Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Kodak warns it may be delisted from the NYSE, might not recover.

Stephen Williams said:
Historically you could always trade in the account, not so easy today, Tom was talking about the past.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you are saying - my point was only that shorting a stock does require funds. Tom said he didn't have the money to short the stock which may be true, as your broker will require funds or other collateral in your account when you short.
 
Terry VerHaar said:
Not sure what you are saying - my point was only that shorting a stock does require funds. Tom said he didn't have the money to short the stock which may be true, as your broker will require funds or other collateral in your account when you short.
Click to expand...

Historically you could trade in the account period, sales & purcheses netted off so historically you could short for a limited period without any cost. Of course options are probably the safer bet as long as your not writing them! You don't have an unlimited downside which you do with selling short. Anybody who sold short today at the bottom will be feeling very sick tonight!
 
Stephen Williams said:
Historically you could trade in the account period, sales & purcheses netted off so historically you could short for a limited period without any cost. Of course options are probably the safer bet as long as your not writing them! You don't have an unlimited downside which you do with selling short. Anybody who sold short today at the bottom will be feeling very sick tonight!
Click to expand...

I guess this isn't the place to argue about it, but having spent 12 years of my career (early on) as a Wall Street broker, I will still dispute your assertion that you can short stock without putting up funds. Yes, you can use other positions as collateral, as long as you have a margin account. But, if you do, that margin is not available for other trading activity - you ARE essentially, borrowing to create your position. To the investor, it may look and feel like it's free, but it most definitely is not.
 
Terry VerHaar said:
I guess this isn't the place to argue about it, but having spent 12 years of my career (early on) as a Wall Street broker, I will still dispute your assertion that you can short stock without putting up funds. Yes, you can use other positions as collateral, as long as you have a margin account. But, if you do, that margin is not available for other trading activity - you ARE essentially, borrowing to create your position. To the investor, it may look and feel like it's free, but it most definitely is not.
Click to expand...

You have to remember Tom's apetite for risk is very very low, a couple of years ago he would only bet me $50 that the majority of Studio features would be shot digitally by the 1st quarter of 2011. Jim offered me the same bet however with a minimium of $10,000,000!
 



Kodak: innovative restructuring
over at FXguide.com

But today Reuters/AFP are reporting that Eastman Kodak is splitting into two business segments from the present three, one focused on the general public and the other on professionals.
Click to expand...

And…the 131 year old Eastman Kodak Co. company is also suing Apple today, hoping to use its patent portfolio into additional revenue, according to Susan Decker of Bloomberg. Kodak is claiming infringement of technology related to digital photographs, related to Apple’s iPad 2, iPhone and iPod Touch.
Click to expand...
 
And…the 131 year old Eastman Kodak Co. company is also suing Apple today, hoping to use its patent portfolio into additional revenue, according to Susan Decker of Bloomberg. Kodak is claiming infringement of technology related to digital photographs, related to Apple’s iPad 2, iPhone and iPod Touch.
Click to expand...

LOL... Never mind that nearly every other maker of similar devices also infringes on the same patents, which are probably irrelevant at this point since Kodak has up to now failed to even attempt protecting them... So they decide to go after the biggest fish in the pond. Or maybe they're hoping a move like this could lead to a buy-out? Seriously, that's about the only logical motive I can see for this action. And Apple has enough cash on hand where such an acquisition would be a minor blip on the Q2 2012 financial statement in contrast to iPad3 revenue. This is going to be interesting.

Anyway, one more tragic example of how criminally mis-managed Kodak has been for the past several years.
 
Stephen Williams said:
You have to remember Tom's apetite for risk is very very low, a couple of years ago he would only bet me $50 that the majority of Studio features would be shot digitally by the 1st quarter of 2011. Jim offered me the same bet however with a minimium of $10,000,000!
Click to expand...

.... at which point Stephen scurried up the nearest tree and started frantically waving his white flag... :smilielol5:
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
Anyway, one more tragic example of how criminally mis-managed Kodak has been for the past several years.
Click to expand...

Perhaps over the years the top jobs at Kodak became more of a royal title... Something that would bite you in the ass when you 'suddenly' find yourself having to actually do something in a shifting industry...
 
Tom Lowe said:
.... at which point Stephen scurried up the nearest tree and started frantically waving his white flag... :smilielol5:
Click to expand...


I did offer a percentage of net worth bet .
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
LOL... Never mind that nearly every other maker of similar devices also infringes on the same patents, which are probably irrelevant at this point since Kodak has up to now failed to even attempt protecting them... So they decide to go after the biggest fish in the pond. Or maybe they're hoping a move like this could lead to a buy-out? Seriously, that's about the only logical motive I can see for this action. And Apple has enough cash on hand where such an acquisition would be a minor blip on the Q2 2012 financial statement in contrast to iPad3 revenue. This is going to be interesting.

Anyway, one more tragic example of how criminally mis-managed Kodak has been for the past several years.
Click to expand...

Patents aren't like trademarks you have no imperative to defend them universally in order for them to remain intact.

As to Kodak not investing sufficiently in digital imaging, an interesting quote from the CEO of Fujifilm who thinks the opposite is what happened:
“Kodak aimed to be a digital company, but that is a small business and not enough to support a big company.”
- CEO Fujifilm
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
Patents aren't like trademarks you have no imperative to defend them universally in order for them to remain intact.
Click to expand...

While that is true on a basic level, many successful legal defenses have focused on that very premise. And most patents which fall under FRAND consideration usually must be protected, otherwise future compensation or ability to ask for licensing are often negated. This is one of Apple's primary arguing points against Motorola right now with the suits over 3G licensing. That and the tech falls under consideration of FRAND, meaning that licensing must be structured and have openly scheduled costs and not priced on a "how much you got?" approach.

As to Kodak not investing sufficiently in digital imaging, an interesting quote from the CEO of Fujifilm who thinks the opposite is what happened:
“Kodak aimed to be a digital company, but that is a small business and not enough to support a big company.”
- CEO Fujifilm
Click to expand...

Interesting quote for sure... And also interesting to note that Fuji has a much larger, and more successful, digital operations division than Kodak ever had. Oh, wait, Fuji's digital offerings, as well as money spent on R&D for those digital products, now account for a much larger percentage of their company than their film products. Which makes me wonder if that's even what the CEO truly said? Misquoted or lost in translation, perhaps? Have a link?
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
Interesting quote for sure... And also interesting to note that Fuji has a much larger, and more successful, digital operations division than Kodak ever had. Oh, wait, Fuji's digital offerings, as well as money spent on R&D for those digital products, now account for a much larger percentage of their company than their film products. Which makes me wonder if that's even what the CEO truly said? Misquoted or lost in translation, perhaps? Have a link?
Click to expand...

While Fujifilm's offerings might be larger, they're still a relatively small fraction of their revenue. His quote meant there just isn't enough money in it that market to keep a large company like Kodak afloat. That's reflected in Fujifilm's very diverse portfolio (film being something like 5% and I think digital cameras less than 15%).
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
While Fujifilm's offerings might be larger, they're still a relatively small fraction of their revenue. His quote meant there just isn't enough money in it that market to keep a large company like Kodak afloat. That's reflected in Fujifilm's very diverse portfolio (film being something like 5% and I think digital cameras less than 15%).
Click to expand...

I suppose, from that perspective it makes sense. Whereas Kodak, even as a "film" company, would have eventually faltered under their own mass, whether they tried to have digital offerings or not. Fuji does have a diverse portfolio of offerings, and while their film segment is also floundering, its a small piece of the pie.
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
Patents aren't like trademarks you have no imperative to defend them universally in order for them to remain intact.

As to Kodak not investing sufficiently in digital imaging, an interesting quote from the CEO of Fujifilm who thinks the opposite is what happened:
“Kodak aimed to be a digital company, but that is a small business and not enough to support a big company.”
- CEO Fujifilm
Click to expand...
Interesting entry indeed...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top