Replies to post #3370 on CPI Corp. (fka CPICQ)

[used up sm]

The only way that would happen is if the lenders are the majority stock holders which then they will make the major decisions. I am sure I read somewhere at one time the lenders were given shares of the company but I don't know much. Then again did the company not give rights to the company to the lenders in case of the lending agreement was breached because of the amount that is owed to the lender? JUST A THOUGHT!!!!

[downsideup]

Contracts matter.

But, more than the contracts themselves, the intent to fulfill them.

It doesn't matter what your contracts say if the performance they require is not possible.

Management here made a decision, a long time ago... back around the time I showed up... to do everything they could to protect the banks interest, including agreeing to allow the banks to take control of the "restructuring" process.

So, what "could happen" if management had made different choices isn't useful to consider... given they didn't make those choices.

And, what "could happen" if management made different choices now, still isn't useful to consider, when management appear to have either no interest in changing, or no capacity to change the course they've previously opted to follow...

I obviously don't have a problem with a management that intends to honor their commitments to their lenders...

But, you and I both know that the market reality is vastly more complex than that overly simplistic view of the nature of the commitments that have been made. The best way to honor ones commitments to the lenders... is to make the business work so that honoring them is possible. And, what we see happening instead... is that the "management" have been doing something other than that... while cooperating with the banks in enabling a "take down" of this business. That focus might have been already determined... even way back in the day when the company was profitable, and throwing cash at its shareholders... and not re-investing in the business ?

[downsideup]

It's been clear enough for a LONG time... that this company is in trouble.

I find it fascinating that they've basically not even TRIED fixing anything... right up until they were forced to make changes by the banks cutting off their access to borrowing.

They've pissed away a year, in which time they could have fixed it... while doing nothing.

The management are responsible... but, the banks now control the management... so... ???

That's why I came here, initially, seeing a troubled company and expecting an fairly "easy fix"... and was forced to change my opinion based on the analysis of the performance...

There is not a process occurring here that I can see that appears capable of enabling success...

I'm discussing the reasons for that, and the motives... as there is always someone behind the effort that is making failure happen, because they benefit from it, somehow, even if perversely in the short term, in ways that don't enable any success... and even if the only benefit left, at some point, is that in minimizing the pain of failure.

I don't trust the financiers... as an entering argument.

This is a business that should not be failing...

That the company's own management are not competent to fix it... doesn't mean the idiots in the banks and the restructuring shills they hire to do their bidding... are more competent.

I see a lot of stupidity, and going through the motions, and not much evidence of any leadership that has a clue.

There is no way to make it work without cost, including the cost inherent in imposing change.

That doesn't mean any change, at any cost, is therefore a "fix".

Here, they clearly don't have a plan...

If they had a plan that could work to "fix" it... they'd communicate that plan... rally the troops, and press ahead.

What we see happening here instead... is the business equivalent of trench warfare...