the company forecasted a loss in the range of $200 million to $400 million."  Steve - you're quoting profits for the film division from one quarter (a particularly bad one, as I understand it), against losses for the whole year of the entire corporation.  I don't know the figures for the film division, but let's say that they're making approx $50-100 million profit per year. Is this not a reasonable return for a slimmed down company? I'm assuming that this leaner company would also:  - more enthusiastically promote film use (can't remember EVER seeing an ad for Kodak film) - make it easier to order film online - be more agile in their response to shifting markets  All of which might well result in a healthier return. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 20, 2012 Share #119  Posted January 20, 2012 Steve - you're quoting profits for the film division from one quarter (a particularly bad one, as I understand it), against losses for the whole year of the entire corporation  True, sorry about that. So if revenue for film sales hadn't halved from 2010 to 2011 they'd expect to have lost about $500m in 2011 overall.  I know I'm stating the obvious, but they didn't file for Chapter 11 because they are currently successful. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 20, 2012 Share #120 Â Posted January 20, 2012 I don't know the figures for the film division, but let's say that they're making approx $50-100 million profit per year. Is this not a reasonable return for a slimmed down company? Â I agree that would probably be a successful outcome, the only problem is that they seem intent on merging the film division with the consumer and professional divisions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.