Comments on Jeff Borack's articles RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.com/author/jeff-borack/articles http://seekingalpha.com/article/163442/comments?source=feed#comment-692149 692149 Sat, 26 Sep 2009 13:44:23 -0400
You obviously don't need to be told this but there is always a chance that those comps are overvalued. I look at the comps you provided and can further justify the discount:
(1) DECK doesn't really have a strong brand year round (mostly in the winter) compared to the comps you provided
(2) DECK is more exposed to the "fad" arguement than Nike, Skechers etc
(3) It other businesses (not UGG) have not done that well and were losing money for a long time. The amount of money put in to revive those other segments has not generated a very good return.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/163442/comments?source=feed#comment-691500 691500 Fri, 25 Sep 2009 19:41:12 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/163442/comments?source=feed#comment-691282 691282 Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:47:27 -0400
Regardless, very compelling arguements - i hope you keep posting!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148871/comments?source=feed#comment-596497 596497 Tue, 21 Jul 2009 10:49:00 -0400
Kodak fails that test. It's that simple. I say that without rancor: I live near Rochester and remember all that Kodak meant to the city. The company and the city are now shells of their former selves, and it's a shame...this is a beautiful place. But Kodak is no place to put your money.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148871/comments?source=feed#comment-590130 590130 Thu, 16 Jul 2009 07:19:39 -0400
if i understand correctly, your model assumes continued decline in film and flat revenues in the remaining businesses? what about the threat of iphone and other like devices cannibalizing the consumer camera market? I think the idea of a separate camera device (for the mainstream) is going away.

medical imaging devices was promising, but was sold to onex, i believe.

EK needs to remake itself through the application of its patent portfolio (OLED, etc.) and possibly acquisition of companies that appeal to today's/tomorrow's technology consumer. they need to use the resources and brand value they have left to make some bold moves. this has worked for other behemoths. I am sure IBM is no longer relying on the typewriter market.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148871/comments?source=feed#comment-590116 590116 Thu, 16 Jul 2009 06:37:34 -0400
how about margin trends net of the film business?

I know they made some changes in senior management, but what about middle management (the guys who get things done) I heard rumors it is recycled film people?
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148871/comments?source=feed#comment-590018 590018 Thu, 16 Jul 2009 01:11:20 -0400
The CDG and Film operations are almost history. With the rise in popularity of digit picture frame and facebook, who cares about hardcopies of images?

For GCG, I just did a quick research on the internet. Graphic communication is a very diverse industry filled by mom-and-pops, SME, and other large corporations such as AGFA and Fuiji. I can imagine that this market is highly competitive.

If one is forward-looking, one should see an extremely gloomy image for this image-giant.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148871/comments?source=feed#comment-589960 589960 Wed, 15 Jul 2009 23:01:47 -0400
To get an idea of where Kodak may be headed, one could follow the paper industry. When paper picks up in the future, the demand for printing will be there. I see Kodak GCG lagging the paper sector, though somewhat following publishing. Of course most of that is driven by ad spending, so there is another indicator of future direction.

I simply do not see Antonio Perez doing anything more productive for Kodak (EK) going into the future. What I really think is needed is a change in upper level management, in order to find a direction for a company that is a great name in imaging. Until Perez is gone, I just don't see the company doing more than bleeding money.

The OLED developments at Kodak could be further expanded, much in the direction that their long rival Fujifilm (FUJI) is already pursuing. Rather than make consumer products, they could supply the parts to larger companies. They already simply imaging chips (CCDs and CMOSs) to various camera makers, so that direction eliminates some direct to consumer marketing expenses.

Film is still high profit, even if it is not a growth industry. Kodak needs to show profits, even if it is from a sector with decreasing revenues. Both Kodak and Fujifilm reported at Photokina 2008 that the huge drops in film sales have reached near a bottoming out point. PMAI also reports that chemical based photographic prints from photofinishing companies has risen slightly, suggesting continued demand for photofinishing, even if most of the prints originated as images on digital cameras.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148871/comments?source=feed#comment-589600 589600 The restructuring charges wont go away. Kodak is loaded with hidden > liabilities. They still have 130 buildings in Kodak Park alone that > need to be imploded. There was a bus that ran for 6.2 miles through > the park. That's a lot of infrastructure that needs to be dismantled. > And remember Kodak is a chemical company. Nobody in their right mind > would buy that property. > > Negative growth, hidden liabilities. There's many good reasons they > are on Moody's list. > > Nice research though. Thanks.]]> Wed, 15 Jul 2009 17:00:07 -0400
I think eventually they will SHUTTER the company.


On Jul 15 09:46 AM Ex-Daker wrote:

> The restructuring charges wont go away. Kodak is loaded with hidden
> liabilities. They still have 130 buildings in Kodak Park alone that
> need to be imploded. There was a bus that ran for 6.2 miles through
> the park. That's a lot of infrastructure that needs to be dismantled.
> And remember Kodak is a chemical company. Nobody in their right mind
> would buy that property.
>
> Negative growth, hidden liabilities. There's many good reasons they
> are on Moody's list.
>
> Nice research though. Thanks.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148871/comments?source=feed#comment-589405 589405 Thanks for the comments. To address some of these points, Kodak discusses > environmental and "asset retirement" obligations starting on page > 82 of the most recent K. To sum it up: > > At December 31, 2008 and 2007, the Company’s undiscounted accrued > liabilities for environmental remediation costs amounted to > $115 million and $125 million, respectively. These amounts were reported > in Other long-term liabilities in the accompanying > Consolidated Statement of Financial Position. > > which includes: > a Corrective Action Program required by the Resource Conservation > and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) at Eastman Business Park (formerly known > as Kodak Park) in Rochester, NY. At December 31, 2008, estimated > future investigation and remediation costs of $63 million were accrued > for this site. > > As far as the buildings are concerned: > As of December 31, 2008 and 2007, the Company has recorded approximately > $67 million and $64 million, respectively, of asset > retirement obligations within Other long-term liabilities in the > accompanying Consolidated Statement of Financial Position. The
Company’s > asset retirement obligations primarily relate to asbestos contained > in buildings that the Company owns. > > I won't go any further, but if you're interested, the report speaks > frankly about these obligations and shows how expenses and liabilities > have been decreasing as remediation takes place.]]> Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:22:56 -0400
Peter Lynch advises us to look for hidden assets. We also need to be cognizant of hidden liabilities. If you ever saw how large and complex Kodak park was you'd have a better idea of what I mean.

Good work though. Very interesting. Thanks.


On Jul 15 01:03 PM Jeff Borack wrote:

> Thanks for the comments. To address some of these points, Kodak discusses
> environmental and "asset retirement" obligations starting on page
> 82 of the most recent K. To sum it up:
>
> At December 31, 2008 and 2007, the Company’s undiscounted accrued
> liabilities for environmental remediation costs amounted to
> $115 million and $125 million, respectively. These amounts were reported
> in Other long-term liabilities in the accompanying
> Consolidated Statement of Financial Position.
>
> which includes:
> a Corrective Action Program required by the Resource Conservation
> and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) at Eastman Business Park (formerly known
> as Kodak Park) in Rochester, NY. At December 31, 2008, estimated
> future investigation and remediation costs of $63 million were accrued
> for this site.
>
> As far as the buildings are concerned:
> As of December 31, 2008 and 2007, the Company has recorded approximately
> $67 million and $64 million, respectively, of asset
> retirement obligations within Other long-term liabilities in the
> accompanying Consolidated Statement of Financial Position. The
Company’s
> asset retirement obligations primarily relate to asbestos contained
> in buildings that the Company owns.
>
> I won't go any further, but if you're interested, the report speaks
> frankly about these obligations and shows how expenses and liabilities
> have been decreasing as remediation takes place.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148871/comments?source=feed#comment-589317 589317 Are you sure about the chemicals? Eastman Chemical was spun off > many years ago. Check ticker symbol EMN, Eastman Chemical Company. > ]]> Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:19:43 -0400
Despite successful marketing as a photographic company, Kodak made its money in photofinishing chemicals provided to dealers around the world. Photo chemical consumption was the real cash generator, not just camera film sales. The company also manufactured and sold specialty chemicals not related to photography that was another big money maker.

When George Fisher left Motorola and was contracted by Kodak as its CEO, his strategy was to establish the foundation for digital photography and to gradually abandon the chemical business. Fisher's vision for the new burgeoning electronic image capture business was short sighted as he did not take into consideration the potential competition that would emerge from the multitude of electronic related companies who also saw the marketing and sales potential of the new photographic industry. Kodak simply could not compete against smaller companies that turned out products and services faster from conception to final delivery to the consumer.

In hindsight, Kodak should have stayed in the chemical business because it already had a fully compliant national program to address the environmental issues dealing with chemical manufacture, distribution and disposal. It employed some of the most innovative chemists in industry and had a distribution network that successfully competed with larger chemical corporations.

It is very difficult to start up a chemical company compared to what it takes to start up an electronics company. Kodak would be thriving today if it wasn't for the board of directors at that time who did not understand the underlying value of Kodak's chemical manufacturing business.


On Jul 15 11:52 AM Rod wrote:

> Are you sure about the chemicals? Eastman Chemical was spun off
> many years ago. Check ticker symbol EMN, Eastman Chemical Company.
> ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148871/comments?source=feed#comment-589286 589286 Are you sure about the chemicals? Eastman Chemical was spun off many > years ago. Check ticker symbol EMN, Eastman Chemical Company.]]> Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:04:01 -0400
There is a tank farm in the western part of Kodak Park. You'd drive through the park and there was always a chemical smell in the air. Kodak had a major problem a few years back with groundwater contaimination in neighborhoods surrounding the park. Its a very complex process to make film, paper, developers, etc. Most of the infrastructure was built for film and that's the part of the business that's going away.

To top it off, some of the newer buildings were built on an old City of Rochester landfill.

There are a lot of hidden costs still to come.

Good luck.

On Jul 15 11:52 AM Rod wrote:

> Are you sure about the chemicals? Eastman Chemical was spun off many
> years ago. Check ticker symbol EMN, Eastman Chemical Company.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148871/comments?source=feed#comment-589283 589283 Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:03:05 -0400
At December 31, 2008 and 2007, the Company’s undiscounted accrued liabilities for environmental remediation costs amounted to
$115 million and $125 million, respectively. These amounts were reported in Other long-term liabilities in the accompanying
Consolidated Statement of Financial Position.

which includes:
a Corrective Action Program required by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) at Eastman Business Park (formerly known as Kodak Park) in Rochester, NY. At December 31, 2008, estimated future investigation and remediation costs of $63 million were accrued for this site.

As far as the buildings are concerned:
As of December 31, 2008 and 2007, the Company has recorded approximately $67 million and $64 million, respectively, of asset
retirement obligations within Other long-term liabilities in the accompanying Consolidated Statement of Financial Position. The
Company’s asset retirement obligations primarily relate to asbestos contained in buildings that the Company owns.

I won't go any further, but if you're interested, the report speaks frankly about these obligations and shows how expenses and liabilities have been decreasing as remediation takes place.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148871/comments?source=feed#comment-589152 589152 The restructuring charges wont go away. Kodak is loaded with hidden > liabilities. They still have 130 buildings in Kodak Park alone that > need to be imploded. There was a bus that ran for 6.2 miles through > the park. That's a lot of infrastructure that needs to be dismantled. > And remember Kodak is a chemical company. Nobody in their right mind > would buy that property. > > Negative growth, hidden liabilities. There's many good reasons they > are on Moody's list. > > Nice research though. Thanks.]]> Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:52:05 -0400

On Jul 15 09:46 AM Ex-Daker wrote:

> The restructuring charges wont go away. Kodak is loaded with hidden
> liabilities. They still have 130 buildings in Kodak Park alone that
> need to be imploded. There was a bus that ran for 6.2 miles through
> the park. That's a lot of infrastructure that needs to be dismantled.
> And remember Kodak is a chemical company. Nobody in their right mind
> would buy that property.
>
> Negative growth, hidden liabilities. There's many good reasons they
> are on Moody's list.
>
> Nice research though. Thanks.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148871/comments?source=feed#comment-589140 589140 Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:45:27 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/148871/comments?source=feed#comment-589136 589136 Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:41:28 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/148871/comments?source=feed#comment-588903 588903 Wed, 15 Jul 2009 09:46:08 -0400
Negative growth, hidden liabilities. There's many good reasons they are on Moody's list.

Nice research though. Thanks.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/142752/comments?source=feed#comment-545698 545698 Sat, 13 Jun 2009 21:04:11 -0400 I believe the idea came from from his time as a Marine Aviator in the Korean War (supplies and logistics within the military - Marines have a word for it - cluster f#$&)
The various companies FedEx own spread across all shipping industries - air, ocean, truck, small parcels and freight shipments.

From what I read, he is already in 2020 to 2030 and the company today is accomplishing what he told them all to do 10-15 years ago.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/142752/comments?source=feed#comment-545675 545675 Sat, 13 Jun 2009 20:19:07 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/142752/comments?source=feed#comment-545323 545323 Sat, 13 Jun 2009 14:26:30 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/142752/comments?source=feed#comment-545139 545139 Sat, 13 Jun 2009 10:58:02 -0400
thx]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/131591/comments?source=feed#comment-485470 485470 Fri, 01 May 2009 10:23:24 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/129492/comments?source=feed#comment-472994 472994 Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:05:48 -0400
Obviously they are in very different industries but would that be a fair comparison?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/131591/comments?source=feed#comment-471102 471102 Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:47:35 -0400
I modeled growth of the wind tower business (combined with the tank head business because that's how TRN presents it) of 0% going forward, which I believe is pessimistic. The excel model I used is attached at the bottom of that article, so readers can open it up and change the numbers or any of my assumptions to come up with a different valuation.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/131591/comments?source=feed#comment-469445 469445 Mon, 20 Apr 2009 08:46:15 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/131591/comments?source=feed#comment-469225 469225 Mon, 20 Apr 2009 02:42:52 -0400
What is the potential for the wind tower business adding to share value? I don't believe you discussed how much cash flow this accounts for, now or in the future.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/131591/comments?source=feed#comment-468728 468728 Sun, 19 Apr 2009 14:39:32 -0400
I fell for the repurchase possibilities as well but I think its more likely management will continue to grow the lease fleet and move to a union tank car type model that reduces cyclicality. This could be good down the road but in the near term producing too many new cars will only exacerbate the glut of tank cars. The GBX tank car order you mentioned is just another item that will ensure lease rates for tank cars don’t justify the cost to produce them over the next few years. That would usually mean lease rates should rise but with hundreds of thousands of cars in storage and bankrupt ethanol and chemical producers dumping tank cars in the market it will be a while before lease rates come back there. GBX is the best in my opinion because most of its ebitda come from maintenance. The new car segment hardly makes a difference to them at all. They also don’t care much about GE because, they only entered tanks because GE begged them there bread and butter are intermodal and flat cars where GE isn’t as large a player.

Also GBX has a lease fleet.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/131591/comments?source=feed#comment-468264 468264 Sun, 19 Apr 2009 09:51:48 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/129492/comments?source=feed#comment-459956 459956 Sat, 11 Apr 2009 15:16:34 -0400
elephant - avastin is a big contributor to revenue, and management listed it as one of the primary drivers of growth in 2008. I don't see any reason to believe that growth should disappear, but I modeled it as non-existent in my pessimistic scenario. In any case, whatever growth PDLI does experience is true growth, not dependent on any incremental reinvestment of profits. Investors keep their cash flow and the business grows organically at the same time.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/129492/comments?source=feed#comment-452714 452714 Sun, 05 Apr 2009 18:57:09 -0400