CaptnBob Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 The local (St. Louis) Ultimate Electronics store has sprouted "Store Closing" banners. As of yesterday they still had a fair amount of equipment, all at 10% - 30% off. I wanted to hear the RF-7s, but couldn't find any sales people ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben. Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 They're in bankruptcy court. The head honcho is trying to buy stores back afterwards. Nice way to avoid paying vendors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunnysal Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 its the new american way. mis-manage the company into the dirt, file for bankruptcy protection, screw your debtors and come back stronger than ever! makes you kinda proud to be an american!? NOT! tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dodger Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 At the least they could negotiate a longer payment term or if interest rates are a problem, negotiate them. With regards to closing percent off, one store here would put higher original prices each time they raised the percent off. Then you have someone like Captain Bob that wants to listen, never knowing if it's a sale, but can't find a sales person. That helps the cash intake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfyr Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Liquidators are running the show. Not Ultimate Electronics corporate. And they already failed to secure financing for their debt, thus the filing for bankruptcy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dodger Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 ---------------- On 4/28/2005 3:16:16 PM dragonfyr wrote: Liquidators are running the show. Not Ultimate Electronics corporate. And they already failed to secure financing for their debt, thus the filing for bankruptcy. ---------------- Thanks for clarifying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 It is true that liquidators are running the show. It is also true that the so called ceo is mounting a bid to buy the stores he wants(not all of them, just the ones in less competitive markets). So just where did he get the money to by these stores you might ask? Or, who are his friends willing to finance the deal after his proven inability to compete? In business school we had a saying, "nice work if you can get it." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigerwoodKhorns Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 ---------------- On 4/28/2005 6:07:29 PM oldtimer wrote: It is true that liquidators are running the show. It is also true that the so called ceo is mounting a bid to buy the stores he wants(not all of them, just the ones in less competitive markets). So just where did he get the money to by these stores you might ask? Or, who are his friends willing to finance the deal after his proven inability to compete? In business school we had a saying, "nice work if you can get it." ---------------- Legally, it is the same person, different entity. You have corporations and LLC's that create a "corporate veil" that liability cannot pass through. I.e. you can only go after the entity's assets. Hence, when the same people come back to purchase, they are using a different entity. Chris EDIT: I am also assuming that they are in bankruptcy and will completely dissolve and not going through a reorganization bankruptcy. I also did not mention fraud. I am assuming that if there is capital to purchase the remaining assets, it will be in a different entity as teh original one would be defunct. I do not work in bankruptcy and cannot remember the statutes, but unless there is a statute to the contrary, this should be legal because of the different entities. The different entities not being the same person is called a "legal fiction." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Traveler Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 ---------------- On 4/28/2005 6:07:29 PM oldtimer wrote: It is true that liquidators are running the show. It is also true that the so called ceo is mounting a bid to buy the stores he wants(not all of them, just the ones in less competitive markets). So just where did he get the money to by these stores you might ask? Or, who are his friends willing to finance the deal after his proven inability to compete? In business school we had a saying, "nice work if you can get it." ---------------- FYI The new CEO is Mark Wattles and wasn't even on the board when it went Bankrupt. He purchased the majority of his shares in the stock right when they declared Bankruptcy. This allowed him to own at least 51% and become majority stock holder. He also used his assets to secure a several million dollar loan for ULTE to help negotiate through the bankruptcy process. He was (and still may be) CEO of Hollywood Video which is a very successful company. He became CEO about 2 months ago and David Workman who founded the company was forced to resign. Something tells me Mr. Workman didn't fare as well as some of the more notorious CEO's that have been in the news. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Traveler Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 ---------------- On 4/28/2005 1:35:17 PM sunnysal wrote: its the new american way. mis-manage the company into the dirt, file for bankruptcy protection, screw your debtors and come back stronger than ever! makes you kinda proud to be an american!? NOT! tony ---------------- I agree a leaner Ultimate Electronics can come back stronger than ever. A discount super center that caters to the mid to higher end market is a good idea. There are several reasons that ULTE failed but none more so than one month after opening 18 -25 new stores, the tragic events of 9/11 happened. It wasn't a good time for venture capitalist, and landlords still wanted rent payments. As far as the "debtors" are concerned they are going to write off their losses and are happy at least someone is willing to keep trying to sell their merchandise. It could have been worse for them if NO ONE wanted to get into the Mid to upper end Home Theater market in a big way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfyr Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 I am well aware how the rules of business work. And if there is an attempt to defraud, the corporate veil is easily pierced! I am always amused at the moral indignation expressed on this site! One wonders why, with so many heinous abuses that some are so sensitive to, that they wait until After an event has transpired to complain about all the evils of the world, but they don't seem motivated to change those rules prior to the dastardly events. This is akin to someone suddenly yelling in the 5th inning that stealing a base in baseball is unethical. They are playing by the rules. If they are not, prosecute! But as long as they are playing by the rules, it seems maybe they are smarter then others. Ironic? Perhaps You don't like it? Perhaps But the solution is easy. Choose to conduct your business elsewhere. Change the law. Fix the world. PS: "the so called ceo is mounting a bid to buy the stores he wants(not all of them, just the ones in less competitive markets)" Hmmm. Another way to phrase this might be to say that they are most likely interested in buying the more PROFITABLE stores! Makes sense to me! And to wonder why they aren't interested in purchasing the stores losing money! Duh! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 I am also very aware of how the rules of business work. I was not aware that the current suitor for the distressed assets was not the one repsonsible for making them distressed. My bad. As for moral indignation, part of that is answered in the previous sentence. I did not buy from them, so maybe I am partially responsible for their downfall. As for changing the rules, there are definitely efforts in that direction in cases of abuse, but as I said before I retract any implication of the current suitor. He may be a vulture, but I can respect that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Oh yeah, I also don't buy from Hollywood Video, more power to the guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfyr Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Abuses are handled in the court system. The rules are matters of law. And they are to be considered and used in calculating strategic positioning. What bothers me is that we are so quick to confuse the two! If there is ILLEGAL activity, take it to the court system. But if one simply doesn't like the rules or how others follow the rules, that is simply akin to someone complaining that their tax accountant is not sufficiently versed to adequately make use of each ALLOWABLE LEGAL exclusion! It makes no sense to complain about someone LEGALLY avoiding paying more taxes then necessary. And if one don't like the rules (as in the case of the tax system, I don't - I favor a flat tax), then work to change the rules called laws and cease complaining about those who legally play by the existing rules! Just how ludicrous would you feel a manager who suddenly, in the 5th inning of a baseball game half way through the season, ran out jumping up and down demanding to debate the ethics of stealing bases by an opposing team!? Does he have a point? Perhaps! Is it an appropriate venue given the circumstances? No. Is it an appropriate topic for discussion in a place and time prior to the next season's beginning? Sure! Does it make sense to complain in the middle of a game and a season where all are playing by the same rules? NO! But ths 20/20 hindsight method of discussing issues and applying your new 'should be' rules to past events is an absurd notion! You can't have it both ways! (Well, one political group fancies they can, but it is always aimed at others and never themselves! ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Well, we could discuss the ethics versus legality of beanballs. Or perhaps the difference between legality and justice, even the merits of a flat tax, or get back to speakers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfyr Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 I agree, so if Ultimate has an item you want for a better price, go for it. And simply buy it with American Express and any of the other cards which offer a free additional year warranty extension, and you are home free. Use the 'rules' for your own advantage! Or don't, it's YOUR choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben. Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 ---------------- On 4/28/2005 9:51:32 PM dragonfyr wrote: Abuses are handled in the court system. The rules are matters of law. And they are to be considered and used in calculating strategic positioning. What bothers me is that we are so quick to confuse the two! If there is ILLEGAL activity, take it to the court system. But if one simply doesn't like the rules or how others follow the rules, that is simply akin to someone complaining that their tax accountant is not sufficiently versed to adequately make use of each ALLOWABLE LEGAL exclusion! It makes no sense to complain about someone LEGALLY avoiding paying more taxes then necessary. And if one don't like the rules (as in the case of the tax system, I don't - I favor a flat tax), then work to change the rules called laws and cease complaining about those who legally play by the existing rules! Just how ludicrous would you feel a manager who suddenly, in the 5th inning of a baseball game half way through the season, ran out jumping up and down demanding to debate the ethics of stealing bases by an opposing team!? Does he have a point? Perhaps! Is it an appropriate venue given the circumstances? No. Is it an appropriate topic for discussion in a place and time prior to the next season's beginning? Sure! Does it make sense to complain in the middle of a game and a season where all are playing by the same rules? NO! But ths 20/20 hindsight method of discussing issues and applying your new 'should be' rules to past events is an absurd notion! You can't have it both ways! (Well, one political group fancies they can, but it is always aimed at others and never themselves! ) ---------------- If you're ever on my side of an issue, please don't try to help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitece Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 The baseball analogy does imply that both teams ply their trade on an equal playing field. What many find offensive is the ability of larger entities to exploit existing laws while the average "Joe" watches his elected representatives enact personal bankruptcy laws designed to eliminate the flexibility corporations currently employ. I don't have the opportunity to "write" laws. I do have the opportunity to watch as my elected "representatives" sell their services to corporate pacs in exchange for funding their never-ending campaigns. Time to get off my soapbox! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfyr Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Agreed. ...And all to support a business' flawed business model that sends pre-approved credit cards to dogs, etc. As they jack up accounts that have paid on time minimum payments to 27+% interest. But the rules are available to ALL businesses, large and small. May I suggest that you start a small home business, if only to convert many of you personal expenses to legitimate business expenses and take advantage of the difference in personal vs business tax laws, where investment is favored, unlike personal taxes where the withholding is taken first. For those not familiar with what I am talking about, in personal tax law, your tax is taken 'off the top' and most don't even notice. (I would also suggest that a revolutuion would quickly ensue if each had to consciously write a check to the government for their ~27% tax, where it would be fresh in their mind each pay period!). This is not a favored position as people (as entities) are consumers and not producers of wealth. Businesses, on the other hand are entities that create wealth, and are favored and encouraged. They are not taxed on the initial income, but on their income minus expenses, thereby gaining the advantage of using the pretax dollars (like a ~27% working bonus) and are taxed on the remaining profit after expenses at the end of the fiscal year. So by starting a business, you can convert many personal expenses to business expenses - providing they are legit... The choice you do have is to vote. And I dare say that currently I wish we had a real fiscal conservative to select. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjgeraci Posted April 29, 2005 Share Posted April 29, 2005 ---------------- On 4/28/2005 10:10:12 AM CaptnBob wrote: The local (St. Louis) Ultimate Electronics store has sprouted "Store Closing" banners. As of yesterday they still had a fair amount of equipment, all at 10% - 30% off. I wanted to hear the RF-7s, but couldn't find any sales people ... ---------------- Bob, before they are all gone at UE, you are welcome to come over to my place to hear my RF-7s - in two-channel hooked up to a Peach pre and Rotel amp or as surrounds to my Heritage front. Call me or shoot me an e-mail/pm. Carl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.