A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » 35mm Photo Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Kodak to stop making digital cameras



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old February 11th 12, 10:03 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Pete A
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 204
Default Kodak to stop making digital cameras

On 2012-02-11 20:06:24 +0000, Alan Browne said:

On 2012-02-11 14:48 , Pete A wrote:
On 2012-02-10 22:04:20 +0000, Alan Browne said:

On 2012-02-09 19:56 , Mxsmanic wrote:
Alan Browne writes:

Trying to sell patents...

What will happen after all the patents are sold?

The idea behind patents is to be able to manufacture new inventions
without
competition for a brief period. Just selling patents is a dead end.

Not selling them while the company disappears robs shareholders of
their value. OTOH, at the rate they're disappearing (equity wise) I'm
not sure there will be any cash left over after creditors take their
bites. Can creditors make claims on the patents and sell them (?).


I'd been wondering about the patents issue. Sorry this is long-winded,
but it suggests to me that it depends on the outcome of the ruling on
bankruptcy protection:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16625725


Seen other similar articles. (NYT/Bberg/ etc.)

I really don't get why Citigroup has given them a $1B LOC - do they
have first dibs on patent sale revenue?

As usual, shareholders are the ones who get the least - in this case
activist sh's are trying to get organized:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards...ge_id=71623871

As to the patents, there does not seem to be a long line of people
lining up. Valuations vary between 2.4 and $2.75B - though Kodak
believe it has "higher strategic value" to the right suitor (whoever
the hell that is - eg: wishful).


As so often happens, the value of things is determined by only a
handful of people, most of whom are very ignorant of the details - they
just happen to be good at dealing with the stresses of "dealing"!

The pecking order of creditors is something that seems to be surprising
denizens of the UK this year - the purchaser of faulty goods from a
failing company is so low on the list that "consumer rights" have flown
out of the window. Few even know how to make a claim through the Small
Claims Court, let alone have the resources to undertake the task.
However, the court does not have the power to alter the pecking order.
"Buyer Beware" isn't yet an obsolete phrase - strangely, investors have
more sway than the consumers who fund their investments.

The main reason that shares fall in value is because some dickhead
wakes up on a Monday morning deciding to sell shares in company xyz for
no other reason than...

  #22  
Old February 11th 12, 10:51 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Kodak to stop making digital cameras

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:03:14 +0000, Pete A
wrote:

On 2012-02-11 20:06:24 +0000, Alan Browne said:

On 2012-02-11 14:48 , Pete A wrote:
On 2012-02-10 22:04:20 +0000, Alan Browne said:

On 2012-02-09 19:56 , Mxsmanic wrote:
Alan Browne writes:

Trying to sell patents...

What will happen after all the patents are sold?

The idea behind patents is to be able to manufacture new inventions
without
competition for a brief period. Just selling patents is a dead end.

Not selling them while the company disappears robs shareholders of
their value. OTOH, at the rate they're disappearing (equity wise) I'm
not sure there will be any cash left over after creditors take their
bites. Can creditors make claims on the patents and sell them (?).

I'd been wondering about the patents issue. Sorry this is long-winded,
but it suggests to me that it depends on the outcome of the ruling on
bankruptcy protection:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16625725


Seen other similar articles. (NYT/Bberg/ etc.)

I really don't get why Citigroup has given them a $1B LOC - do they
have first dibs on patent sale revenue?

As usual, shareholders are the ones who get the least - in this case
activist sh's are trying to get organized:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards...ge_id=71623871

As to the patents, there does not seem to be a long line of people
lining up. Valuations vary between 2.4 and $2.75B - though Kodak
believe it has "higher strategic value" to the right suitor (whoever
the hell that is - eg: wishful).


As so often happens, the value of things is determined by only a
handful of people, most of whom are very ignorant of the details - they
just happen to be good at dealing with the stresses of "dealing"!

The pecking order of creditors is something that seems to be surprising
denizens of the UK this year - the purchaser of faulty goods from a
failing company is so low on the list that "consumer rights" have flown
out of the window. Few even know how to make a claim through the Small
Claims Court, let alone have the resources to undertake the task.
However, the court does not have the power to alter the pecking order.
"Buyer Beware" isn't yet an obsolete phrase - strangely, investors have
more sway than the consumers who fund their investments.

The main reason that shares fall in value is because some dickhead
wakes up on a Monday morning deciding to sell shares in company xyz for
no other reason than...


Its not the dickhead who has the influence. Its the people with real
knowledge who most effectively swing the share prices, and I'm not
necessarily talking about insider knowledge.

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #23  
Old February 11th 12, 11:28 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Kodak to stop making digital cameras

On 2012-02-11 09:34:09 -0800, Mxsmanic said:

Joe Kotroczo writes:

Nope, they sold their image sensor business to Platinum Equity back in
November


Platinum Equity? Sounds like a chop shop. Which means that you can kiss that
business goodbye.


Yup! That sounds like a Romneyesque "I like to fire people" operation.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #24  
Old February 12th 12, 12:06 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Pete A
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 204
Default Kodak to stop making digital cameras

On 2012-02-11 21:51:41 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:03:14 +0000, Pete A
wrote:

On 2012-02-11 20:06:24 +0000, Alan Browne said:

On 2012-02-11 14:48 , Pete A wrote:
On 2012-02-10 22:04:20 +0000, Alan Browne said:

On 2012-02-09 19:56 , Mxsmanic wrote:
Alan Browne writes:

Trying to sell patents...

What will happen after all the patents are sold?

The idea behind patents is to be able to manufacture new inventions
without
competition for a brief period. Just selling patents is a dead end.

Not selling them while the company disappears robs shareholders of
their value. OTOH, at the rate they're disappearing (equity wise) I'm
not sure there will be any cash left over after creditors take their
bites. Can creditors make claims on the patents and sell them (?).

I'd been wondering about the patents issue. Sorry this is long-winded,
but it suggests to me that it depends on the outcome of the ruling on
bankruptcy protection:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16625725

Seen other similar articles. (NYT/Bberg/ etc.)

I really don't get why Citigroup has given them a $1B LOC - do they
have first dibs on patent sale revenue?

As usual, shareholders are the ones who get the least - in this case
activist sh's are trying to get organized:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards...ge_id=71623871

As to the patents, there does not seem to be a long line of people
lining up. Valuations vary between 2.4 and $2.75B - though Kodak
believe it has "higher strategic value" to the right suitor (whoever
the hell that is - eg: wishful).


As so often happens, the value of things is determined by only a
handful of people, most of whom are very ignorant of the details - they
just happen to be good at dealing with the stresses of "dealing"!

The pecking order of creditors is something that seems to be surprising
denizens of the UK this year - the purchaser of faulty goods from a
failing company is so low on the list that "consumer rights" have flown
out of the window. Few even know how to make a claim through the Small
Claims Court, let alone have the resources to undertake the task.
However, the court does not have the power to alter the pecking order.
"Buyer Beware" isn't yet an obsolete phrase - strangely, investors have
more sway than the consumers who fund their investments.

The main reason that shares fall in value is because some dickhead
wakes up on a Monday morning deciding to sell shares in company xyz for
no other reason than...


Its not the dickhead who has the influence. Its the people with real
knowledge who most effectively swing the share prices, and I'm not
necessarily talking about insider knowledge.


It's both (hence my ending with ...) - feedback and control theorists
plus statistisions have demonstrated many times why our economic
systems are inherently unstable. The current economic problems in
Europe are caused by a total failure to understand the principles
(which are counterintuitive).

  #25  
Old February 12th 12, 12:14 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Kodak to stop making digital cameras

On 2012-02-11 16:03 , Pete A wrote:
On 2012-02-11 20:06:24 +0000, Alan Browne said:

On 2012-02-11 14:48 , Pete A wrote:
On 2012-02-10 22:04:20 +0000, Alan Browne said:

On 2012-02-09 19:56 , Mxsmanic wrote:
Alan Browne writes:

Trying to sell patents...

What will happen after all the patents are sold?

The idea behind patents is to be able to manufacture new inventions
without
competition for a brief period. Just selling patents is a dead end.

Not selling them while the company disappears robs shareholders of
their value. OTOH, at the rate they're disappearing (equity wise) I'm
not sure there will be any cash left over after creditors take their
bites. Can creditors make claims on the patents and sell them (?).

I'd been wondering about the patents issue. Sorry this is long-winded,
but it suggests to me that it depends on the outcome of the ruling on
bankruptcy protection:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16625725


Seen other similar articles. (NYT/Bberg/ etc.)

I really don't get why Citigroup has given them a $1B LOC - do they
have first dibs on patent sale revenue?

As usual, shareholders are the ones who get the least - in this case
activist sh's are trying to get organized:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards...ge_id=71623871

As to the patents, there does not seem to be a long line of people
lining up. Valuations vary between 2.4 and $2.75B - though Kodak
believe it has "higher strategic value" to the right suitor (whoever
the hell that is - eg: wishful).


As so often happens, the value of things is determined by only a handful
of people, most of whom are very ignorant of the details - they just
happen to be good at dealing with the stresses of "dealing"!

The pecking order of creditors is something that seems to be surprising
denizens of the UK this year - the purchaser of faulty goods from a
failing company is so low on the list that "consumer rights" have flown
out of the window. Few even know how to make a claim through the Small
Claims Court, let alone have the resources to undertake the task.
However, the court does not have the power to alter the pecking order.
"Buyer Beware" isn't yet an obsolete phrase - strangely, investors have
more sway than the consumers who fund their investments.


Consumers do not fund investments, they provide cash flow, margin and
profit while imposing liabilities on the company (warranty, delayed
service, etc.).

The main reason that shares fall in value is because some dickhead wakes
up on a Monday morning deciding to sell shares in company xyz for no
other reason than...


The only reasons to sell are because of an expectation of a drop,
stagnation or a need for cash for something else. Overall the market is
rational - at least in "steady" times.

--
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty."
Douglas Adams - (Could have been a GPS engineer).
  #26  
Old February 12th 12, 12:14 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Kodak to stop making digital cameras

On 2012-02-11 16:51 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:03:14 +0000, Pete A
wrote:

On 2012-02-11 20:06:24 +0000, Alan Browne said:

On 2012-02-11 14:48 , Pete A wrote:
On 2012-02-10 22:04:20 +0000, Alan Browne said:

On 2012-02-09 19:56 , Mxsmanic wrote:
Alan Browne writes:

Trying to sell patents...

What will happen after all the patents are sold?

The idea behind patents is to be able to manufacture new inventions
without
competition for a brief period. Just selling patents is a dead end.

Not selling them while the company disappears robs shareholders of
their value. OTOH, at the rate they're disappearing (equity wise) I'm
not sure there will be any cash left over after creditors take their
bites. Can creditors make claims on the patents and sell them (?).

I'd been wondering about the patents issue. Sorry this is long-winded,
but it suggests to me that it depends on the outcome of the ruling on
bankruptcy protection:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16625725

Seen other similar articles. (NYT/Bberg/ etc.)

I really don't get why Citigroup has given them a $1B LOC - do they
have first dibs on patent sale revenue?

As usual, shareholders are the ones who get the least - in this case
activist sh's are trying to get organized:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards...ge_id=71623871

As to the patents, there does not seem to be a long line of people
lining up. Valuations vary between 2.4 and $2.75B - though Kodak
believe it has "higher strategic value" to the right suitor (whoever
the hell that is - eg: wishful).


As so often happens, the value of things is determined by only a
handful of people, most of whom are very ignorant of the details - they
just happen to be good at dealing with the stresses of "dealing"!

The pecking order of creditors is something that seems to be surprising
denizens of the UK this year - the purchaser of faulty goods from a
failing company is so low on the list that "consumer rights" have flown
out of the window. Few even know how to make a claim through the Small
Claims Court, let alone have the resources to undertake the task.
However, the court does not have the power to alter the pecking order.
"Buyer Beware" isn't yet an obsolete phrase - strangely, investors have
more sway than the consumers who fund their investments.

The main reason that shares fall in value is because some dickhead
wakes up on a Monday morning deciding to sell shares in company xyz for
no other reason than...


Its not the dickhead who has the influence. Its the people with real
knowledge who most effectively swing the share prices, and I'm not
necessarily talking about insider knowledge.


Why the Citigroup LOC attracts curiosity.


--
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty."
Douglas Adams - (Could have been a GPS engineer).
  #27  
Old February 12th 12, 02:15 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Kodak to stop making digital cameras

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:06:57 +0000, Pete A
wrote:

On 2012-02-11 21:51:41 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:03:14 +0000, Pete A
wrote:

On 2012-02-11 20:06:24 +0000, Alan Browne said:

On 2012-02-11 14:48 , Pete A wrote:
On 2012-02-10 22:04:20 +0000, Alan Browne said:

On 2012-02-09 19:56 , Mxsmanic wrote:
Alan Browne writes:

Trying to sell patents...

What will happen after all the patents are sold?

The idea behind patents is to be able to manufacture new inventions
without
competition for a brief period. Just selling patents is a dead end.

Not selling them while the company disappears robs shareholders of
their value. OTOH, at the rate they're disappearing (equity wise) I'm
not sure there will be any cash left over after creditors take their
bites. Can creditors make claims on the patents and sell them (?).

I'd been wondering about the patents issue. Sorry this is long-winded,
but it suggests to me that it depends on the outcome of the ruling on
bankruptcy protection:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16625725

Seen other similar articles. (NYT/Bberg/ etc.)

I really don't get why Citigroup has given them a $1B LOC - do they
have first dibs on patent sale revenue?

As usual, shareholders are the ones who get the least - in this case
activist sh's are trying to get organized:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards...ge_id=71623871

As to the patents, there does not seem to be a long line of people
lining up. Valuations vary between 2.4 and $2.75B - though Kodak
believe it has "higher strategic value" to the right suitor (whoever
the hell that is - eg: wishful).

As so often happens, the value of things is determined by only a
handful of people, most of whom are very ignorant of the details - they
just happen to be good at dealing with the stresses of "dealing"!

The pecking order of creditors is something that seems to be surprising
denizens of the UK this year - the purchaser of faulty goods from a
failing company is so low on the list that "consumer rights" have flown
out of the window. Few even know how to make a claim through the Small
Claims Court, let alone have the resources to undertake the task.
However, the court does not have the power to alter the pecking order.
"Buyer Beware" isn't yet an obsolete phrase - strangely, investors have
more sway than the consumers who fund their investments.

The main reason that shares fall in value is because some dickhead
wakes up on a Monday morning deciding to sell shares in company xyz for
no other reason than...


Its not the dickhead who has the influence. Its the people with real
knowledge who most effectively swing the share prices, and I'm not
necessarily talking about insider knowledge.


It's both (hence my ending with ...) - feedback and control theorists
plus statistisions have demonstrated many times why our economic
systems are inherently unstable. The current economic problems in
Europe are caused by a total failure to understand the principles
(which are counterintuitive).


All of which sounds very impressive but generally has nothing to do
with the dickhead's decisions on monday morning. Nor has it anything
much to with the detailed company knowledge of financial analysts.

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #28  
Old February 12th 12, 02:21 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Pete A
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 204
Default Kodak to stop making digital cameras

On 2012-02-11 23:14:11 +0000, Alan Browne said:

On 2012-02-11 16:03 , Pete A wrote:
On 2012-02-11 20:06:24 +0000, Alan Browne said:

On 2012-02-11 14:48 , Pete A wrote:
On 2012-02-10 22:04:20 +0000, Alan Browne said:

On 2012-02-09 19:56 , Mxsmanic wrote:
Alan Browne writes:

Trying to sell patents...

What will happen after all the patents are sold?

The idea behind patents is to be able to manufacture new inventions
without
competition for a brief period. Just selling patents is a dead end.

Not selling them while the company disappears robs shareholders of
their value. OTOH, at the rate they're disappearing (equity wise) I'm
not sure there will be any cash left over after creditors take their
bites. Can creditors make claims on the patents and sell them (?).

I'd been wondering about the patents issue. Sorry this is long-winded,
but it suggests to me that it depends on the outcome of the ruling on
bankruptcy protection:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16625725

Seen other similar articles. (NYT/Bberg/ etc.)

I really don't get why Citigroup has given them a $1B LOC - do they
have first dibs on patent sale revenue?

As usual, shareholders are the ones who get the least - in this case
activist sh's are trying to get organized:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards...ge_id=71623871

As to the patents, there does not seem to be a long line of people
lining up. Valuations vary between 2.4 and $2.75B - though Kodak
believe it has "higher strategic value" to the right suitor (whoever
the hell that is - eg: wishful).


As so often happens, the value of things is determined by only a handful
of people, most of whom are very ignorant of the details - they just
happen to be good at dealing with the stresses of "dealing"!

The pecking order of creditors is something that seems to be surprising
denizens of the UK this year - the purchaser of faulty goods from a
failing company is so low on the list that "consumer rights" have flown
out of the window. Few even know how to make a claim through the Small
Claims Court, let alone have the resources to undertake the task.
However, the court does not have the power to alter the pecking order.
"Buyer Beware" isn't yet an obsolete phrase - strangely, investors have
more sway than the consumers who fund their investments.


Consumers do not fund investments, they provide cash flow, margin and
profit while imposing liabilities on the company (warranty, delayed
service, etc.).


As many in business say "If it wasn't for the customers my job would be
much easier."

Non-consumers tend to bleed a country to death so I strongly suggest
that it is only consumers that directly or indirectly fund investment.


The main reason that shares fall in value is because some dickhead wakes
up on a Monday morning deciding to sell shares in company xyz for no
other reason than...


The only reasons to sell are because of an expectation of a drop,
stagnation or a need for cash for something else. Overall the market
is rational - at least in "steady" times.


Expectation often leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy due to the way
the system works.

Most systems are stable during steady times. A car with no shock
absorbers is stable on a flat road.

  #29  
Old February 12th 12, 02:32 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Pete A
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 204
Default Kodak to stop making digital cameras

On 2012-02-12 01:15:36 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:06:57 +0000, Pete A
wrote:

On 2012-02-11 21:51:41 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:03:14 +0000, Pete A
wrote:

On 2012-02-11 20:06:24 +0000, Alan Browne said:

On 2012-02-11 14:48 , Pete A wrote:
On 2012-02-10 22:04:20 +0000, Alan Browne said:

On 2012-02-09 19:56 , Mxsmanic wrote:
Alan Browne writes:

Trying to sell patents...

What will happen after all the patents are sold?

The idea behind patents is to be able to manufacture new inventions
without
competition for a brief period. Just selling patents is a dead end.

Not selling them while the company disappears robs shareholders of
their value. OTOH, at the rate they're disappearing (equity wise) I'm
not sure there will be any cash left over after creditors take their
bites. Can creditors make claims on the patents and sell them (?).

I'd been wondering about the patents issue. Sorry this is long-winded,
but it suggests to me that it depends on the outcome of the ruling on
bankruptcy protection:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16625725

Seen other similar articles. (NYT/Bberg/ etc.)

I really don't get why Citigroup has given them a $1B LOC - do they
have first dibs on patent sale revenue?

As usual, shareholders are the ones who get the least - in this case
activist sh's are trying to get organized:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards...ge_id=71623871

As to the patents, there does not seem to be a long line of people
lining up. Valuations vary between 2.4 and $2.75B - though Kodak
believe it has "higher strategic value" to the right suitor (whoever
the hell that is - eg: wishful).

As so often happens, the value of things is determined by only a
handful of people, most of whom are very ignorant of the details - they
just happen to be good at dealing with the stresses of "dealing"!

The pecking order of creditors is something that seems to be surprising
denizens of the UK this year - the purchaser of faulty goods from a
failing company is so low on the list that "consumer rights" have flown
out of the window. Few even know how to make a claim through the Small
Claims Court, let alone have the resources to undertake the task.
However, the court does not have the power to alter the pecking order.
"Buyer Beware" isn't yet an obsolete phrase - strangely, investors have
more sway than the consumers who fund their investments.

The main reason that shares fall in value is because some dickhead
wakes up on a Monday morning deciding to sell shares in company xyz for
no other reason than...

Its not the dickhead who has the influence. Its the people with real
knowledge who most effectively swing the share prices, and I'm not
necessarily talking about insider knowledge.


It's both (hence my ending with ...) - feedback and control theorists
plus statistisions have demonstrated many times why our economic
systems are inherently unstable. The current economic problems in
Europe are caused by a total failure to understand the principles
(which are counterintuitive).


All of which sounds very impressive but generally has nothing to do
with the dickhead's decisions on monday morning. Nor has it anything
much to with the detailed company knowledge of financial analysts.


Hmm. Then it must be the Tooth Fairy f'ing up most of the global economy.

  #30  
Old February 12th 12, 04:55 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Kodak to stop making digital cameras

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 01:32:44 +0000, Pete A
wrote:

On 2012-02-12 01:15:36 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:06:57 +0000, Pete A
wrote:

On 2012-02-11 21:51:41 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:03:14 +0000, Pete A
wrote:

On 2012-02-11 20:06:24 +0000, Alan Browne said:

On 2012-02-11 14:48 , Pete A wrote:
On 2012-02-10 22:04:20 +0000, Alan Browne said:

On 2012-02-09 19:56 , Mxsmanic wrote:
Alan Browne writes:

Trying to sell patents...

What will happen after all the patents are sold?

The idea behind patents is to be able to manufacture new inventions
without
competition for a brief period. Just selling patents is a dead end.

Not selling them while the company disappears robs shareholders of
their value. OTOH, at the rate they're disappearing (equity wise) I'm
not sure there will be any cash left over after creditors take their
bites. Can creditors make claims on the patents and sell them (?).

I'd been wondering about the patents issue. Sorry this is long-winded,
but it suggests to me that it depends on the outcome of the ruling on
bankruptcy protection:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16625725

Seen other similar articles. (NYT/Bberg/ etc.)

I really don't get why Citigroup has given them a $1B LOC - do they
have first dibs on patent sale revenue?

As usual, shareholders are the ones who get the least - in this case
activist sh's are trying to get organized:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards...ge_id=71623871

As to the patents, there does not seem to be a long line of people
lining up. Valuations vary between 2.4 and $2.75B - though Kodak
believe it has "higher strategic value" to the right suitor (whoever
the hell that is - eg: wishful).

As so often happens, the value of things is determined by only a
handful of people, most of whom are very ignorant of the details - they
just happen to be good at dealing with the stresses of "dealing"!

The pecking order of creditors is something that seems to be surprising
denizens of the UK this year - the purchaser of faulty goods from a
failing company is so low on the list that "consumer rights" have flown
out of the window. Few even know how to make a claim through the Small
Claims Court, let alone have the resources to undertake the task.
However, the court does not have the power to alter the pecking order.
"Buyer Beware" isn't yet an obsolete phrase - strangely, investors have
more sway than the consumers who fund their investments.

The main reason that shares fall in value is because some dickhead
wakes up on a Monday morning deciding to sell shares in company xyz for
no other reason than...

Its not the dickhead who has the influence. Its the people with real
knowledge who most effectively swing the share prices, and I'm not
necessarily talking about insider knowledge.

It's both (hence my ending with ...) - feedback and control theorists
plus statistisions have demonstrated many times why our economic
systems are inherently unstable. The current economic problems in
Europe are caused by a total failure to understand the principles
(which are counterintuitive).


All of which sounds very impressive but generally has nothing to do
with the dickhead's decisions on monday morning. Nor has it anything
much to with the detailed company knowledge of financial analysts.


Hmm. Then it must be the Tooth Fairy f'ing up most of the global economy.


Which has what to do with "The main reason that shares fall in value
is because some dickhead wakes up on a Monday morning deciding to sell
shares in company xyz for no other reason than...".

Or do you have a different idea of what constitutes a dickhead than I
do?

Regards,

Eric Stevens
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sony to stop making FX sensors? C J Campbell[_2_] Digital SLR Cameras 29 August 17th 10 03:36 PM
Canon 200mm f1.8 - why did they stop making it rugbyphoto Digital SLR Cameras 7 February 17th 06 06:52 AM
Nikon to stop making parts for 35mm Harry 35mm Photo Equipment 19 February 3rd 06 10:31 PM
Konica Minolta to stop making all cameras Neil Pugh Digital Photography 0 January 19th 06 09:39 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.