weekender

Common practice and it must be cleared by the judge, so they might not get it. Its done in business and even in acadamia and gov't, fyi. The head of Penn State who was forced down got a very large bonus even though he was essentially fired. I saw nothing nefarious with it. There is a bigger picture involved. I know Kallend doesnt care about why it happens but for the edification of more open minded readers i'll give some insight on why those bonuses get paid. when a private equity company buys a firm they need to hire management. they can only supply a couple of their own people. in order to get a quality team you must promise money, whether the company succeeds or fails. this is done because no one will take a job that might only last a year or two unless they are promised enough money to make it worth while. So the exec's come on board knowing if the company succeeds they will have a good job for years and years but if it fails, they will get enough cash to carry them to the next job. If you want to pay peanuts, you get monkeys. if you want quality people, you must make financial promises and keep them. that is why bonuses get paid even when the company fails. the world is alot more nuanced than, left good and right bad. or bankers are evil and unions are good. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

for your own safety no one can access your medical records except the hospital and the dr on your behalf. that is the law and MDT is doing nothing wrong. i have no beef with that as long as exceptions can be made. the Gov't is slow and stupid at times, not news. what is wrong, IMO, and no one mentioned it is that they can profit from it. If MDT will not release it to the individual, than they should not be able to sell it to a third party. that is a no brainer and the Gov't should get off their butt and fix it. i would prefer if the gov't did not try to protect me so much. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

>On the other hand, my parents encouraged us to study what enriched us. when a degree cost over 150k id rather learn a skill then feel enriched. especially when the unemployement rate for recent grads is double digits. for the record, i am not that hardline about the arts but its difficult to give a very nuanced answer and make a short post. i know its not so cut and dry, science or arts. this thread is about employers not finding skilled workers. Kallend pointed out its because we seem to not be emphasizing tangible skills in college, whereas, other nations are. i mostly agree with him and that is what i was trying to say. albeit, in a snarky way. i see your point, fyi. and no way think studying art dooms you to be non productive. im not that black and white but again, its not easy to make a post expressing a complete thought "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

It's an eye-opening statistic. In S. Korea it's 37% However, the US beats the world when it comes to Womens' Studies, Urban Studies, Journalism... my father and mother insisted that i went to college to learn a skill to get a job. they found no value in the arts. to them it was a hobby. they forced us all to take music lessons but would have killed me if i tried to study that in college. i studied financea and accounting, wanting to follow my dad into business. he approved because it was basically math and a skill that got you a job. my nephews and nieces seem to feel college is about expanding your mind and finding yourself. those are luxuries of the rich. some of them cannot find work now with their degrees. we need to go back to basics. edit to add: sorry, when i said expand your mind i did not mean with knowledge. i meant to get high and discuss things you discuss only when high. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

i dont disagree with the spirit of your post but think you took my sentence way too literally. I took Kallends comment to imply i was some sort of anti capitalist, marxist socialist and replied accordingly. i also assumed he was mostly kidding with me. spending money wisely is just sound policy. its not a left or right thing, in my mind. for the record, you can be an evil banker and understand the need for tax dollars to be spent in a way that maximizes return on investment. after all, who is going to fix the plumbing in all my homes and drive the trucks to my catered parties if we dont teach these skills. i only need so many ditches dug on my properties. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

>Didn't realize you are a Socialist! spending tax dollars in a way that actually helps society doesnt make one a socialist. it makes me sad to see how tuition has gone up far more than inflation due to the abuse of student loans. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

You've just hit one of my pet peeves. It would be more honest, and more productive, for companies to say, "... due to our lack of willingness to train employees." Apart from being a convenient excuse to move jobs overseas where the labor is cheaper, that reason is generally given by companies whose management just can't design a successful training program. Well, it depends on what type of training. A company is not going to hire someone and teach them to be a welder, or an electrician, or a pipefitter. That takes years. You could, however, take a skilled heavy mechanic or an I&E man and use that as a base to teach them how to work on your specific product line. Unfortunately there aren't many people out there with the base skills and THAT is the problem. this is what community colleges should be doing. when i was a kid many taught skills like this and helped people get their CDL's too. all for very cheap. Now private schools have taken over and IMO over charge because the students get gov't loans. it should not cost 30k to become an auto tech. thats rougly the cost at a private trade school in the NYC area. thats just wrong. they should stop giving student loans for trades and instead give the money to community colleges who would charge little to teach usable skills. will never happen though. to much money involved in the private trade schools and Dem's love to hand out student loans to people even if they can never pay them back. both parties are working against kids who should not be going to college. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

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. I dont think thats fair. jewish banking conspiracies are abound. it is a very common insult and one lobbed by racist all the time. The use of the word vermin is not uncommonly used by racist and anti semites. the famous german propoganda movie, "the enternal jew" featured prominently the rat and used the german translation of vermin repeatadly. this is a common unsult thrown out by neo nazi's and general racist. I see someone put the two together and make a connection very easily. i'm not a loon who spouts conspiracies. i think my postings here prove im a rather rational moderate thinker. i do not know the guy, only what i read here from his postings and that he is a leftist college instructor. i could very well be wrong but do not think i'm far reaching in feeling he chose his wording purposley. Still projecting, I see. you think im anti semitic? yes that makes sense, the guy who is offended by your racist comments is the racist. not the lefty college instructor who made the anti semetic comment and doesnt even deny it. i think our readers should google anti semitism and US colleges. would open their eyes a little. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

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. I dont think thats fair. jewish banking conspiracies are abound. it is a very common insult and one lobbed by racist all the time. The use of the word vermin is not uncommonly used by racist and anti semites. the famous german propoganda movie, "the enternal jew" featured prominently the rat and used the german translation of vermin repeatadly. this is a common unsult thrown out by neo nazi's and general racist. I see someone put the two together and make a connection very easily. i'm not a loon who spouts conspiracies. i think my postings here prove im a rather rational moderate thinker. i do not know the guy, only what i read here from his postings and that he is a leftist college instructor. i could very well be wrong but do not think i'm far reaching in feeling he chose his wording purposley. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As God is my witness, I thought Turkeys could fly. an Arthur Carlson quote. i tip my hat. you sir understand funny. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

The only reason any business ever declares bankruptcy is because it is the most profitable option, even if that only means the smallest loss. Of course, not all investors are treated equally during a company's bankruptcy. Some will come out of it much better than others. Your wording is a bit confusing but i believe i get your point. If your point is to say that sometimes the best decision is to take the smallest loss then i agree with you. With that said, you must read the line of mine you quoted in the context for which it was written. to be more clear: i have never seen a private equity investor turn a profit after having to declare bankruptcy and liquidate a company. in this case i am using the word profit to reflect the difference between the original investment and the sale price of the company or its parts. i have never seen it worth more than the original investment in liquidation. the bankruptcy is just to cut your losses. so, I believe we are in agreement. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Actually, it can be done. Berkshire Hathaway often invests in businesses when the market price of the stock is less than the company is worth if liquidated. The past few days have undoubtedly increased the value of the Twinkie name. Bankruptcy proceeding will require all interested parties to bid against one another in a now or never purchase opportunity, driving the price higher than what the names & recipes would bring if prospective buyers were courted individually. No they do not. or at least, no they do not as i understand finance and investing. i believe you have a misunderstanding of what Book Value means and how it is used when building a financial model and creating a valuation. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Yes, pawns. The company got exactly what it wanted; a brand name they can sell for more than what it was previously worth. It's worth more today because the exact same brand and facilities don't have to honor a previous contract which included wages above the minimum and other employee benefits. The "new" company has all the upside of the old company, but is unburdened of any previous agreements it made and the new buyers would absolutely be willing to pay a premium for that since it works to their (the investors) benefit in the long term. The 18,000 employees got fucked, while investors on both sides get a sweeter deal. that makes no sense to me. you cannot sell a brand for more than you can sell a fully functioning business. But Hostess is NOT a fully functioning business. It owes nearly $1BILLION just to its pension plan. By declaring bankruptcy it's offloading its huge debts onto its creditors. The function of management is to manage the company. That is not the union's job. I notice that management tried to pad its pay before the declaration of bankruptcy. Hostess has been operating in bankruptcy since January, its second reorganization in less than a decade. The company faced a changing market in which customers began to worry more about things like empty calories and ingredients that sounded more like they were mixed up in a chemistry lab than a kitchen. Management, too, deserves some of the blame. It tried to take its turn at the trough, padding executives’ paychecks ahead of the bankruptcy filing. While those pay packages were later rescinded, it didn’t set an amiable tone for talks with creditors or labor groups. It also spoke to a far bigger problem that plagued Hostess: a lack of innovation. The company for years simply relied on its well-established brands, ignoring rising consumer concerns about unhealthy snacks and mounting competition from other snack makers. No it is not a fully fuctioning company, agreed. i keep pointing out that if it was, it could be sold for a profit. the private equity people invested in hopes of turning it into a profitable business so they could take it public or sell it. others seem to believe they make money by investing in it, declaring bankruptcy and selling off the parts. That works well when writing a screenplay. Wall Street the movie is a good example. unfortunately i cannot understand how that works in a real world situation. In my experience, that is not how investment banking works. in my reality a balance sheet involves math that must add up. you and others feel the need to assign blame. i do not, i do not care. i am solely discussing what the motives of the private equity investors were. i would venture to guess that management made mistakes running Hostess. It seems highly unlikely to me that they ran a perfect business that some how went bankrupt without them doing no wrong. Maybe like many here, they have found the magic way to turn a profit by having no earnings. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Bankruptcy is often the most profitable option for a business. In fact, that's essentially the only reason for any business to file for bankruptcy. Heck, companies like Bain Capital have made a successful business model out of buying companies and steering them into bankruptcy for profit. that makes no sense to me. that is the exact opposite of what private equity does in my experience. Bain and other private equity companies invest and attempt to return the business to profitability. if so, they can sell it or take it public for a profit. they declare bankruptcy only to salvage some of their investments to move on to another project. i have never seen someone turn a profite by declaring bankruptcy. this site has really opened my eyes to how little i understand about banking and equity. i suppose i am the only person here who thinks you must have earnings to turn a profit. what a fool i have been all these years. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Yes, pawns. The company got exactly what it wanted; a brand name they can sell for more than what it was previously worth. It's worth more today because the exact same brand and facilities don't have to honor a previous contract which included wages above the minimum and other employee benefits. The "new" company has all the upside of the old company, but is unburdened of any previous agreements it made and the new buyers would absolutely be willing to pay a premium for that since it works to their (the investors) benefit in the long term. The 18,000 employees got fucked, while investors on both sides get a sweeter deal. that makes no sense to me. you cannot sell a brand for more than you can sell a fully functioning business. 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. perhaps i am wrong. perhaps all my experience in equity trading and investment banking is wrong. perhaps everything i have witnesed in the last twenty so odd years was completely incorrect. 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. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Indeed. Frank Lorenzo, already an accomplished corporate raider and ruthless union-buster, took over Eastern determined to bust its unions. He did so, and took the company along with it. Everybody lost, except Frank. He's a pig; although he did pretty well for himself. The owners of Hostess can now join the same roster of infamy. Where did Communism originate? Not with Communists; no, it originated because of the existence of pigs like this. The real ROFL will undoubtedly be that FoxNews will convince the socially-conservative blue collar laborers that comprise its regular viewership that management were the good guys in this farce. Bread and circuses, et al. i dont understand your thinking. there are no good or bad guys. the private equity people who put up the money feels they cannot turn a profit unless the bakers agree to the same terms as the Teamsters. They did not. so to protect their investment they will cut their losses and move on to another project that can pay a return on investment inline with their goals. That does not make them good or bad people. that makes them reasonable people who made a decision that is best inline with their goals. After all, it is their money that is at risk, so its their decision to continue or not. everyone involved are adults. it is a business and terms like good or bad are more suited for a childs argument than an adult conversation. i dont understand the need to find villians and victims. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

i just noticed you wrote venture capital. i did not say that, nor is it true or does it make sense. i said private equity. venture capital is early stage investors. not the same type of banking investment or structure. seeing this mistake might explain your understanding of banking and also why you think a vacant non functioning factory is worth more than a fully functioning profitable one. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

that does not make sense. if it was possible to have made money selling off the parts, then the original owners would have done that. why on earth would they deal with the headache of raising money and continuing to run a bunch of plants when they could have sold it off and walked away with a profit. that makes no sense to me. the only way they could get a return on their investments was to return it to profitabiltiy and THEN take it public or sell it. Staples and Kmart are good examples that come to mind, there are many others. that is what private equity firms do. if was easier to just buy it and chop it up then they would have. that works int he movies but not a real world situation. a working profitable factory iis worth more than a non working vacant factory. again, that makes no sense to me. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante