Jump to content


Photo

The plot thickens (Meade takeover)

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
2022 replies to this topic

#326 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 23486
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 28 June 2013 - 02:31 PM

Don,
You are the most knowledgeable guy around in this field on these forums, so if you don't know, I don't know.
Bill Meyers

Bill,
Thanks. Though I did take courses in economics and business when I was young, much of my learning about the business world was working for a company that nearly went bankrupt 3 times, and recovered, before the owner finally sold the business and retired (don't ask about the new owners). What saved the company each time was bargaining with creditors.
And in working for another company that didn't survive.
There are a few obvious things that have to happen for Meade to survive:
1) income has to increase
2) expenses have to get cut somehow.
3) they have to downsize
4) they have to pay COD for supplies and negotiate long-term paybacks of creditors with interest.

#1 above can be accomplished by concentrating on the profitable side of the business and letting the rest go. This is hard for a company used to offering 350 products when a simple analysis shows only 50 of them make all the profit. It might mean a reduction in sales, but it would happen with a minimal decrease in profit dollars.
#2 above is even more difficult when you've already fired nearly all your management and down-sized your quarters. It probably means sourcing from China and selling the Mexican facility, something Meade may be institutionally reluctant to do because of the huge investment to get it going.
Every penny counts: reducing advertising, employee extras (like a 401K), etc.
#3 Means reducing the offerings to maybe 50 products and having them in stock at all times for immediate shipment and offering terrific customer service for problems. If those 50 products sell and don't have problems, and work well, Meade's reputation could rebound. What would those products be? It depends. They could be dobs, they could be computerized SCTs, or entry-level refractors.
#4 is predicated on the assumption there is cash flow. At this time, that could be a false assumption. You can't pay back long-term notes without a cash flow to do so. And that means sales at the dealer level and the ability to ship product.

Complicating the whole thing is the fact they're a public company. They should be a private company at this point, but no one can afford to buy out the stockholders.

Now, if they chose chapter 7 liquidation, and the corporation dissolved, it's possible that a small group of investors could buy whatever assets might be necessary to a startup company with the intention of doing just what I envision. That group of investors could be Chinese, I suppose.
Would they come back as MEEDE Telescopes ( :grin:).

An outside auditor needs to ascertain whether the company can be saved at this point. It's fairly obvious the people on the inside haven't made the right decisions for years. The earlier post about how long you can take a hit is directly germane.

[EDIT: the above is not altered if there is a large infusion of cash. Without changes, the cash infusion would quickly dissipate. That cash could be used to increase sales, or to buy off creditors long enough to turn things around. But there would have to be a plan about how to do so before any investor would supply the necessary funds. The fact there are offers on the table says someone obviously has a plan how to turn things around.]
 

#327 rmollise

rmollise

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15833
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 28 June 2013 - 02:32 PM

Are there really that many spectacular sights left in the night sky?


Yes, plenty, even from the average suburban site. But you have to get out and look at them. ;)
 

#328 rmollise

rmollise

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15833
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 28 June 2013 - 02:45 PM

is weird, so explaining it isn't really that easy.

So, for a parallel example, Tasco made all of its money on consumer optics. When their consumer optics business went down, they were taking Celestron with them, because whether Celestron was doing well or not, it wasn't going to produce the wheelbarrows full of cash needed to keep Tasco healthy, and Tasco was spending all of its money on capacity to mass produce inexpensive consumer optics.


Basically...with the note that Tasco, aside from its Celestron acquisition, never made a single scope. They were always an importer and nothing more till they took on Celestron from its Swiss owners. Not being very knowledgeable about the production side of the optics, relations between Tasco and their Celestron folks were, shall we say, "strained." :lol:
 

#329 MikeBOKC

MikeBOKC

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4678
  • Joined: 10 May 2010
  • Loc: Oklahoma City, OK

Posted 28 June 2013 - 02:48 PM

As for negative comments on CN "killing" Meade, the simple fact is that this is a hobby with an enormous amount of word of mouth about the technical details and performance of the products made for it. That word of mouth goes around here, on various other on-line fora, at local clubs and star parties, basically wherever astronomers gather. The bottom line is that when a company buys back-cover ads in the major hobby publications touting a new line of products and declaring how they are the greatest thing since sliced bread . . . and then they turn out simply not to work at all . . . the word of mouth is going to be pretty negative. The best way to avoid Meade's current predicament would have been to make products that worked.
 

#330 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 44804
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 28 June 2013 - 03:10 PM

Are there really that many spectacular sights left in the night sky?


Yes, plenty, even from the average suburban site. But you have to get out and look at them. ;)


:waytogo:

Uncle Rod has a book for you if you need some help knowing what to look at.

Regarding Tasco and Celestron: as I recall Celestron was basically ready for bankruptcy when Tasco took over.

By the way my spell checker does not recognize Tasco, it keeps suggesting fiasco. I wonder if it's smarter than I think...

Jon
 

#331 rmollise

rmollise

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15833
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 28 June 2013 - 03:27 PM



Uncle Rod has a book for you if you need some help knowing what to look at.

Regarding Tasco and Celestron: as I recall Celestron was basically ready for bankruptcy when Tasco took over.


I think it was more just a case of their owner at the time, Diethelm, wanting to be out of the scope business. In fact, I believe they'd wanted to be done with Celestron as long back as the Halley fiasco...it just took 'em till 1998 to find a buyer. ;)
 

#332 amicus sidera

amicus sidera

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4235
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2011
  • Loc: East of the Sun, West of the Moon...

Posted 28 June 2013 - 03:45 PM

Maybe part of this is we need new ideas and new products. To me that means less emphasis on making them curvy and more on things which are extremely practical, easy to use, and gosh darn it work well.


I wonder if part of the emphasis on the style of newer scopes ("curvy", as you described it) isn't an attempt to sell to to the female demographic.

I have no idea how many female amateur astronomers there are currently, but as women comprise about half the total population making a product that appeals to them, thereby increasing market share, must have crossed the manufacturer's minds. Perhaps that's why, as a man, I'm not particularly enthralled by many of the newer instruments, especially go-to SCT's. In my opinion they are quite a bit less practical and business-like than my old LX-5, despite being loaded with "technology" - or more likely because of it...

Fred
 

#333 csrlice12

csrlice12

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11576
  • Joined: 22 May 2012
  • Loc: Denver, CO

Posted 28 June 2013 - 03:49 PM

The audit reports state that Meade has "going concern" principle problems....in the financial world, that's a DON'T LOAN THESE GUYS MONEY flag....and not just a little flag....a great big see it from the space station flag....without someone buying them up, they're toast.....and this MIT thing seems to be just a Bain Capital clone, buy it up, sell off what's worth selling, and the rest goes into bankruptsy (i.e. pensions, employee investments, stockholder's investments, etc......)
 

#334 piaras

piaras

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 827
  • Joined: 26 Jan 2009
  • Loc: Niagara Region

Posted 28 June 2013 - 03:54 PM

If Meade's been trading in the low single digits, then I suspect anyone willing to pay ten dollars per share could buy as many shares as they wanted or could afford. It probably wouldn't be a very sound business decision, but that's a way to take over a company.


Yes you could but why give the people who screwed up the company, the reward. The directors likely have the most skin in the game, and they are the problem. Maybe one of them was the seller of those shares on May 20th. Today only 2800 shares cross the desk, with only $ 0.01 change to the share price. It is down for the day.

You will need that money for turning the business around. Tell the debt holders that they either take a haircut or lose it all. After that cut the product line down to what sells best at a reasonable profit to maintain and build on what you have. Customer service is number one no matter what anybody says. I worked retail and wholesale for 25 yrs, and take care to your customer through good and bad, and you have one for a long time.

Once stable the company should only need infusion of cash for R&D of new or redesigned and improved product. it will not be into profit for 5 yrs but is will be a better company in the end.
Pierre
 

#335 jrbarnett

jrbarnett

    Eyepiece Hooligan

  • *****
  • Posts: 20647
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2006
  • Loc: Petaluma, CA

Posted 28 June 2013 - 04:12 PM

Well, it's unclear who actually "screwed the company". Business is like cards. You're dealt a hand, and you play it as best your sense and wits and the other guys' sense and wits allow. Some hands have a higher probability of winning when dealt than others. Meade's been through all kinds of management changes and restructurings through its long history. Likely every single one of those management teams made some decisions and placed some bets that impacted the scope of potential decisions and bets, given the hand and what new cards were dealt, of subsequent management teams. In business as in cards, winning is never just a matter of the trying harder. Sometimes the cards flop in such a way that no matter how hard you try, you can't beat the other guy's hand.

I think what is being suggested here is that the community of users has an interest in preserving Meade as a source wholly independent of who managed it, which management team was responsible for which poor decision, and how strong competitors' hands are relative to Meade's. And heck, it's only money, and in this case it is utter chump-change that we're talking about. There are probably CNers whose houses and cars exceed the value of Meade. No matter what the outcome, there's not going to be any rich rewards for anyone employed by the company.

Regards,

Jim
 

#336 starrancher

starrancher

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2960
  • Joined: 09 Jun 2009
  • Loc: Northern Arizona

Posted 28 June 2013 - 05:44 PM

Some folks just play poker better than others eh?
 

#337 piaras

piaras

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 827
  • Joined: 26 Jan 2009
  • Loc: Niagara Region

Posted 28 June 2013 - 07:28 PM

Well, it's unclear who actually "screwed the company". .... Business is like cards. ......No matter what the outcome, there's not going to be any rich rewards for anyone employed by the company.

Regards,

Jim


Oh I agree with you on that. I was using the idea of the collective decisions made in the past and current. Some things one can control, that is the internal stuff, and the rest you are the passenger along for a ride. How one acts and reacts to these over time decides the fate of the company. One of my employers lost his business with just one call. Had been in business for nearly 80 yrs.

Many parts of the Astro business is small cap and even micro cap companies as well as start ups in the garage/basement. The economy has a major effect on this size of company and the capabilities to survive a stumble in product, financing and health of the owner(s) etc is difficult.

Who is the white knight in Meade's case, we will not know for awhile, but for sure there will be pain for any and all who work there through this time of uncertainty. Bad enough that that it has been 5 yrs now for everyone.
Pierre
 

#338 deSitter

deSitter

    Still in Old School

  • -----
  • Posts: 6879
  • Joined: 09 Dec 2004

Posted 28 June 2013 - 08:47 PM

Bottom line - is Meade dead?

-drl
 

#339 starrancher

starrancher

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2960
  • Joined: 09 Jun 2009
  • Loc: Northern Arizona

Posted 28 June 2013 - 09:17 PM

Bottom line - is Meade dead?

-drl


Hopefully not .
I really like all my Meade stuff . My 8 inch Schmidt Newtonian is a great short focal length wide field scope that can show great Andomeda in its entirety with a 1.25 " Plossl 26mm . What else can do that with 8 inches of light grab ? Most everything else you must pan back and forth only seeing parts of it at a time or you don't get that kind of light grab . The AR5 is a PDG achromat too . All the old filters are great . The Narrowband , the OIII and on and on . Hopefully JOC saves the brand .
 

#340 mac57

mac57

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 164
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2013
  • Loc: DeLand of Oz, Florida

Posted 28 June 2013 - 09:23 PM

Whew! After reading through all of these posts, one thing always was in the back of my mind. Growing up in the 60's, the only "real" scope manufacturers I was aware of were Celestron, Questar, and Meade. I recognized these companies for what they were; respected makers of quality equipment. When I finally decided to seriously enter into amateur astronomy, I was stunned at the number of lines that Meade produced. Even more stunning was the general negative attitude of CN members against Meade. No one ever said "Don't buy a Meade", but I got the drift. It seemed that everyone had either a Celestron or an Orion(Who?). I joined CN so I could make an informed decision about what my first scope should be, and owe a lot of what I know to the great people in these forums. My initial high opinion of Meade soon eroded, as I originally was thinking of a Meade as my first scope, simply through brand recognition. The mistakes that Meade made will not be forgotten quickly, and even if they manage to continue somehow, I feel that the bad taste many people have will only be resolved by years of re-building consumer trust. It doesn't look like Meade has that much time.
 

#341 jgraham

jgraham

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 13922
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2004
  • Loc: Miami Valley Astronomical Society

Posted 28 June 2013 - 09:34 PM

Regardless of what the future holds, there is a rich resource of equipment of all kinds available from the used market. Combining an old (and proven) optical tube with a modern mount can be an economical thing of beauty. I also take the muck raking with a grain of salt. I have found that very little of it holds up to actual experience. The key is either gaining first hand exerience through local resources or pulling reviews and comments from mulitple sources.
 

#342 mac57

mac57

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 164
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2013
  • Loc: DeLand of Oz, Florida

Posted 28 June 2013 - 09:42 PM

John, Exactly. I know Meade still makes good equipment, but in my case, with a limited budget, I cannot take risks. I know someone that has a small Meade(I forget the model) that hasn't moved from their garage shelf for years, and have been tempted to buy it from time to time as a small grab-and-go. But things start to get murky when your products end up at Wal-Mart.
Mark
 

#343 Starhawk

Starhawk

    Space Ranger

  • *****
  • Posts: 5614
  • Joined: 16 Sep 2008
  • Loc: Tucson, Arizona

Posted 29 June 2013 - 12:54 AM

Meade wasn't founded until 1972. So, in what context do you remember it from the 1960s? :jump:

-Rich



Whew! After reading through all of these posts, one thing always was in the back of my mind. Growing up in the 60's, the only "real" scope manufacturers I was aware of were Celestron, Questar, and Meade. I recognized these companies for what they were; respected makers of quality equipment. When I finally decided to seriously enter into amateur astronomy, I was stunned at the number of lines that Meade produced. Even more stunning was the general negative attitude of CN members against Meade. No one ever said "Don't buy a Meade", but I got the drift. It seemed that everyone had either a Celestron or an Orion(Who?). I joined CN so I could make an informed decision about what my first scope should be, and owe a lot of what I know to the great people in these forums. My initial high opinion of Meade soon eroded, as I originally was thinking of a Meade as my first scope, simply through brand recognition. The mistakes that Meade made will not be forgotten quickly, and even if they manage to continue somehow, I feel that the bad taste many people have will only be resolved by years of re-building consumer trust. It doesn't look like Meade has that much time.


 

#344 rcdk

rcdk

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 171
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2010

Posted 29 June 2013 - 04:44 AM

Not everyone here hates Meade, but among my amateur astronomer friends we refer to CN as "the Meade bashers' forum."

I also did a lot of research here and came to the conclusion that I didn't want a Meade. Then someone from the local club pointed out the number of people in the club who had Meade scopes and were perfectly happy with their purchase. (Plenty of club members have Celestron too and are happy with them as well.)

Now I know there are a few tireless Meade haters that show up in almost every thread where Meade is mentioned.

That's a real shame because there are a lot of great information and people with real knowledge that can help you make a good purchase decision. But those with an axe to grind against Meade definitely skew the picture.



...Even more stunning was the general negative attitude of CN members against Meade. No one ever said "Don't buy a Meade", but I got the drift. It seemed that everyone had either a Celestron or an Orion(Who?). I joined CN so I could make an informed decision about what my first scope should be, and owe a lot of what I know to the great people in these forums. ...


 

#345 mac57

mac57

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 164
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2013
  • Loc: DeLand of Oz, Florida

Posted 29 June 2013 - 05:01 AM

Pardon me. I stand corrected. I know they have been around a long time as a well respected company. Stay cheerful.
 

#346 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 44804
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 29 June 2013 - 05:10 AM

Not everyone here hates Meade, but among my amateur astronomer friends we refer to CN as "the Meade bashers' forum."

I also did a lot of research here and came to the conclusion that I didn't want a Meade. Then someone from the local club pointed out the number of people in the club who had Meade scopes and were perfectly happy with their purchase. (Plenty of club members have Celestron too and are happy with them as well.)

Now I know there are a few tireless Meade haters that show up in almost every thread where Meade is mentioned.

That's a real shame because there are a lot of great information and people with real knowledge that can help you make a good purchase decision. But those with an axe to grind against Meade definitely skew the picture.



...Even more stunning was the general negative attitude of CN members against Meade. No one ever said "Don't buy a Meade", but I got the drift. It seemed that everyone had either a Celestron or an Orion(Who?). I joined CN so I could make an informed decision about what my first scope should be, and owe a lot of what I know to the great people in these forums. ...


I think it is unfair to call people who point to Meade's difficulties as "Meade haters." This is a discussion of why Meade is in serious financial difficulties and obviously such a thread must look at focus on their mistakes and where they went wrong.

Reading this thread, it is pretty obvious to me that there is a great deal of support for Meade product on Cloudy Nights. But there is an awareness that there are problems and those problems are not the result of "Meade bashers" that show up to every thread and more than from "Meade fan-boys" who cannot see any problems when the ship is sinking.

We are just by-standers wishing there was something we do.

Jon
 

#347 Ekyprotic

Ekyprotic

    Vostok 1

  • **---
  • Posts: 153
  • Joined: 28 Nov 2012

Posted 29 June 2013 - 06:06 AM

I quite agree. I think many of us will forever be indebted to Meade for being affordable enough to get us into serious visual astronomy as well as astrophotography. Honestly, where would be all be if it weren't for the ETX's and DSI's getting us started in this great hobby?
 

#348 Ekyprotic

Ekyprotic

    Vostok 1

  • **---
  • Posts: 153
  • Joined: 28 Nov 2012

Posted 29 June 2013 - 06:09 AM

It's like Microsoft vs Apple, honestly as long as you're happy with your purchase, it's all that matters. I have products from both companies too (actually more Meade than Celestron but my most expensive purchase is a Celestron and I love all of them.)
 

#349 Ekyprotic

Ekyprotic

    Vostok 1

  • **---
  • Posts: 153
  • Joined: 28 Nov 2012

Posted 29 June 2013 - 06:13 AM

No no reference to government officials specifically, I mean I blame everyone for what's been going on, but this is more of a corporate issue.
 

#350 Ekyprotic

Ekyprotic

    Vostok 1

  • **---
  • Posts: 153
  • Joined: 28 Nov 2012

Posted 29 June 2013 - 06:23 AM

I understand what you guys are saying, but what I dont understand is why is astronomy dying? We should be entering a golden age, where we have interactive desktop 3D astronomy software available at the cutting edge of science, can get up to date astronomy news over the net any time instead of waiting for Astronomy or Sky and Telescope to come out once a month, can do quality astrophotography even with point and shoot digital cameras- we could never even dream of any of these things back in the 80s when I first became interested in astronomy (was interested starting in 3rd grade actually, but became really serious about it starting in 7th grade.) Back then cheap telescopes were 60mm refractors, now we can get 90mm goto refractors for the same price (back then we swooned over setting circles lol)! That's a sizeable step up! You can get a 6" tabletop Dob from Orion at an afforable price (back then we had 3" Tasco reflectors lol..... to be fair we did have the 5.5" tabletop Comet Catcher- a scope I coveted when I was little.) Back then I had to research for hours in libraries and sometimes spend the whole day there to acquire knowledge that I was seeking, now I can get in the matter of minutes, all while interacting with some wonderful intelligent people who share the same love of science that I do.

Monopolies are extremely unhealthy for progress and innovation- as Microsoft and Intel have proven time and again. This should be a Golden Age in astronomy- and in all of science- and yet it isn't. Why?
 






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics