quote:

North Haven, Conn.

quote:

Originally posted by TEANCUM:
I probably shouldn't be saying anything because it's not always wise ....

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
BTW, the title should be marlin closes Conn plant

quote:

Originally posted by butchloc:
Marlin Being Relocated;

When larger companies acquire smaller ones, consolidation is inevitable.

Agreed. Not necessarily good business, but usually what happens.

The process is no different nor more surprising from Remington concerning its family of companies than Smith & Wesson integrating the Thompson/Center operations into its Springfield, Massachusetts headquarters. Stock analysts I've spoken with have made it abundantly clear they'd like S&W stock better if T/C's facilities went away altogether. Fortunately, the analysts don't run companies, they observe them.

To some extent that is true, but not wholly so. Stock analysts' views influence buy, hold, or sell ratings. Those in turn influence stock prices. And stock prices sometimes heavily affect internal corporate strategies. (To some degree, that may depend on how closely senior management compensation and bonuses are tied to stock performance.)

If smaller companies were operating efficiently and/or profitably, they would most likely not be candidates for takeover. It is their inherent inefficiencies which make them candidates for acquisition, despite any historical standing. Ultimately, companies exist to make money for owners, whether they be private or public. If a new owner thinks they can change profit-and-loss statements with consolidation, consolidation is inevitable.

Having worked on corporate acquisition teams, I'd say that is sometimes true, but often not. Other reasons for takeovers, particularly unfriendly takeovers, include the fact that the small company IS efficient and profitable, or that it has a large cash reserve which the a larger, purchasing, corporation wants or needs. Companies which do not have "poison pills" in existance to ward off unfriendly takeovers are prime targets for such action.


For the company founded by John M. Marlin in 1870, it's a change in the kind of ownership lineage that has remained tied to New Haven and Connecticut communities. After acquiring Marlin from its original owner, the Kenna family owned and operated the company for nearly eighty-five years. Remington is the first corporate owner.

And, does that indicate a belief by Remington that it can do a better job of positioning Marlin in the market than Marlin itself did? I sure hope it works better than Remington's brief, torrid, affairs with the Russian gunmakers.

Or is it an indicator that a new generation of Kennas was more interested in grabbing the money and running than tying themselves down to an old-line company which relied on dedicated close attention by the most senior levels of management? Perhaps the purchase was even partially prompted by a desire to eliminate a competitor?

At this writing, it seems Marlin, Harrington and Richardson, New England Firearms and L.C. Smith- all Marlin brands -are destined for absorption into Remington's existing manufacturing facilities in Ilion, New York. Such a move would maximize use of that facilities and consolidate manufacturing operations. Consolidation is another efficiency necessary to compete with imported products.

Although it's purely speculation on my part, a consolidation move makes perfect sense if you're demonstrating lean operating abilities as part of some sort of market capitalization move. Bankers and investors are quite fond of consolidated operations, especially if the company happens to represent numerous iconic brands.

quote:

Obama KILLED 13,500 jobs in houston 2 months ago with the stroke of a pen.. closing an army truck plany in sealy

quote:

Rest assured the union bosses won't give a shit...thats for sure. Those assholes just don't get it....