Twinkies is going out of business !

Status
Not open for further replies.
A couple of days ago I read that even after union workers return to work, Hostess CEO said he will close it down anyway due to poor sales in the past and the union said that it did warn CEOs that the business needed improvement but CEOs never listened. That's what the hell happened. CEOs don't care about the business or its employees and always think about themselves.
 
A couple of days ago I read that even after union workers return to work, Hostess CEO said he will close it down anyway due to poor sales in the past and the union said that it did warn CEOs that the business needed improvement but CEOs never listened. That's what the hell happened. CEOs don't care about the business or its employees and always think about themselves.

Sales were still 2.5 billion..... True labor costs were over 35%. That is not a Twinkie recipe.......that is a disaster recipe.
 
A couple of days ago I read that even after union workers return to work, Hostess CEO said he will close it down anyway due to poor sales in the past and the union said that it did warn CEOs that the business needed improvement but CEOs never listened. That's what the hell happened. CEOs don't care about the business or its employees and always think about themselves.

Yup, that's true and it is very sad.

Because the union got involved.

Have fun to blame on unions so I don't have to agree with you.
 
Your half right and half wrong. CEO makes decision based on prediction and the numbers on the board, and follow instructions from stockholders if they got one. Sometimes CEO DO listen to employees, but the investors might not want hear CEO employees suggestions.

Here is little history which I just learn. Edison was about to set up electrical infrastructure in NYC with help of "Billionaire" JP Morgan. JP Morgan was about to fork $84 millions (today dollars) to help Edison set up infrastructure. JP Morgan actually asked Edison if there is any competitors? Edison respond was, "not know any of worthy note". Now, right before that meeting between JP Morgan and Edison, Edison's employee named Nikola Tesla, whom was loyalty to Edison advised him to forget the DC electric system, and go for AC electric system. Edison was so against his advice, and determined to stay with DC, Edison reason? Public Safety, where Tesla said not to worry even though it looks much dangerous than DC. Even though Edison was right on this one, however Tesla decided to quit working with Edison, and opt for AC and met another "Billionaire" investor named Westinghouse. Edison made grave mistake by not thinking of Tesla, but safety for public. This is long story, and there is more behind this. Anyway, Tesla eventually got successfully with AC which ultimate killed and technically bankrupt Edison, and JP Morgan was pissed off since he was not aware of competitor and if Morgan knew of Tesla, he won't invest in Edison. Point is, sometimes CEO made right decision but ultimate killed the company.

Another story, happened right here in my hometown. The name of company was Kodak. It was biggest company in my area. Not anymore, and now who buys film nowadays? Now they are in bankruptcy and these who are on pension, their health insurance just cut off (Bankruptcy court just approved recently). Will Kodak survive? From what it looks like, their days are numbered. The problem with that is that in the past CEO warned investors that they need to change into digital technology. It fell on deaf investors, and these deaf investors refused to go ahead with change to digital technology until it is way way way too late. The first warning Given by CEO, when? sometimes in 70's! Plenty of time but too late.

I believe Twinkies already in brink of death, due to unhealthy food. Today more people are more conscious to their health. Same with Kodak, nobody is buying film but media card since it is cheap and reusable.

A couple of days ago I read that even after union workers return to work, Hostess CEO said he will close it down anyway due to poor sales in the past and the union said that it did warn CEOs that the business needed improvement but CEOs never listened. That's what the hell happened. CEOs don't care about the business or its employees and always think about themselves.

Like I said, history do repeat, it happens then, now and will happen again later.
 
Yeah, companies comes and go. They don't survive forever, nothing is forever.
 
Yeah, companies comes and go. They don't survive forever, nothing is forever.

yea most "small" companies come and go but not big ones. they're too big to go otherwise it's big enough to cause a huge impact on our economy. a big lesson we learned from JP Morgan's fate.
 
yea most "small" companies come and go but not big ones. they're too big to go otherwise it's big enough to cause a huge impact on our economy. a big lesson we learned from JP Morgan's fate.

A lot of big companies have come and go. It's not just small ones.

Airlines, department stores, manufacturers, a lot of heavy hitters are now gone. Their assets have been bought by other companies and it continues on, like a weird reincarnation cycle or something. :lol:

This is why some investment advisors recommend investing in an index fund, rather than in individual stocks. If you own stock, the company might die off. If you own the index fund (VTSAX, for example), chances are it will still be around and will hold new company stocks. The fund refreshes itself by pruning the deadwood and adding the new companies.

There's a lot of debate about whether the big companies should have been saved from themselves in the Great Recession of 08-09. Personally, I don't think they should have gotten bailouts. It basically allowed certain problems with these companies to continue. Because they were allowed to survive their own bad decisions, we are going to have to deal with it again in the future.

On the other hand, would allowing them to die have caused another Great Depression? I guess we won't ever know for sure.

But those companies did not deserve to survive. They shot their own foot with their bad business decisions and they should have suffered the consequences for it.

Some people refer to Iceland, which did not bail out their banks and industry. The result was a rapid, hard correction to the market, followed by a remarkable recovery. But Iceland is a much smaller country. Is it an applicable example for the United States? At the very least, I think there are lessons to learn from Iceland's example.
 
A lot of big companies have come and go. It's not just small ones.

Airlines, department stores, manufacturers, a lot of heavy hitters are now gone. Their assets have been bought by other companies and it continues on, like a weird reincarnation cycle or something. :lol:

This is why some investment advisors recommend investing in an index fund, rather than in individual stocks. If you own stock, the company might die off. If you own the index fund (VTSAX, for example), chances are it will still be around and will hold new company stocks. The fund refreshes itself by pruning the deadwood and adding the new companies.

There's a lot of debate about whether the big companies should have been saved from themselves in the Great Recession of 08-09. Personally, I don't think they should have gotten bailouts. It basically allowed certain problems with these companies to continue. Because they were allowed to survive their own bad decisions, we are going to have to deal with it again in the future.

On the other hand, would allowing them to die have caused another Great Depression? I guess we won't ever know for sure.

But those companies did not deserve to survive. They shot their own foot with their bad business decisions and they should have suffered the consequences for it.

Some people refer to Iceland, which did not bail out their banks and industry. The result was a rapid, hard correction to the market, followed by a remarkable recovery. But Iceland is a much smaller country. Is it an applicable example for the United States? At the very least, I think there are lessons to learn from Iceland's example.

big ones get merged up, not disappear.
 
I am not sure if your old enough to remember Pan Am, world largest airliner went south for good! Remember TWA? (Trans World Airliner) is gone too, and Kodak is about to become history very soon. Their business isn't looking good and they are TRYING very hard to sell the business, not many interested party walks in, and none of them made any offer as of this moment.

Hey, woolworth, remember that department superstore? It was once a largest department store, done bye, no merge no nothing. Kmart killed that company, now new competitor, Wal-mart.

And finally, I grew up in Pittsburgh, PA during the end of Steel mill ERA. Mind you, it is huge corporations, alot of huge corporation, like Jones and Laughlin, Homestead works, Baden works, Clairton works and so forth. All of them are GONE forever. I have witness the wipe out of these industries in real life. It was slow death for them, it didn't happen overnight but about 15 years of dying.

Any companies can go south regardless the size of company.

yea most "small" companies come and go but not big ones. they're too big to go otherwise it's big enough to cause a huge impact on our economy. a big lesson we learned from JP Morgan's fate.
 
I am not sure if your old enough to remember Pan Am, world largest airliner went south for good!

it's now called Delta (for east coast) and United (for west coast) :)

like I said.... they get merged up, not deleted/disappeared/kaput/etc. big companies are simply too big to go otherwise our economy will take a dive.
 
Same difference. For all practical intents and purposes, they no longer exist.

well it's not exactly the same thing. it's 2 very different things. it's simply renamed and now run by different "boss".
 
it's now called Delta :)

like I said.... they get merged up, not deleted/disappeared/kaput/etc. big companies are simply too big to go otherwise our economy will take a dive.

No company is just "deleted." Their assets are bought by other companies.

Merging is a little different, in that one company agrees to buy the assets of another totally. But the effect is the same. Instead of a company's assets split up between a bunch of other companies, it's bought by one company. Then the buyer eliminates duplication, excessive expenses and so on.

Delta bought PanAm, but PanAm no longer exists. Anything that it duplicated is gone. Duplicated supply lines, gone. Duplicated jobs, gone. Duplicated expenses, gone. Even many contracts that PanAm signed, gone. PamAm no longer exists.
 
well it's not exactly the same thing. it's 2 very different things. it's simply renamed and now run by different "boss".

There are some differences, but one big commonality is that the old company is stripped of assets. That's only reason mergers happen. A company wants the assets of another company. They don't want all the old baggage, expenses, and bad decisions of the old company.

Not exactly the same as a bankrupted company's assets being sold off, but not that different, either.
 
Its just assets, not business model. Im speaking for a business model itself as whole. Selling off asset is meaningless, reason? Everybody in that company is technically terminated. I don't mean fired, just plain terminated.

Other perfect example, Enron was huge company, now who is running for that company? Really none at this moment.

it's now called Delta (for east coast) and United (for west coast) :)

like I said.... they get merged up, not deleted/disappeared/kaput/etc. big companies are simply too big to go otherwise our economy will take a dive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top