I lost count of my scopes. Now I just want mobility. I came, I saw, I bought some interesting accessories, and put names to faces: NEAF 2012, ASAE 2012, SWAP 2013, ASAE 2013.
Uncle Rod Uncle Rod's Astroblog: http://uncle-rods.blogspot.com/
Kmart 40mm-Thanks Mom|Jason60mm-Thanks Dad|C80SS-Thanks Wife|C90|C102|C6XLT|AP130EDFGT|C-11XLT EQ-2|EQ-3|CG5GT|Mach 1 & Eagle "For once you have tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return".-Leonardo da Vinci "We're all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars."-Oscar Wilde ~RIP Dad, you were my best friend...Godspeed!~
Quote:I hope I am wrong...but this is just the sort of thing that can doom the company.
One 'scope at a time... "Onward! Ever forward, never straight!" - T. McMahon
Quote:You obviously know very little of what PE firms do, besides what you have learned from mainstream news sensationalism. There is absolutely no business sense behind acquiring Meade and selling it piece by piece. It would be like buying a Patek Philippe, tearing apart and and selling it off as metal scrap.
Quote:The Company's financial statements for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2013 were prepared assuming the Company would continue as a going concern; however, the Company's declining revenues, recurring losses, weakened financial position and reduced liquidity raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. The Company's board of directors decided in January 2013 that the Company should consider its strategic alternatives to preserve and maximize shareholder value, which ultimately culminated in the signing on May 17, 2013 of the Agreement and Plan of Merger which, subject to shareholder approval, would allow for the outstanding shares of the Company to be purchased for $3.45 per share or approximately $4.5 million.Due to the Company's declining revenues, recurring losses, limited liquidity and weakened financial position, the Company may not be able to operate long enough execute that planned transaction. Net sales during the three months ending May 31, 2013 are expected to be approximately $3 million, substantially below the net sales of approximately $3.8 million during the three months ended February 28, 2013 and net sales of approximately $4.2 million during the three months ended May 31, 2012. Due to the lower net sales levels the Company is encountering, the Company expects to incur substantial losses during the period through the close of the transaction.In addition, the Company has limited and decreasing working capital and is finding it increasingly difficult to operate normally. The Company's net debt, which consists of the net balance owed on the Company's credit facility less cash, was $92 thousand at February 28, 2013 compared to $371 thousand at April 30, 2013.In addition, as is common with public company transactions, a number of law firms are investigating the recently announced merger transaction and may choose to file a lawsuit against the Company in an effort to obtain financial dispensation from the Company. Such actions, or other factors, could cause further delays in the close of the planned transaction and/or result in additional costs. If such events occur, the Company may not have sufficient working capital to operate through the close of the planned transaction. If the Company is not able to obtain additional capital, it may be unable to execute the planned transaction and the Company may then have to file bankruptcy and cease operations.
AT6RC, CG-5 mount, Canon T3i
Quote:The real reason that we should be concerned about private equity’s expanding power lies in the way these firms have become increasingly adept at using financial gimmicks to line their pockets, deriving enormous wealth not from management or investing skills but, rather, from the way the U.S. tax system works. Indeed, for an industry that’s often held up as an exemplar of free-market capitalism, private equity is surprisingly dependent on government subsidies for its profits. Financial engineering has always been central to leveraged buyouts. In a typical deal, a private-equity firm buys a company, using some of its own money and some borrowed money. It then tries to improve the performance of the acquired company, with an eye toward cashing out by selling it or taking it public. The key to this strategy is debt: the model encourages firms to borrow as much as possible, since, just as with a mortgage, the less money you put down, the bigger your potential return on investment. The rewards can be extraordinary: when Romney was at Bain, it supposedly earned eighty-eight per cent a year for its investors. But piles of debt also increase the risk that companies will go bust.
This approach has one obvious virtue: if a private-equity firm wants to make money, it has to improve the value of the companies it buys. Sometimes the improvement may be more cosmetic than real, but historically private-equity firms have in principle had a powerful incentive to make companies perform better. In the past decade, though, that calculus changed. Having already piled companies high with debt in order to buy them, many private-equity funds had their companies borrow even more, and then used that money to pay themselves huge “special dividends.” This allowed them to recoup their initial investment while keeping the same ownership stake. Before 2000, big special dividends were not that common. But between 2003 and 2007 private-equity funds took more than seventy billion dollars out of their companies. These dividends created no economic value—they just redistributed money from the company to the private-equity investors.
As a result, private-equity firms are increasingly able to profit even if the companies they run go under—an outcome made much likelier by all the extra borrowing—and many companies have been getting picked clean. In 2004, for instance, Wasserstein & Company bought the thriving mail-order fruit retailer Harry and David. The following year, Wasserstein and other investors took out more than a hundred million in dividends, paid for with borrowed money—covering their original investment plus a twenty-three per cent profit—and charged Harry and David millions in “management fees.” Last year, Harry and David defaulted on its debt and dumped its pension obligations. In other words, Wasserstein failed to improve the company’s performance, failed to meet its obligations to creditors, screwed its workers, and still made a profit. That’s not exactly how capitalism is supposed to work.
Celestron Nexstar 102GT & Vixen A80Mf (mounted on Meade LXD75 and iOptron CubePro 8200 respectively) Bresser Hunter 7x50, Meade Adventure 10x50
Quote:And how is this related to "Cats and Casses" forum?!
- Jared Willson
Quote:I understand Meade's importance for the hobby and I'm all for its survival in any form or ownership which will keep it a company that makes astro-equipment (including "Cats and Casses"). However, I do believe that we either need a separate forum to be established called, for example, "News" or "Manufacturers" or stop reporting in more than one forum (which deals with, frankly, other stuff), whether Meade - or any other business - will/can/should/must survive. Just my 2 cents no one asked for...
Orion xx14g Dob CPC 1100 w/Skywatcher 80ED piggybacked Coronado PST TMB 92L refractor AT Voyager mount Nexstar 6/8 mount Denk Big Easy binoviewers Oodles of eyepieces and other optical gadgets Past scopes Meade 8" reflector and 8" SCT
Quote:Meade certainly has some patents that Celestron would want. Not having to press align while an alignment star drifted into position for one. I can't see Meade's technology just vanishing, but the sum of the individual parts may be worth more than the value of the whole.
“I am the only person to ever ace a 1951 USAF resolution test. My 'to observe' list says 'done'. I do not use charts or atlases when I starhop; men do not use maps. One of my sketches won an SBIG deep sky imaging contest. I am the life of star parties I have never attended. I never say anything looks like a faint fuzzy - not even a faint fuzzy. Pilots aim green laser pointers at me. Don Pensack proofreads my CN forum posts.” - The Most Interesting Astronomer in the Universe
Celestron EDGE 11/CGEM | Stellarvue SVR90T-25FT20MM ES100 | Televue 31MM Nagler T5 | Televue 11mm Nagler T6 | Televue 2X PowerMate Sky Safari 4 | SkyFi
Meade 305 ƒ/10.4 LX200 • Royce 250 ƒ/19 Dall Kirkham • AstroTech 250 ƒ/8 RC • AstroTech 250 ƒ/4 "RFT" Newtonian • Meade 80 ƒ/6 ED APO • TEC 140 ƒ/7 APO • Orion 180 ƒ/15 Mak Cass ... Denkmeier II binoviewer - Nikon 8x60 binocular
Astronomical Files from Black Oak Observatory
Quote:i cannot parse this deal based on public info i can find. MIT is actually bidding through an investment subsidiary "Merger Sub", owned by "MIT Capital Inc." of San Jose, CA ... all information is attributed to jason tian, CEO of MITC and "VictoryOne Inc." neither tian nor any of corporations just listed has a web presence or documentation other than this press release. the salient detail is that MITC has been in discussion with meade for the past sixteen months before its looming "liquidity event" and "submitted" three prior offers, which makes it likely that meade senior management is party to the transaction: "Holders of Company common stock should be aware that Meade's executive officers and directors may have interests in the merger that are different from, or in addition to, the interests of holders of Company common stock in general."the stated business goal, to "revive the Meade brand by creating new markets for Meade products and attract new generations of Meade fans through our sales and distribution channels in emerging markets" strikes me as generic executive smokespeak and implausible at face. what distribution channels, which new products? dude, you don't even have a web page. without disparaging meade any more than necessary, it's factual to state that meade senior management has made poor decisions in the past, so it is unlikely that this represents any good news for meade's employees or customers -- especially if JOC walks away from this sockpuppet bidding war. press release HERE.
Quote:OK, lets not be too naive or idealistic here.Shareholders, as a rule, are interested in only one thing. Profit. They care about the company, its products patents or customers only as long as the value of their stock increases, they don't care about anything else. When they shares dive and their investment in the company becomes a loss, they want out at the highest value they can get. That means selling the company for the highest share price--regardless of the intentions of the buyer. And I'm sorry, but these dime-a-dozen "private equity"/"investment capital"/"acquisition" firms do one thing... swoop in and take failing companies, milk every last cent of value out of them and dump the carcass in a barrel. Period. They're collection agencies milking debt for profit. Bottom feeders.At this point Meade is lost, one way or another, from an investment standpoint. Shareholders only want to get the most amount of money for their shares and they don't give a rip about what happens to Meade after that. You have two buyers. One that wants to turn the company around and move it forward, another that wants to gut any remaining value from it for the shareholders and their own profit. Whomever has the deepest pockets and can satisfy the greed of the shareholders will win. End of story.
“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.” ― Werner Heisenberg
12" LX200 GPS
10" LX200 GPS
4" Unitron 150
4" Bosma refractor
Denk Binotron 27, D14's and D21's
Galaxy Note 8 running SkySafari Pro via Bluetooth
Wireless Autostar II
Quote:The interesting thing to me here is that Meade is for sale for a little over 4 million, or as viewers of "Million Dollar Listing New York" would know, about the price of a 3 bedroom apartment in Manhattan.
Quote:Maybe MIT Capital has another buyer already lined up who doesn't want to deal with taking it private or managing a public company. What if, for example, Synta was bidding by proxy through MIT. Let MIT disentangle the company from the shareholders by offering a 20 cent premium, and then transfer to Synta just those assets Synta wants (SCT biz to kill it and strengthen Celestron's position in that segment and Coronado solar, to inject capital for R&D and production cost reduction and bury little Lunt to make a little new money). - Jim