Hostess workers strike may kill company

geni said:
Not remotely.

The most straigtforward approach is to pick up on an an asset that other potential purchasers have missed (say land) and liquidate.
Click to expand...
And this land increases in value when the company becomes unprofitable?

geni said:
Next is rather than expanding you instead shrink the company in the process removing those parts of it that aren't profitable leaving a smaller but profitable core. This of course requires that there actualy be a profitable core rather than it just being accountacy smoke and mirrors.
Click to expand...
And don't those parts you eliminated count as a loss?

geni said:
Thirdly you can try cutting costs to below sustainable levels to make the company profitable while hoping that the assets +the profits over the 2-3 years before the thing collapses are more than you paid for the thing.
Click to expand...
That doesn't even make sense.
 
jj said:
Indeed, however, management had the option to modernize and cut some of the worst product, but instead chose to take huge salaries and leave the company broke for the second time.
Click to expand...
Evidence the union would agree to modernization?

Union resistance to modernization brought down big steel in the US. While new modern plants were built in China producing top quality steel at low cost US manufacturers were saddled with entrenched unions that prevented them from modernizing, because new equipment meant less union workers needed. So US steel companies were producing such expensive low-quality steel that not even Bush's misguided steel tariffs could save them.
 
Foolmewunz said:
How about you read the Fortune article I linked to so you can stop pretending to not have any information. It's got math in it, so you'll be pleased. (And it's a pretty even-handed article. Fortune's not exactly the Village Voice.)
Click to expand...
I read it. Can you quote the part that supports jj's claim?
 
WildCat said:
I read it. Can you quote the part that supports jj's claim?
Click to expand...

Because you missed the part where they talk about the golden parachute the previous CEO had or the part about management voting themselves huge raises? Or you just want to hear someone else say it?
 
Foolmewunz said:
Because you missed the part where they talk about the golden parachute the previous CEO had or the part about management voting themselves huge raises? Or you just want to hear someone else say it?
Click to expand...
:confused: Was someone in this thread denying that top management got raises?
 
It seems pretty clear that Hostess was probably doomed long before this strike. If you go into bankruptcy proceedings with $600 million in debt, and come out with $800 million in debt, something is wrong at a fundamental level. Americans are just not eating enough Twinkies.
 
Foolmewunz said:
You. Post 137.

Oh, but wait, you didn't actually claim that. You were just asking questions.
Click to expand...
jj claimed that all of the concessions made by the unionized workers went straight into the pockets of top management, and nothing was put forth trying to improve the company.

Any evidence of this?
 
WildCat said:
jj claimed that all of the concessions made by the unionized workers went straight into the pockets of top management, and nothing was put forth trying to improve the company.

Any evidence of this?
Click to expand...

Where did you come up with "all"? None of it went to improving either equipment or product, though.

Now, how much did the upper management take out of the money taken from labor? Do tell. You want to argue with the teamsters?
 
WildCat said:
Maybe you'll be the first person in this thread to explain how a failed company is somehow more valuable than if that same company was making a profit.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could actually discuss what somebody has said, instead of what you want to defend, for once?
 
WildCat said:
Any evidence for these claims jj? Don't forget to show your math!
Click to expand...

So, you won't read the link cited just above your post, you'll simply ignore facts in evidence and demand that I do your homework.

Um, no.
 
jj said:
Where did you come up with "all"? None of it went to improving either equipment or product, though.

Now, how much did the upper management take out of the money taken from labor? Do tell. You want to argue with the teamsters?
Click to expand...

jj said:
So, you won't read the link cited just above your post, you'll simply ignore facts in evidence and demand that I do your homework.

Um, no.
Click to expand...
jj, this is where you:
1. Show the dollar value of the concessions.
2. Show where those dollars went.
 
WildCat said:
jj, this is where you:
1. Show the dollar value of the concessions.
2. Show where those dollars went.
Click to expand...

Read the cite. This is where you don't demand that people repeat, and repeat, and repeat the same work for your rhetorical posing.
 
jj said:
Read the cite. This is where you don't demand that people repeat, and repeat, and repeat the same work for your rhetorical posing.
Click to expand...
The labor concessions mentioned totaled in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The executive pay raises totalled ~$5 million.

Where did the rest of the money go jj? Oh, and realize during this time the owners were dumping hundreds of millions into it also.
 
Last edited:
The U.S. Trustee, an agent of the U.S. Department of Justice who oversees bankruptcy cases, said in court documents it is opposed to the wind-down plan because Hostess plans improper bonuses to company insiders.
Click to expand...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/19/us-hostess-bankruptcy-hearing-idUSBRE8AI0XS20121119

So, apparently I'm not the only one who came to the same conclusion. Now are you going to accept the facts of the matter, or are you going to blame this on politics? The blindness of Libertarian worshipers of the "free market" is truly astonishing, and the failure to see where a "free market" leads from the point of view of history seems much like willful ignorance.
 
I can't speak to the accuracy of the following picture as I don't have its source, so this is just posted because its related to the topic.

526116_558242774202374_306351653_n.png
 
Last edited:
jj said:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/19/us-hostess-bankruptcy-hearing-idUSBRE8AI0XS20121119

So, apparently I'm not the only one who came to the same conclusion. Now are you going to accept the facts of the matter, or are you going to blame this on politics? The blindness of Libertarian worshipers of the "free market" is truly astonishing, and the failure to see where a "free market" leads from the point of view of history seems much like willful ignorance.
Click to expand...

In case anyone was looking for step 3, there it is.


Yes, somebody has to lose in order for someone else to gain in this manner, but the guys who actually ran the company and drove it into liquidation were planning on giving themselves a whole bunch of money to compensate themselves for their hard work.
 
jj said:
So, apparently I'm not the only one who came to the same conclusion. Now are you going to accept the facts of the matter, or are you going to blame this on politics? The blindness of Libertarian worshipers of the "free market" is truly astonishing, and the failure to see where a "free market" leads from the point of view of history seems much like willful ignorance.
Click to expand...

Seems the ignorance is all yours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom