Panavision - Financial Condition

[Dan Durbin]

There has been some concern about Eastman Kodak staff reductions in one of the Cinematography Forums. Is anyone concerned about Panavision? Moody's identifies Panavision and Eastman Kodak in their Q1 2009 (March 1, 2009 data) "Bottom Rung Report" This is a list of 283 companies with high default risk and weak liquidity.

[K Borowski]

This is worrying news, for sure.

 

As the saying goes, "The sun never sets on Panavision." How's their stock trading? Kodak is a joke at ~$4/share. I thought it'd never go below $8/share a year ago. Now, who knows what the bottom is. They're doing less than 2x as well as GM. . .

[Dan Durbin]

Panavision is privately held by MacAndrews and Forbes Holdings (Ronald Perelman). They went private in mid 2006.

[K Borowski]

Panavision is privately held by MacAndrews and Forbes Holdings (Ronald Perelman). They went private in mid 2006.

 

I'm sorry. I didn't know that they were no longer publicly traded.

 

Ultimately, their fate is then decided by their owners. . . :ph34r:

[Guest]

There has been some concern about Eastman Kodak staff reductions in one of the Cinematography Forums. Is anyone concerned about Panavision? Moody's identifies Panavision and Eastman Kodak in their Q1 2009 (March 1, 2009 data) "Bottom Rung Report" This is a list of 283 companies with high default risk and weak liquidity.

 

And this a concern because????

 

They can simply get a bailout like every other company in the USA: GM, Chrysler, AIG, CitiGroup.....

 

Or they can simply be nationalized like Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.

 

If any one here has a small business that is failing apply now for your bailout money, I'm sure the US gov't won't discriminate simply because you only employ three people vs 30, 000.

 

All you have to do is run your business into the ground while paying your self an outrageous salary and the US gov't will ride to your rescue.

 

Clearly Americans are the most tolerant people on the planet, if this sort of thing was happening in Canada I would be marching with my pitch fork and torch!

 

"WASHINGTON - American International Group is paying out millions of dollars in executive bonuses to meet a Sunday deadline. But the troubled insurance giant has agreed to administration demands to restrain future payments."

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29697096/

 

R,

[Thomas James]

If you want to know why the economy is tanking it tis because of greed. Recently I tried to buy High School Musical in Blu-Ray and they want 35 bucks for the movie which is ridiculous.

[K Borowski]

If you want to know why the economy is tanking it tis because of greed. Recently I tried to buy High School Musical in Blu-Ray and they want 35 bucks for the movie which is ridiculous.

 

Take an economics class and you will know how full of it you are.

 

Corporate greed aside, supply and demand run the market. If you made a rn of 600,000 Blu-rays, and you only sold half of what you expected, what would YOU do to appease your stockholders at this junction, other than just discontinuing Blu-ray altogether?

 

Quit trolling on this board. Please?

Edited March 14, 2009 by Karl Borowski

[David Rakoczy]

All you have to do is run your business into the ground while paying your self an outrageous salary and the US gov't will ride to your rescue. R,

 

Or overextend the equity on your home.. buy a Lincoln Town Car or two... and a Boat.. and if you fall behind on your payments (enough) the government (using your neighbor's hard earned dollars) will bail you out.

 

Don't you see (Brian D.) how this mentality undermines the productivity unleashed by Free Market Economics?! How can we have a game where 'everyone' is a winner.. when not 'everyone' really tries? Not everyone 'risks'. What Mr. Boddington just described is what you cheer on for the private sector.. both ways are evil! Where is the responsibility for one's own actions?

 

Who is in charge of my fate.. me.. or some Washington bureaucrat?... don't answer that as that answer is changing by the moment :o

[Keith Walters]

Panavision is privately held by MacAndrews and Forbes Holdings (Ronald Perelman). They went private in mid 2006.

I can't see how the recession is going to affect them!

 

Panavision had not made an operating profit for at least 20 years before 2006. By the late 1990s they had over a half a billion dollars in rapidly-maturing bond debt with no possible means of repaying it. Ron Perleman first tried to unload his shareholding in Panavision onto the other shareholders of MacAndrews & Forbes Worldwide corp (a manufacturer of liquorice extract if you can believe that), in a bizzare deal that would have made him both the majority shareholder of M&F and netted him about $70 million in cash. He was only able to do this because most of the board members of M&F worked for other companied owned by Perelman.

 

The other shareholders immediately sued, and the Delaware Chancery Court ordered him to "unwind" this deal.

 

Then he tried to raise capital to pay off one lot of maturing bonds by offering another bond float at a ridiculously high ("Junk Bond") interest rate, which is what Enron tried to do just before they went under. That was on offer for just a couple of weeks, when it suddenly vanished with no real explanation.

 

Then they announced that a "Private Investor" had sunk large amounts on money into PV, but fairly elementary investigation by financial commentators revealed the the Private Investor's initials were RP.

 

Eventually Panaviison was delisted by the NY stock exchange, because of its dismal share price (As low as $1.25 a share, down from the $27 a share he paid John Farrand and others for it.)

 

He then managed to get it relisted on the "Pink Sheet" share register, which nicely erased its dismal share price record.

 

Eventually Perelman was able to compulsorily acquire the small minority of shares he didn't already own, thus making it a private company and no longer required to issue public financial statements.

 

As to why he did all this, that's a good question. Maybe it's just to avoid embarrassment.

[Dan Durbin]

Thanks for the background Keith, very interesting. Moody's predicts 45 per cent of its “Bottom Rung” nominees will end up defaulting on loans over the next year. The concern with falling credit is cash flow, as concerned suppliers to the company reduce credit terms (lower days payable terms or impose credit caps) or debt refinancing gets more expensive. In general, debt markets have been a better indicator than equity markets in this meltdown.

 

 

I can't see how the recession is going to affect them!

 

Panavision had not made an operating profit for at least 20 years before 2006. By the late 1990s they had over a half a billion dollars in rapidly-maturing bond debt with no possible means of repaying it. Ron Perleman first tried to unload his shareholding in Panavision onto the other shareholders of MacAndrews & Forbes Worldwide corp (a manufacturer of liquorice extract if you can believe that), in a bizzare deal that would have made him both the majority shareholder of M&F and netted him about $70 million in cash. He was only able to do this because most of the board members of M&F worked for other companied owned by Perelman.

 

The other shareholders immediately sued, and the Delaware Chancery Court ordered him to "unwind" this deal.

 

Then he tried to raise capital to pay off one lot of maturing bonds by offering another bond float at a ridiculously high ("Junk Bond") interest rate, which is what Enron tried to do just before they went under. That was on offer for just a couple of weeks, when it suddenly vanished with no real explanation.

 

Then they announced that a "Private Investor" had sunk large amounts on money into PV, but fairly elementary investigation by financial commentators revealed the the Private Investor's initials were RP.

 

Eventually Panaviison was delisted by the NY stock exchange, because of its dismal share price (As low as $1.25 a share, down from the $27 a share he paid John Farrand and others for it.)

 

He then managed to get it relisted on the "Pink Sheet" share register, which nicely erased its dismal share price record.

 

Eventually Perelman was able to compulsorily acquire the small minority of shares he didn't already own, thus making it a private company and no longer required to issue public financial statements.

 

As to why he did all this, that's a good question. Maybe it's just to avoid embarrassment.

[Delorme Jean-Marie]

If you want to know why the economy is tanking it tis because of greed. Recently I tried to buy High School Musical in Blu-Ray and they want 35 bucks for the movie which is ridiculous.

 

 

guess what ? that the price they sell a regular dvd in France and guess what ? they don't sell any and everybody go on the internet to download them illegaly ! how come?

[William Coss]

guess what ? that the price they sell a regular dvd in France and guess what ? they don't sell any and everybody go on the internet to download them illegaly ! how come?

 

 

How come you ask. Because, it is socially acceptable.

[Guest]

guess what ? that the price they sell a regular dvd in France and guess what ? they don't sell any and everybody go on the internet to download them illegaly ! how come?

 

Nothing beats free, even 1 Euro can't beat free.

 

R,

[John Sprung]

As the saying goes, "The sun never sets on Panavision." . .

 

I ran into John Galt at HPA, and gave him a suggestion: Panavision should leverage their extremely valuable brand by selling one line of consumer product: sunglasses. ;-)

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Freya Black]

As to why he did all this, that's a good question. Maybe it's just to avoid embarrassment.

 

I suspect it is to do with debt. The company probably has way too much of it!

When the company was de-listed I suspect that the intrest rates on their loans went up.

A lot of these kind of issues are to do with the cost of servicing overwhelming debts.

I'm not sure about the going private thing but I guess that was to hide the reality of the situation so it can all be kept going longer. It's a bit like Ponzi schemes, the longer they can be kept going the longer everything is okay and the people in charge can have fun! Of course the longer it goes on for the more catastrophic the results will be when it all goes down too.

 

We have the same problem over here with the major commercial broadcaster which has been doing a shocking and dreadful job for years. To be fair on top of that there has been heavy govenrment interfearance too which always seemed to end with the idiots surviving and the viable companies or individuals with a chance of saving things getting ousted. The government also removed various protections. Overall it is a scary mess. The company is now seriously debt laden after endless mismanagement and the chickens have of course come home to roost with a recent reduction in advertising revenue and serious and increasing problems revolving around the debt issues. I actually fear the government will bail them out and they shouldn't. I say let the screens go black, it's actually embaressing to watch them limp on and to see them become more and more abusive of their responsibilities and to other smaller companies trapped in the pool with them.

 

Theres a lot of companies out there that have been really badly run and mismanaged for years and now there are economic issues they are trying to blame the years and years of mismanagement on this but the truth is that the economic situation is just making it visible the mess these companies really are.

 

love

 

Freya

[Freya Black]

We have the same problem over here with the major commercial broadcaster which has been doing

 

Just to clarify I meant the major advetrising funded public service broadcaster and not Rupert Murdochs Sky TV which is doing fabulous and nearly has control of every aspect of the UK's broadcasting infrastructure at this point and is of course probably the main commercial broadcaster these days too.

 

love

 

Freya

[David Rakoczy]

Theres a lot of companies out there that have been really badly run and mismanaged for years and now there are economic issues they are trying to blame the years and years of mismanagement on this but the truth is that the economic situation is just making it visible the mess these companies really are.

 

love

 

Freya

 

This is so true... of may companies in many different fields...

[Dominic Case]

Panavision is privately held by MacAndrews and Forbes Holdings (Ronald Perelman).

MacAndrews & Forbes, who onced owned Technicolor, also own Deluxe (bought from Rank Film Laboratories in 2005) and Revlon Cosmetics, as well as an assortment of other interests: military vehicles, pharmaceuticals (with military connections), gaming, and finance. And Ron owns the lot himself.

[Brian Dzyak]

Or overextend the equity on your home.. buy a Lincoln Town Car or two... and a Boat.. and if you fall behind on your payments (enough) the government (using your neighbor's hard earned dollars) will bail you out.

 

Don't you see (Brian D.) how this mentality undermines the productivity unleashed by Free Market Economics?! How can we have a game where 'everyone' is a winner.. when not 'everyone' really tries? Not everyone 'risks'. What Mr. Boddington just described is what you cheer on for the private sector.. both ways are evil! Where is the responsibility for one's own actions?

 

Who is in charge of my fate.. me.. or some Washington bureaucrat?... don't answer that as that answer is changing by the moment :o

 

I'm sorry. I think you've missed the overall point. We're in a period of "resetting" because of thirty years of policies that encouraged a lot of people to take as much as possible without any concern over long term stability of civilization.

 

So yes, if economic policies (such as Reaganomics) are allowed to run rampant without any regulation, the top bleeds the system dry until we end up where we are and "draconian" measures are required to reset everything back to something workable.

 

NO ONE is advocating handouts at any level. That's propaganda handed out by Conservatives for thirty+ years to scare people into voting against their economic interests. Just as nobody truly wants a complete Socialist society, absolute Capitalism cannot work either. For reasons you and I have both stated, Socialism isn't realistic when humans are involved (due to greed by those who are in charge of "trickling down" the resources and because those who "get" have little encouragement to succeed on their own). Capitalism does encourage drive and progress BUT unchecked Capitalism will eventually bleed the system dry as those greedy and crafty few at the top will suck everything they can from the system.

 

The only way for society to sustain itself is through long-term balance wherein policies encourage people to contribute to society AND there are safety nets and regulations to protect those in the middle and at the bottom.

 

BECAUSE of greed and avarice brought about, primarily through Republican policies, we are in this economic crisis today. It will take nothing less than redistribution, sometimes unfair redistribution, to help correct the mess Conservatives put us all in. Bummer, but if they would have just been a little more concerned with the long-term stability of EVERYONE instead of short term greed, then we wouldn't be in this mess.

 

 

ANYWAY, I don't know much about the current welfare of Panavision or any camera manufacturer, but they seem to be wisely adapting to the changing industry. It would be a shame for Panavision, or any company really, to fold for any reason.

[Jamie Metzger]

de-railed

[Keith Walters]

MacAndrews & Forbes, who onced owned Technicolor, also own Deluxe (bought from Rank Film Laboratories in 2005) and Revlon Cosmetics, as well as an assortment of other interests: military vehicles, pharmaceuticals (with military connections), gaming, and finance. And Ron owns the lot himself.

Ah yes, Revlon, a stellar example of Ronnie's business acumen.

Currently trading at $2.50 a share, down from over $500 a share a little over 10 years ago!

• As of Dec 2008: Total Assets $813,400,000 (includes $182,600,000 "Good Will",
  $154,000,000 unsold inventory)
  
• Total liabilities $1,926,200,000 (!)
  
• Market Capitalization
  (ie Stock Market value) $128,440,000
   
  
• Current net worth MINUS $1,295,400!
  

You can read all about it here Yahoo Finance REV

The sad fact is that once the SEC tightened up regulations to make Junk Bond trading impractical, Perelman has found it increasingly difficult to turn a real profit. He managed to get Revlon cosmetics almost debt-free just after he bought it, but only by selling off the divisions that actually made money. How on earth he managed to run up such a massive debt in less than ten years hardly bears thinking about.

 

Yes, he also bought Rank Film Labs. Just a couple of weeks before Texas Instruments announced they had secured massive contracts to convert the majority of US cinemas to DLP digital projection.

 

When and if film origination eventually dies, it will be because film projection dies out and takes the necessary processing infrastructure with it. Then Ron will discover he's basically bought $600 million worth of scrap metal. (And quite likely a massive toxic cleanup bill when he tries to sell off the real estate).

Edited March 17, 2009 by Keith Walters

[Keith Walters]

Current net worth MINUS $1,295,400

Sorry, $1,295,400,000 (1.2 billion!)

[Daniel Porto]

ANYWAY, I don't know much about the current welfare of Panavision or any camera manufacturer, but they seem to be wisely adapting to the changing industry. It would be a shame for Panavision, or any company really, to fold for any reason.

 

The main problem with Panavision is that it is deemed by many to be film only and this is not the case. Panavision are as just up to date as any other rental house out there and perhaps that have an even better advantage as not only can they purchase other camera makes but they also have there own. I am sure they will blow everyone away with their new digital camera.

 

All they need to do is change their image that they specialize in both film and video.

[Michael Most]

The main problem with Panavision is that it is deemed by many to be film only and this is not the case.

 

Perhaps in your eyes. I don't know your location, but in Los Angeles, Panavision is most definitely not looked at as a film only rental company. In fact, they are by far the largest supplier of video and digital production equipment, and just about everyone in town knows that.

[Daniel Porto]

Perhaps in your eyes. I don't know your location, but in Los Angeles, Panavision is most definitely not looked at as a film only rental company. In fact, they are by far the largest supplier of video and digital production equipment, and just about everyone in town knows that.

 

Australia. While we certainly do a lot of video jobs it is still 70% film. I guess what I am saying is that except for regular clients if you need an F900 lets say, they are more likely to go to 'Video Australasia'