On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 15:35:15 -0600, dpb wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 12:17:06 -0600, dpb wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 14:51:10 -0600, dpb wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
...

There will always be a segment of the market that wants high quality
and is willing to pay a reasonable amount more for that quality. ...
Yes, but it's the size of that market that was under question here.
Your comment was "not nearly enough". The customer base for the
product was steadily growing and the operation was quite profitable,
more so than the other segment in the company that had always depended
on imports and big box positioning. Under what criteria do you assign
a "not nearly enough" definition to the size of that select customer
base?

If you are right, with the strategy of consolidation and globalization
now firmly in place, it should be growing even faster and even more
profitable. Not so. Try shrinking and losing.
Well, not having full access to the books nor having a seat on the board
of directors, it's not quite possible to fully answer in detail for your
specific former employer.

So what part of my post do you disbelieve and need additional proof?
I'm constrained from being able to offer it, just curious as to why
you would question my credibility.

The remark was, however, made as an overall
generalization, not a specific case study.

I see, however, you commented in a portion of the thread that was
talking about woodworking machinery.
There was also one very important additional word in the comment you
have chosen to not quote and that was "apparently" which was simply a
reflection of the reality of what was chosen to be done.

I have no idea what you just said.

If they were
satisfied w/ the growth and size of the market one would presume the
decision would have gone another direction.

Corporate leaders, who have not really done much but have fast tracked
to the top, rarely have the insight to leave well enough alone when
they have the "golden goose" They often want to kill it to get the
"gold"
I understand your position and sympathize but facts is facts on both
sides of the equation. You see one set; it's pretty clear management
saw another based on their actions.

There are no facts on the Corporate hack side of the equation, only
speculation. Sustained profitability and growth over a long period of
time is a fact. A strategy of greed is not based on any fact
whatsoever, just a gleem in ones eye. "if we can squeeze a little
more out of this thing, our bonuses will be much larger". I'm sorry
you can find sympathy in that attitude, it is one of the reasons they
get away with it.

I wasn't in the boardroom, were you?

No, I was a vice president, a company officer fully exposed to all
financial data specific to the company in all segments. The group and
corporate financial information was available to anyone who asked for
an annual report. There is nothing "secret" that happened in the
boardroom that would negate the actual financial results of the
specific company or my operation. It is as I described and I'm
constrained by confidentiality agreements that outlive my employment
from going into any more detail than that although they don't mean
much at this point.

I understand you were on the
factory floor and have a viewpoint of what you saw from there.

See above.

I can't
say I'm pleased w/ the decision either, simply that I have too little
actual factual information to judge other than from the decision made
apparently the markets and profitability weren't to the level desired so
a decision was made to change.

The operation met and far exceeded all the financial targets for
growth, return on invested capital, cash flow, and return on sales
when many operations in the corporation were not meeting them. See
again the statement about unmitigated greed (and stupidity should be
added). If that is not enough "factual" information, so be it.

Whether it will turn out to have the desired overall end effect isn't
yet known for longterm

You don't know about the concept of present value do you. At this
point in history, the chances of it turning out with the desired
overall end effect financially are zero. The group was sold at a deep
discount (about $500 million) to sales volume after a number of break
even years followed the disastrous strategy. So those corporate
officers can *never* recoup what they have lost for the stockholders
of the corporation. It's lost for good.


even though certainly it isn't clear it has had
the desired effect for the type of folks who tend to congregate here.
What it will do for their overall market share, etc., is still to be
determined.

What do you mean by that? The desired effect of the corporate hacks
who initiated the strategy was to ruin the reputation of the brand and
lose significant market share? That has already happened. And
believe me when you have market share, it is a lot easier to keep it
than it is to get it back. My career was devoted to keeping and
growing it.

Frank