Quote
Originally posted by: pjstroh
Everybody just relax ! Ripplewood Holdings will be just fine. After buying Hostess in 2004 and slashing worker salaries/benefits - the private equity firm took out a 700 million dollar loan in part to pay themselves for their services. Ultimately the hole left by Ripplewood's services was too expensive for the company to pay back without making even more cuts to worker salaries and benefits...and so here we have it.
But dont worry - the private equity turnaround specialists at Ripplewodd will be fine. Just fine. Seems like I've heard this story before somewhere.
DonDiego's brief research suggests pjstroh's report may be inaccurate in some specifics, . . . it would help poor old DonDiego if there were a reference.
F'rinstance, Ripplewood is the largest "shareholder"( i.e. owner) of Hostess, having paid $10-per-share for stock that is now worth effectively $zero. And the $700-million debt was worked out in the 2004-2009 bankruptcy agreement. Ripplewood is a minority owner of some of that debt in the form of a $85.8-million fourth-lein note. (i.e. Ripplewood didn't just buy the company, it also contributed to the loan agreement.) A loan fourth-in-line in a liquidation is likely worth somewhat less.
CNN Money has concluded that Ripplewood Holdings has little chance of recouping any of its investment.
Ref: (who cares)
An Aside
When a story like this breaks lots of folks first instinct is to decide who's side they are on instead of just trying to understand what happened. Some folks say management is incompetent; some folks say management is evil; some folks say the unions are greedy; other folks say the unions are getting screwed. (n.b. Nobody says management is good; heck the company failed !)
DonDiego has no dog in this fight. He jes' don' wanna lose Twinkies f'rever.
But the problems besetting Hostess Brands were well summarized by the Washington Post when the company filed for bankruptcy early this year:
"a combination of pension burdens, labor rules, crippling debt from financial engineers and management’s failure to freshen up a stale product line and keep up with consumers’ changing tastes."
Also at that time Fortune pointed out that there are "no black hats or white knights in this tale", because the workers refused to adapt their demands in a competitive marketplace while management failed to turn the company around as investors looked to cash out.
Things change.