I really love to hear INTC's mobile move will eat into ARMH market share. It creates another buy opportunity. As long as ARMH holds its trendline, it is all right. Unless you just purchased after recent 10% jump after earning report, I don't see a problem. Many ARMH owners have decent gain now thus it is normal for them to pull out to lock in profit.
Fundamentally, in my humble opinion, INTC has lost the war from strategic point. It is not technology but ARMH falls into right business model at right time. Most market analysts talk about technology. Forget not, in past MOT's 68030 was much better CPU than INTC's 486 at that time but MOT linked to AAPL then while INTC linked to MSFT. Although AAPL's Macintosh was the first computer comes with icons interface and mouse, as John Scully (he fired Jobs) refused to license its Finder OS out and insist to sell both hardware and software, AAPL was cornered. CPU war between then MOT and INTC was done by AAPL's decision, not which CPU is more powerful.
I am a technical person, not a MBA. It is against conventional wisdom in my circle to criticize INTC's movement now. INTC's typical technical world responses - R&D, R&D, R&D, .... to more powerful CPU is praised by analysts and technical plus academics.
Under current ARMH model, CPU licensee can only create limited differentiation thus CPU price is checked. Does smartphone maker like to appease a CPU supplier like INTC (write standard and no viable alternate) or like many CPU makers with limited differentiation to appease them? If QCOM doesn't behave, they can easily switch to NVDA, ... even Media Tek. INTC's manufacturing and process R&D are not as efficient as TSM. Furthermore, R&D cost of TSM is shared by many. Now, INTC's big overheads actually works against it.
What I expect (might be wrong) is that analysts keep praise INTC's new CEO (insider) on new technology to beat ARMH. This makes some people hesitate. Eventually, sale data will prove otherwise. Bingo!
ARMH wins on business model. It is not technology. INTC focuses on R&D to make new chips would go nowhere other than burns out cash.
Different CPU makers license ARM core to design their own CPU. With the same core, differentiation is limited thus mobile device makers enjoy multiple suppliers and price war of suppliers. Can INTC sell CPU at these prices while maintain its traditional margin - I see the chance near ZERO. If INTC cuts margin, it earns less thus still no good for stocks.
In my humble view, INTC's huge overhead actually works against it in mobile CPU war. Furthermore, Android basically targets ARM chip. Some software needs to "Port" to run on devices with INTC CPU. ARM core CPU makers use TSM, etc. foundries thus R&D cost on manufacturing are shared. As we know that traditionally, TSM is far more efficient than bureaucracy laden INTC.
As current share will be cancelled, even for speculative trades, what point to LONG? If someone SHORT but have enough to maintain margin to the day of cancellation, doesn't mean he/she cannot lose? So why people still place bet? any faint hope current share will not be cancelled?
Second question, as share cancellation announced but new share have not been issued yet. By what point to discuss Kodak's business outlook? If they are good, benefits go to current bond holders who will receive new share. Bottom line - there is nothing to do with current share holders.
Of course, some Kodak employee will be able to keep their jobs just don't know how long as there are not much left.
As I read from media, current EKDKQ shares will be cancelled, why people still trade. Yes, it is day traders' game but if this stock is definitely zero, why should anyone pay 0.15 to buy? On what hope regardless how slim, current share will not go to zero?
For new share holders (current creditors), they have higher priority than current share holders plus their bonds are not honored, why do they want to give anything to current share holders?
For bond holders who bought at face value, the best case for chapter 7 is that they get what they originally promised. If there is not enough assets, they get less but still get some thing. However, for a few speculative buyers (such as some hedge funds), who bought Kodak bonds at deep discount, even a partial payment might give them a decent return.
Bond holders are ahead of share holders, even ahead of Kodak's unsecured suppliers who in turn ahead of all shareholders.