Kodak Alaris - sold

[koraks]

Surely print segment of EK is still larger than film business, but calling it "much more" would be a huge stretch if you measure it by profitability.

In terms of revenue, EK's print business is roughly 2.5 times bigger than the Advanced Materials business. Film (motion & still) is part of the latter category; IDK how big the actual film part is within AM.
EK do split out EBITDA (which, in relation to revenue, you could view as 'profitability') per segment, but I'd be hesitant to draw any conclusions on this, since EBITDA can (and indeed in EK's case, does) fluctuate wildly. Perhaps you could say that on average the profitability as percentage of revenue might be better for AM than for print. But I'd be very cautious in drawing that conclusion. To do so, you'd have to aggregate their financial statements over the past few years and look for a general trend. Even then, a conclusion would be tentative at best. In absolute terms, I wouldn't go so far as to say even that; in fact, it seems that their print business makes them a little more money overall than AM. Keep in mind that part of AM is also non-photographic (still & motion picture) film, so the actual film part is buried quite deep in the financial statements.

It's just very tricky to say something firm about all this.

 

[BrianShaw]

In terms of revenue, EK's print business is roughly 2.5 times bigger than the Advanced Materials business. Film (motion & still) is part of the latter category; IDK how big the actual film part is within AM.
EK do split out EBITDA (which, in relation to revenue, you could view as 'profitability') per segment, but I'd be hesitant to draw any conclusions on this, since EBITDA can (and indeed in EK's case, does) fluctuate wildly. Perhaps you could say that on average the profitability as percentage of revenue might be better for AM than for print. But I'd be very cautious in drawing that conclusion. To do so, you'd have to aggregate their financial statements over the past few years and look for a general trend. Even then, a conclusion would be tentative at best. In absolute terms, I wouldn't go so far as to say even that; in fact, it seems that their print business makes them a little more money overall than AM. Keep in mind that part of AM is also non-photographic (still & motion picture) film, so the actual film part is buried quite deep in the financial statements.

It's just very tricky to say something firm about all this.

The best estimate I could make from combing financials is about one-third.

In terms of print reporting element making more money... a lot more.

EDIT: No matter, the best news is that both Eastman Kodak and Kodak Alaris openly support photographic film, even though it is a minority/niche product.

 

[koraks]

In terms of print reporting element making more money... a lot more

Doesn't look like it if I look at the quarterly financial statements. It seems to barely break even. Mind you, that's EBITDA. Revenue is a whole lot more for print than AM.

 

[BrianShaw]

Doesn't look like it if I look at the quarterly financial statements. It seems to barely break even. Mind you, that's EBITDA. Revenue is a whole lot more for print than AM.

Understood; the quarterlies vary, sometimes quite a bit. The annual is a better "averaged smoothed" view, which is what I tend to focus on. Both can be difficult to decipher as written, and as we know what's written is often "manipulated" by the myriad factors involved in running a major corporation, like reorganization of business units as was done in CY23, and satisfying the shareholders/stakeholders. But it's all we have and reading any of them is better than mere opinions or recollections.

EBITDA: Definition, Calculation Formulas, History, and Criticisms

EBITDA, or earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization, is an alternative measure of a company's overall financial performance.

www.investopedia.com

 

[koraks]

Understood; the quarterlies vary, sometimes quite a bit. The annual is a better "averaged" view, which is what I tend to focus on.

Yes, indeed, and good choice. In this case, the annuals for EBITDA also show (1) a somewhat erratic/variable pattern and (2) that print is not necessarily super attractive capital-wise, (3) but then again, neither is AM, which includes film. Basically, it's an operation that's barely managing to make ends meet especially if you look at the actual results of their operations.

Now, not to wax philosophical about all this, but you could of course ask the question what the purpose of a corporation is. Ask a shareholder, they'll say "make me money". Ask a worker, they'll say "give me a job and a salary". Ask an evolutionary biologist, they might say something like "to continue to exist and spawn new lines of business" - or so I imagine.

It's fun stuff to muse about; good material for armchair theorizing.

 

[Alessandro Serrao]

I'm not an accountant so what I can expect from all of this?

 

[BrianShaw]

I'm not an accountant so what I can expect from all of this?

We can’t have realistic expectations except that nothing will change until the day comes that things change.

The indications are that EK is committed to film making and KA is committed to film distribution as part of their business portfolios. There is little to fret over at this time.

 

[MattKing]

I'm not an accountant so what I can expect from all of this?

Well, it is a good sign that an entity with money and an interest in making more decided to buy the business.

 

[Milpool]

I'm not an accountant so what I can expect from all of this?

That depends on how rose-coloured your glasses are.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Well, it is a good sign that an entity with money and an interest in making more decided to buy the business.

I agree and I hope that they keep an active interest on strengthening the product line and expanding the market.