Skip to main content

Kodak's Final Moment

As someone who is interested in the long run, the bankruptcy of Kodak raises some interesting questions.  Kodak, in its prime, was a very profitable business, with one of the most recognizable brands in the world.  Its main product during its 138-year history was film for handheld cameras, a market which it dominated and which had large margins.  However, the development of the digital camera and mobile phones with in-built cameras has resulted in a huge decline in demand for film.  Although Kodak was instrumental in developing digital camera technology, this industry was very competitive and had low margins.  Could Kodak have avoided bankruptcy by moving into different product markets?  Can old-technology firms transform themselves into new-technology firms? Should Kodak's shareholders and managers have wound their business up voluntarily a decade ago?
  
As someone who has studied companies in the nineteenth century, I have a unique perspective on company longevity.  Few of the top companies traded on the London Stock Exchange in 1870 exists today as an independent entity - most have disappeared, some have been taken over or have merged with other companies, and the assets of some are now owned by the UK taxpayer (e.g., Bank of England).  From this perspective, Kodak was a long-lived company.


Popular posts from this blog

How Valuable Are Connections?

Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, Amir Kermani, James Kwak and Todd Mitton have written a paper on whether firms connected to Timothy Geithner benefited from these connections. They do so by looking at how stocks of these firms reacted to the announcement that he was a nominee for Treasury Secretary in November 2008. They find that there were large abnormal returns for connected firms. Below is the paper's abstract and the full paper is available here . The announcement of Timothy Geithner as nominee for Treasury Secretary in November 2008 produced a cumulative abnormal return for financial firms with which he had a connection. This return was about 6% after the first full day of trading and about 12% after ten trading days. There were subsequently abnormal negative returns for connected firms when news broke that Geithner's confirmation might be derailed by tax issues. Excess returns for connected firms may reflect the perceived impact of relying on the advice of a small ne

Bitcoin Bubble?

According to Robert Shiller , speaking at Davos, Bitcoin is a perfect example of a bubble - story here . Shiller sees Bitcoin as a backwards step in the evolution of money.   George Selgin , a free banker, takes an opposing view - click here .  Although he doesn't believe that Bitcoin is money, he sees its development as a fascinating turn in the evolution of money. In particular, he lauds the fact that Bitcoin production is constrained and cannot be infinite. There is a short video below where Bitcoin explain how it works.

Boom and Bust: A Global History of Financial Bubbles

Boom and Bust: A Global History of Financial Bubbles, co-authored with my colleague Will Quinn , is forthcoming in August. It is published by Cambridge University Press and is available for pre-order at Amazon , Barnes and Noble , Waterstones and Cambridge University Press .