Sadly there are tons of towns that have a single massive employer keeping them afloat. This can be a big company or military facility. I grew up in western New York ( Buffalo area) and in the 50’s&60’s the steel mills and auto makers were the key players. As the steel and car business declined so did the town. The world has changed and what worked in 1965 or 1975 doesn’t work anymore. I laugh at these Buffalo politicians who talk about bringing “those good union manufacturing jobs” back. They don’t exist anymore and anyone who believes that is a key to future prosperity in the old rust belt is a huge fool.
Every few years the local politicians fight to keep Niagara Falls air base open, citing jobs and economic impact. ( this is a reserve component base and probably doesn’t employ much more than 500 full time people)

quote:

Originally posted by marksman41:
The article from American Thinker is interesting in how it absolves Paul Singer and his financial tactics from any blame of the decline of Cabela's and puts it all on the Cabela family for being sellouts. In other words: Cabela family is evil for how they make money; Paul Singer is saintly for how he makes money.

Except... the article doesn't say that.
It says "Nobody did anything wrong here"; which would be neither the Cabela's nor Singer. Neither is evil. Neither is saintly.

quote:

Nobody did anything wrong here. There's no market failure. There's just the inevitable passing of the torch for a successful business, when the owners retire and management moves on.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

Originally posted by marksman41:
The article from American Thinker is interesting in how it absolves Paul Singer and his financial tactics from any blame of the decline of Cabela's and puts it all on the Cabela family for being sellouts. In other words: Cabela family is evil for how they make money; Paul Singer is saintly for how he makes money.

Except... the article doesn't say that.
It says "Nobody did anything wrong here"; which would be neither the Cabela's nor Singer. Neither is evil. Neither is saintly.

quote:

Nobody did anything wrong here. There's no market failure. There's just the inevitable passing of the torch for a successful business, when the owners retire and management moves on.

Except that the article does say that about the Cabela family - specifically in paragraph three.

chellim - you and I aren't going to agree and neither will we change our minds. You are locked on all blame lies with local politicians in every jurisdiction and that capitalism as practiced by Paul Singer is an okay thing. I disagree with both those stances and it's a fundamental difference between us for which there cannot be a bridge or compromise. You either believe one way or the other, there is no middle ground for either of us in this instance.

Despite our differences, my compliments and respect to you for not stooping to name calling or personal attacks as does happen here sometimes.

quote:

Except that the article does say that about the Cabela family - specifically in paragraph three.

It doesn't. Here's paragraph three:

quote:

A good example is Tucker's recent piece on buy-out king Paul Singer, blaming him for wrecking little Sidney, Nebraska when Cabela's recently merged with Bass Pro Shops. Only it wasn't Singer who sold out Sidney; it was the owners, the Cabela family, who sold off the company several years ago in an unrestricted IPO. And that's purely their decision alone. They built the business, and they didn't owe anybody in town when they sold it.

The article says "the Cabela family, who sold off the company several years ago in an unrestricted IPO."
It doesn't say that there was anything evil about that. On the contrary, it says it was "purely their decision alone. They built the business, and they didn't owe anybody in town when they sold it."
In other words: they owned it and they did what was best for their family. That's what responsible business owners do.

quote:

You are locked on all blame lies with local politicians in every jurisdiction and that capitalism as practiced by Paul Singer is an okay thing.

There are plenty of business owners who make mistakes, to their own detriment and to the detriment of their employees and families.
However, the mistakes of business owners are usually more recoverable by a community without government interference. The government didn't create the business, or the employment opportunities, and it won't replace them either.

What are you suggesting could, or should have been done differently to avoid this situation?

quote:

Despite our differences, my compliments and respect to you for not stooping to name calling or personal attacks as does happen here sometimes.

Thanks. You too. It's all good.
I just want to look at different perspectives. I'm not sure I would like Paul Singer if I met him... and I used to be a big fan of Cabela's ... but things change.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

Except that the article does say that about the Cabela family - specifically in paragraph three.

It doesn't. Here's paragraph three:

quote:

A good example is Tucker's recent piece on buy-out king Paul Singer, blaming him for wrecking little Sidney, Nebraska when Cabela's recently merged with Bass Pro Shops. Only it wasn't Singer who sold out Sidney; it was the owners, the Cabela family, who sold off the company several years ago in an unrestricted IPO. And that's purely their decision alone. They built the business, and they didn't owe anybody in town when they sold it.

The article says "the Cabela family, who sold off the company several years ago in an unrestricted IPO."
It doesn't say that there was anything evil about that. On the contrary, it says it was "purely their decision alone. They built the business, and they didn't owe anybody in town when they sold it."
In other words: they owned it and they did what was best for their family. That's what responsible business owners do.

I don't know how to do multiple quotes in the same post so I'll answer your previous post with multiple responses -

Paragraph three specifically states that the author believes the Cabela family sold out Sidney:

"Only it wasn't Singer who sold out Sidney; it was the owners...", the rest of the sentence is a description of the how of the sellout came to be. By the time Singer came along the Cabela family had pretty much been removed from the running of the business, or at least their involvement and ability to direct things was much reduced. Holding the Cabela family responsible years after selling is ridiculous. We don't retain responsibility for anything we as individuals sell years after the fact, nor do other corporations in selling their products or divisions of the company, so why would anyone say the Cabela family is to blame in this?

That's response number 1. I think there are two more to go -

quote:

Holding the Cabela family responsible years after selling is ridiculous. We don't retain responsibility for anything we as individuals sell years after the fact, nor do other corporations in selling their products or divisions of the company, so why would anyone say the Cabela family is to blame in this?

I completely agree with you on that point. I don't hold the Cabela family to blame in any way.
In other words: they owned it and they did what was best for their family. That's what responsible business owners do.
Still, they sold it (to the public, in an IPO) and it was no longer a family business.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

You are locked on all blame lies with local politicians in every jurisdiction and that capitalism as practiced by Paul Singer is an okay thing.

There are plenty of business owners who make mistakes, to their own detriment and to the detriment of their employees and families.
However, the mistakes of business owners are usually more recoverable by a community without government interference. The government didn't create the business, or the employment opportunities, and it won't replace them either.

What are you suggesting could, or should have been done differently to avoid this situation?

I'm not sure if you are saying I'm advocating government interference or not. If you are, I'm not.

What I think could have been done differently depends on the timeframe of the situation. I stated earlier that I think it was a mistake for Cabela's to go public. But if that's what they felt had to be done to expand and stay competitive, then that's what had to happen. I've also stated that I think their expansion at the cost of the quality of items sold and service provided was a mistake. Even so, Cabela's was still making a profit after the expansion and IPO and was profitable before Paul Singer did his takeover.

Everything that happened after Singer took over is what I disagree with - merging, cost-cutting (again at the expense of quality products and service), etc. My understanding is that Singer did the classic Wall Street "pump-and-dump" with Cabela's which always results in the death of the company dumped - unless anyone knows of an example where the dumped company did not either get destroyed or emasculated to a shell of its former self?

I think that's all there was to respond to, right?

Oh, there was one more thing I owed a response to - I don't think I'd care to hang around Paul Singer either. I'd rather be in the company of someone who is more interested in the long-term viability of an organization, with quality being key, and learn from them.

^^^ I think we agree on more than we disagree.

quote:

I'm not sure if you are saying I'm advocating government interference or not. If you are, I'm not.

Nope. I'm not saying, only asking the question.
As for the rest of it...
Once Cabela's sold, and Singer bought... how do you keep him from the classic Wall Street "pump-and-dump"? He wants to "maximize shareholder value"... by cutting costs, increasing profit, and selling. How do you stop that?

I'm not saying capitalism is a perfect economic system. Sometimes people get hurt, through no fault of their own. But capitalism is based on private property and it's the best economic system yet devised. Without private property, there are no incentives and everything becomes waste and squalor.

quote:

Originally posted by marksman41:

Everything that happened after Singer took over is what I disagree with - merging, cost-cutting (again at the expense of quality products and service), etc. My understanding is that Singer did the classic Wall Street "pump-and-dump" with Cabela's which always results in the death of the company dumped - unless anyone knows of an example where the dumped company did not either get destroyed or emasculated to a shell of its former self?

I think that's all there was to respond to, right?

Even assuming it was a pump and dump, so? It is was his decision to make. His only job is to make money, and use his judgment about the best way to do that.

Maybe he was wrong, and could have made more by doing something else, but that isn't the point. It is his asset to with as he sees fit. Maybe he preferred to make money now, even if he could have made more later.

You say that you don't want any interference in this, but if that is the case, what is the purpose of decrying that business plan?

If you acknowledge it is his right, and don't wish to prevent it somehow, then why complain?

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

I'm not sure if you are saying I'm advocating government interference or not. If you are, I'm not.

Nope. I'm not saying, only asking the question.
As for the rest of it...
Once Cabela's sold, and Singer bought... how do you keep him from the classic Wall Street "pump-and-dump"? He wants to "maximize shareholder value"... by cutting costs, increasing profit, and selling. How do you stop that?

Beyond government interference (regulations), I don't have an answer as to how to stop people like Singer doing what they do. I'm hoping someone on the forum who is financially savvy on these things will post their thoughts and recommendations. My feeling is that taking over a company that doesn't want to be taken over should be prevented. We don't allow people to move into our house if we don't want them to, and I don't believe it should be any different for a company.

I suppose, as things are, the only mechanism to prevent an undesired takeover is to not go public in the first place. But without the money that comes from selling shares, can an organization survive and be competitive are prime questions. Seems like a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation - go public, grow, and get taken over; or try to survive on profits and bank loans. There has to be a better way, but I'm loathe to involve the government any more than it already is.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by marksman41:

Everything that happened after Singer took over is what I disagree with - merging, cost-cutting (again at the expense of quality products and service), etc. My understanding is that Singer did the classic Wall Street "pump-and-dump" with Cabela's which always results in the death of the company dumped - unless anyone knows of an example where the dumped company did not either get destroyed or emasculated to a shell of its former self?

I think that's all there was to respond to, right?

Even assuming it was a pump and dump, so? It is was his decision to make. His only job is to make money, and use his judgment about the best way to do that.

Maybe he was wrong, and could have made more by doing something else, but that isn't the point. It is his asset to with as he sees fit. Maybe he preferred to make money now, even if he could have made more later.

You say that you don't want any interference in this, but if that is the case, what is the purpose of decrying that business plan?

If you acknowledge it is his right, and don't wish to prevent it somehow, then why complain?

Because he forced the takeover of a company that didn't want to be taken over. It was either let Singer have his way or spend lots of money to fight and keep the company - which may have financially destroyed the company anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
Even assuming it was a pump and dump, so? It is was his decision to make. His only job is to make money, and use his judgment about the best way to do that.

You and I obviously disagree about this aspect of capitalism. My thinking is that it's better for the economy as a whole if a company can profitably remain in business, as Cabela's was before Singer took over. Maximizing profit for a few hundred or a few thousand shareholders by destroying a profitable company is short-term thinking for a few at the expense of long-term value for many.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
Even assuming it was a pump and dump, so? It is was his decision to make. His only job is to make money, and use his judgment about the best way to do that.

You’re an attorney and obviously understand this sort of thing. Singer had 11% of Cabela’s stock. How was it “his decision to make?” I always thought controlling interest was 51%. I’d appreciate it if you would help me understand.

quote:

Originally posted by TMats:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
Even assuming it was a pump and dump, so? It is was his decision to make. His only job is to make money, and use his judgment about the best way to do that.

You’re an attorney and obviously understand this sort of thing.

he he

jhe can't respond right now. He's at the ER. They're trying to find his heart.

Keep lookin', doc!!

It’s Christmas, he’s gonna need it

It's in there somewhere, dammit!

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by marksman41:

Everything that happened after Singer took over is what I disagree with - merging, cost-cutting (again at the expense of quality products and service), etc. My understanding is that Singer did the classic Wall Street "pump-and-dump" with Cabela's which always results in the death of the company dumped - unless anyone knows of an example where the dumped company did not either get destroyed or emasculated to a shell of its former self?

I think that's all there was to respond to, right?

Even assuming it was a pump and dump, so? It is was his decision to make. His only job is to make money, and use his judgment about the best way to do that.

Maybe he was wrong, and could have made more by doing something else, but that isn't the point. It is his asset to with as he sees fit. Maybe he preferred to make money now, even if he could have made more later.

You say that you don't want any interference in this, but if that is the case, what is the purpose of decrying that business plan?

If you acknowledge it is his right, and don't wish to prevent it somehow, then why complain?

All that is true, but none it means I wouldn't mind seeing him run over --accidentally of course--by a dump truck.

quote:

Originally posted by marksman41:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
Even assuming it was a pump and dump, so? It is was his decision to make. His only job is to make money, and use his judgment about the best way to do that.

You and I obviously disagree about this aspect of capitalism. My thinking is that it's better for the economy as a whole if a company can profitably remain in business, as Cabela's was before Singer took over. Maximizing profit for a few hundred or a few thousand shareholders by destroying a profitable company is short-term thinking for a few at the expense of long-term value for many.

That is capitalism. Anything else isn't. With few exceptions, this results in the biggest economic good. Invisible hand, Pareto efficiency, and all that.

Don't want to get bought? Don't go public to cash in on that equity.