No more Twinkies?

[weekender 0]

Quote

Quote

>Bankruptcy is often the most profitable option for a business.

Again, in the same way that letting a student go in is often the best solution for an AFF-I.

Very poor analogy. Most AFFI's are too ethical to do that for their own enrichment. I don't think hedge fund managers and other similar vermin people have the same level of ethics.

its not about ethics. its about math. you invest your money in a business. you cannot turn the company around, in this case, you feel you must have these concessions to make it worth your time and money. so you decide to cut your losses and sell it off and move on to another project. that is not unethical. its not ethical. its just math.

on a side note. your "vermin" comment is childish and shows how full of hate you are. i'm sure you think you sound smart and funny but you dont. you sound sad and jealous.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[weekender 0]

Quote

>Very poor analogy. Most AFFI's are too ethical to do that for their own enrichment.

That makes it a good analogy, actually. While the outside world thinks that all skydivers are reckless yahoos (an image which is reinforced by the popular media) people in the skydiving community know that AFF-I's are too ethical to do that for their own enrichment. And more importantly know that there really isn't any way to enrich yourself by having your students go in.

> I don't think hedge fund managers and other similar vermin people have the
>same level of ethics.

Non-skydivers think the same of you; it's easy to accept the image that's prevalent in popular culture if you don't know a subject well.

by your response i think you missed what he was saying Or, and i hope not the case, actually do and endorsed it. Since im not sure, i will spell it out for everyone not familiar. I'm more used to this sort of hate speech. "vermin", when used in reference to bankers and fund mangers is code for "Jew". the professor is showing his true hateful colors.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[billvon 3,063]

>by your response i think you missed what he was saying

I don't think he was bringing religion into it. I'll let him answer.

[weekender 0]

Quote

>by your response i think you missed what he was saying

I don't think he was bringing religion into it. I'll let him answer.

It is not just a religion, fyi. it is an ethnic group and a nationality. for a lack of a better term a race of people.

His analogy is old and obvious.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

by your response i think you missed what he was saying Or, and i hope not the case, actually do and endorsed it. Since im not sure, i will spell it out for everyone not familiar. I'm more used to this sort of hate speech. "vermin", when used in reference to bankers and fund mangers is code for "Jew". the professor is showing his true hateful colors.

I've never heard of Bankers+vermin = Jews. Is that a NYC thing? I highly doubt (at the 6 nines level) that was Kallend's intent. He doesn't hate Jews, he hates bankers.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

>Very poor analogy. Most AFFI's are too ethical to do that for their own enrichment.

That makes it a good analogy, actually. While the outside world thinks that all skydivers are reckless yahoos (an image which is reinforced by the popular media) people in the skydiving community know that AFF-I's are too ethical to do that for their own enrichment. And more importantly know that there really isn't any way to enrich yourself by having your students go in.

> I don't think hedge fund managers and other similar vermin people have the
>same level of ethics.

Non-skydivers think the same of you; it's easy to accept the image that's prevalent in popular culture if you don't know a subject well.

by your response i think you missed what he was saying Or, and i hope not the case, actually do and endorsed it. Since im not sure, i will spell it out for everyone not familiar. I'm more used to this sort of hate speech. "vermin", when used in reference to bankers and fund mangers is code for "Jew". the professor is showing his true hateful colors.

Do you project much?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Bankruptcy is often the most profitable option for a business.

Again, in the same way that letting a student go in is often the best solution for an AFF-I.

Very poor analogy. Most AFFI's are too ethical to do that for their own enrichment. I don't think hedge fund managers and other similar vermin people have the same level of ethics.

its not about ethics. its about math. you invest your money in a business. you cannot turn the company around, in this case, you feel you must have these concessions to make it worth your time and money. so you decide to cut your losses and sell it off and move on to another project. that is not unethical. its not ethical. its just math.

And AFFIs don't use "just math" to decide to let a student bounce. THAT is the difference.

The Hostess management, having awarded itself huge pay raises, is now attempting to renege on its contracts. The cost of reneging on its retirement fund will almost certainly end up on the taxpayers' shoulders.

Still, blame that greedy union. If they're not willing to have their wages slashed to below the poverty line while the incompetent management rakes in millions, they can move to China. Socialist scum.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[weekender 0]

i didnt blame the union or anyone. i clearly stated i dont care nor would i if i ran the company. this is about nothing more than math. if the new investors do not feel they can get a return on their investment, they have a right to liquidate. its their money. its very simple.

i do not understand the need to find bad guys. Hostess was bleeding money because their product was not selling as much as it did. the company could not turn a profit and filed for bankruptcy. the new investors hoped they could turn it around and sell it for a profit. they felt they could not without more concessions. its their money and their right to not continue. i dont see any bad guys. i just see all losers. union and investors. of course, i'm human and feel more for the employees then the private equity guys because they have less and most likely will suffer in real terms.

the taxpayers should not be responsible for the pension. the union and whomever promised it is. this we agree on. the bakers should get what ever they put into it and that is it. the courts is where they should seek what is promised. taxpayers should not be on the hook for a promise the union and Hostess could not keep.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[weekender 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Very poor analogy. Most AFFI's are too ethical to do that for their own enrichment.

That makes it a good analogy, actually. While the outside world thinks that all skydivers are reckless yahoos (an image which is reinforced by the popular media) people in the skydiving community know that AFF-I's are too ethical to do that for their own enrichment. And more importantly know that there really isn't any way to enrich yourself by having your students go in.

> I don't think hedge fund managers and other similar vermin people have the
>same level of ethics.

Non-skydivers think the same of you; it's easy to accept the image that's prevalent in popular culture if you don't know a subject well.

by your response i think you missed what he was saying Or, and i hope not the case, actually do and endorsed it. Since im not sure, i will spell it out for everyone not familiar. I'm more used to this sort of hate speech. "vermin", when used in reference to bankers and fund mangers is code for "Jew". the professor is showing his true hateful colors.

Do you project much?

im rubber and your glue... good response. very much changed my mind about your obvious insult. im actually the racist. glad you cleared that up.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

as i stated before if that was the case, then why invest in it and try to run the factory for a year? the investors put money into the business and will get less out when it is sold off in peices. your math is completely the opposite of everything ive learned in 20 years of banking.

This is simple math. A company's assets (including receivables) should be worth more than its assets minus its obligations. Selling those assets and leaving a shell of a company can make sense where assets - revenue lost - obligations which transfer is sufficiently larger than assets - obligations.

Quote

perhaps i am wrong. perhaps all my experience in equity trading and investment banking is wrong.

I worked for a company when it sold "substantially all of its assets" to another company and like my co-workers discovered that I no longer had a job when I showed up for work the next day.

In our case we had specialized knowledge, were earning market wages, and the acquiring company made us job offers that weren't steps backwards.

If we were making substantially above market wages or held positions that required less specialized training they wouldn't have needed to do that.

Quote

i suppose there is a chance everyone i know in banking is and has been doing it wrong all this time. all you have to do is buy a company, declare bankruptcy and watch the cash roll in. OR perhaps you have no idea what your talking about and cannot read even a simple balance sheet.

Union contracts don't survive corporate liquidation.

[rsh1 0]

Quote

i dont understand your thinking. there are no good or bad guys.

really? in all your 'experience', you have never come across nefarious dealings in P/E? you would be a great regulator with that extreme myopia.

US Tries To Wrest Control Of Hostess Liquidation As Management Seeks To Pay $1.75 Million In "Incentive" Bonuses:


".....Most importantly, however, is the question how one explains to 18,500 workers who are already out and looking for jobs that the management team which was just as responsible for crushing the company deserves on average $92,000 each in "incentive bonuses, is anyone's guess and one does wonder what safety precautions said management team may have taken to protect from what is certain to be the collective wrath of its former workforce."

"But wait, it gets better: because it is quite likely that should an emboldened US Trustee get her wishes granted, will push to continue operating Hostess as a going concern, potentially with a court appointed, and US Trustee selected management team.

In essence this could result in a stealth nationalization of the junk food maker, which would preserve the jobs of the workers for the time being, but crush the balance of the capital structure, i.e., secured and unsecured creditors.

Impossible, you say? It has happened, to a big extent, before. Recall a certain bankruptcy case of one General Motors, where the claims of creditors were primed by those of the labor unions.

Granted, such a perversion of the bankruptcy process would be historic, but in a country in which everyone is to blame for everything, and in which property rights are becoming a very nebulous concept, we would certainly not be surprised if the US government ends up "bailing out" Hostess by a mandatory flipping the capital structure, over the cries of the company's creditors, further pushing the country into the twilight Banana zone."


taken from (which quotes bloomberg amongst others)....

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-19/us-tries-wrest-control-hostess-liquidation-management-seeks-pay-175-million-incentiv

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The Hostess management, having awarded itself huge pay raises, is now attempting to renege on its contracts. The cost of reneging on its retirement fund will almost certainly end up on the taxpayers' shoulders.

Still, blame that greedy union. If they're not willing to have their wages slashed to below the poverty line while the incompetent management rakes in millions, they can move to China. Socialist scum.

The Teamsters actually agreed with Hostess. When the sales and delivery drivers looked for a new contract and Hostess offered one with a cut, the Teamsters leaders reviewed the books and told their members that the numbers showed that Hostess cannot do more. The Teamsters then voted to approve the new contract under the idea that they either approve it or company goes under.

The Baker's union did it differently. The Baker's union told their members what Quade has been saying - this is just a power play, etc. Then they gathered members in and had a voice vote. With predictable results.

The Teamsters actually went to the Union and told them that they've reviewed it all. What are they doing? Look at the books, tell the members, and have them vote by secret ballot. The Bakers union refused. Now this.

The Bakers Union understands that if they approve a contract for lower wages and benefits then then other businesses under the their union contract will follow. There are many thousands more members out there. And they've let businesses know that they will shut a company down rather than cut wages and benefits.

There also isn't all bad for Hostess' competitors. They're knocked out, therefore there is less competition and the other companies can charge more (so is the idea). The Bakers union can therefore take care of itself and the sacrifice of the Hostess workers is just a fact of doing business. The union has a responsibility to make as much money as possible, and like a corporation that lays off unprofitable employees or shuts down unprofitable offices, the union's best interest is to simply close the Hostess division.

It's a lot more complicated than you are making it, John. Even the Teamsters agreed that they'd be going down if they didn't. Plenty of Teamsters agreed on the contract to buy time to try to find another job. This now changes things.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[weekender 0]

if your going to quote me do it in a way that reflects the context of what i was saying. either you did it on purpose, which makes you dishonest and then we can end this discussion. or you did not understand my point and i'll explain more cleary.

i did not say there aren't bad people in banking. there are bad people everywhere. if you take my words and put them in the context of my entire argument you will see that i am saying i do not understand people who try to find villians in business. the sole purpose of a business is to profite the investors. if they do not feel theyc can profit then they have options. in this case they feel liquidation is their best option. i do not think that makes them bad. nor do i think the union is bad. to me it is math, its neutral. good or bad is an emotion i cannot apply to this situation.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

The Bakers Union understands that if they approve a contract for lower wages and benefits then then other businesses under the their union contract will follow. There are many thousands more members out there. And they've let businesses know that they will shut a company down rather than cut wages and benefits.

As with Eastern Airlines, Hostess is not a war; it's yet another battle in the war. Like Frank Lorenzo, the Hostess investors are soldiers in one side of the war, and the Baker's Union (even the leaders, who are no angels) are soldiers in the other side. The management side, the Romney side, wants to return the US - really, the industrialized world - back to the standards of the 19th Century. They will do so by breaking every organized labor contract they can, busting every union they can, bit by bit by bit. The labor side isn't about to let that happen.

Most people are viewing the Hostess case from a micro perspective. That's naive; it should be viewed globally, strategically. It's like chess: you need to see the whole board.

[weekender 0]

Quote

Quote

The Bakers Union understands that if they approve a contract for lower wages and benefits then then other businesses under the their union contract will follow. There are many thousands more members out there. And they've let businesses know that they will shut a company down rather than cut wages and benefits.

As with Eastern Airlines, Hostess is not a war; it's yet another battle in the war. Like Frank Lorenzo, the Hostess investors are soldiers in one side of the war, and the Baker's Union (even the leaders, who are no angels) are soldiers in the other side. The management side, the Romney side, wants to return the US - really, the industrialized world - back to the standards of the 19th Century. They will do so by breaking every organized labor contract they can, busting every union they can, bit by bit by bit. The labor side isn't about to let that happen.

Most people are viewing the Hostess case from a micro perspective. That's naive; it should be viewed globally, strategically. It's like chess: you need to see the whole board.

in order for you theory to make any sense you have to believe there is political component to a financial model when investing. people invest in a company to turn a profit. there are very complex models that these funds follow. opportunities are discussed and models are build. decisions are made based on these models and future projections. its not naive to believe there is no giant conspiracy by bankers to destroy unions if you understand how to read a balance sheet.

If an investor wants the union out its because the model build with them staying is not profitable in their eyes. its math, not politics. bankers do not care about union or non union, they care about earning a profit. its not political.

i guess i am just naive and missed all those meetings where the war on the working man was discussed. i wil check my email as soon as my friends and I are finished cleaning our monicles and making fun of homeless people.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[normiss 845]

WAIT! We weren't REALLLLLY serious about causing you to shut down!

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

The management side, the Romney side, wants to return the US - really, the industrialized world - back to the standards of the 19th Century.

I love this. Speaker's Corner at it's very prime.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

>Bankruptcy is often the most profitable option for a business.

Again, in the same way that letting a student go in is often the best solution for an AFF-I.

The two things are not remotely analogous.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Bershire buys companies it feels are undervalued and where it can act to fix the problems that lead to that poor stock valuation.

Yes, but that can be done with many companies, not just undervalued ones. Undervalued companies provide the profit opportunities with reduced risk. Worst case, company is liquidated, but a profit might still be realized.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

If the company is liquidated, the stock then evaporates and no longer exists once the payment has been made.

Right. And while they're not the highest priority, the investors are among those in line to receive that payment when it is made.

Bottom line is that when there is a more profitable option available, businesses don't typically enter into bankruptcy proceedings.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Bershire buys companies it feels are undervalued and where it can act to fix the problems that lead to that poor stock valuation.

Yes, but that can be done with many companies, not just undervalued ones. Undervalued companies provide the profit opportunities with reduced risk. Worst case, company is liquidated, but a profit might still be realized.

Unless you can argue that the last seller, and the future buyer(s) are much dumber than the PE group that failed to turn it around in the last year, seems highly improbable that a profit will be realized.

It's easy to wave your hand and say - look, evil capitalists making money. I pointed to the reality that once the food production line shuts down and stores reuse that flooring space on other brands, the value of Hostess is substantially diminished.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

As with Eastern Airlines, Hostess is not a war; it's yet another battle in the war. Like Frank Lorenzo, the Hostess investors are soldiers in one side of the war, and the Baker's Union (even the leaders, who are no angels) are soldiers in the other side. The management side, the Romney side, wants to return the US - really, the industrialized world - back to the standards of the 19th Century. They will do so by breaking every organized labor contract they can, busting every union they can, bit by bit by bit. The labor side isn't about to let that happen.

Most people are viewing the Hostess case from a micro perspective. That's naive; it should be viewed globally, strategically. It's like chess: you need to see the whole board.

Never attribute to evil what can far more easily be attributed to incompetence.

Hostess is viewed from micro perspective because few humans act in a macro perspective.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

if your going to quote me do it in a way that reflects the context of what i was saying. either you did it on purpose, which makes you dishonest and then we can end this discussion. or you did not understand my point and i'll explain more cleary.

you were perfectly content to charge Kallend with racism charges on multiple occasions based on a gigantic reach around his use of the word vermin. Look in the mirror.

[billvon 3,063]

>The two things are not remotely analogous.

I suspect you think that because you are a skydiver and are not running a company.

The average whuffo imagines all sorts of reasons that skydivers would want to off each other - for profit, revenge, competitive reasons etc. That's why they are so insistent on asking "who packs your parachute? Do you trust them?" etc. This arises because most of their exposure to skydiving is via movies like Drop Zone, Terminal Velocity, Cutaway etc. in which skydivers _are_ reckless and often immoral, and seem to try to kill each other with great regularity.

This is even true when you look at selected examples of actual news. Ted Mayfield was a disaster for the sport, with his "tying a string to the PC handle because he didn't have a static line" and "not giving some students AAD's because he just didn't have enough of them." Roger Nelson's arrest and imprisonment didn't help our image either. And of course there was the Andrew Thornton case.

Thus, to such a person, letting a student go in could make sense. It might reduce the competition; an instructor might want to kill a promising student who will give him a run for his money at the national competition. It might be good for business; a student who has seen the financial shenanigans at most DZ's (they pay their employees as contractors, not as employees!) might need to be silenced. It might just be easier to let him go in than deal with pulling him out.

As a skydiver, of course, you know that all of the above are absurd. Students don't pose a competitive risk to their instructors in the short term - and in the long term instructors welcome that sort of competition. Most people already know about the contractor vs employee thing, and most instructors out there much prefer doing a good job training students than taking the easy way out.

That being said, there is one case where letting a student go in IS the best option - and that is when you're burning through 1000 feet and your option is to let the student go in or go in yourself. (AFF courses train this contingency into you.)

Thus we have the analogy of going into bankruptcy.

To an outsider who gets their information from media, bankruptcy sounds great. I'll just declare bankruptcy! That way I don't have to work and I walk off with a huge pile of money, while all the people I owe money to just cry in their cheerios. Screw them! This image is reinforced by the many fictional accounts of evil financiers setting up elaborate "enrich me and screw everyone else" schemes.

Bankruptcy, of course, is nothing like that. It is a last resort when a company fails. A judge/trustee takes over and takes all the money he can find (bonuses, capital equipment, operating capital, sale of the company's assets and trademarks etc) and uses it to pay off as many debts as he can. In many cases, consolidation and renegotiation of debt under a chapter 11 reorganization can save the company, albeit after selling off everything that can be sold off.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Unless you can argue that the last seller, and the future buyer(s) are much dumber than the PE group that failed to turn it around in the last year, seems highly improbable that a profit will be realized.

Nope. Companies declare bankruptcy because it minimizes losses (i.e., is the most profitable option) compared to the rest of the available options. If there was a more profitable option, competent execs would pursue such options.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!