- Mar 8, 2002
- Reaction score
STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.
Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.
Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!
When your parent company has "Acquisition Corp" in its name and you are a retailer/manufacturer, you're days were pretty numbered to begin with.
No, not really. Most of these entities have an Opco-Holdco relationship, so the vast majority of acquirors buy a target via an independent "Acquisition Corp." for any tax savings via structure, basis step-up etc.
Realize that this is a boring post, but just want to highlight that the Indians buying Hickey via an "Acquisition Corp," should not imply that their intent was anything shady.
you misunderstood, I did not mean shady, I meant mismanaged from the perspective of building an identity for the brand/brands. What was Hickey Freeman about? Without thinking about it for a few minutes. Compare that to Ralph Lauren or even Men's Warehouse, with those two you have a very specific idea in your head about what they are selling (Ralph has multiple identities but that's a whole other thing). Was HF/Hart Schaffner high quality goods a la RL? No. Where they inexpensive a la MW? No. Did they have their Brooks history? No. Did they have a specific look/cut? No. I think successful brands have an emotional attachment with their customers, be it due to the prices, quality, looks etc. HF was about as bland, middle of the road as can be. If you took all their mainline suits and put them on the racks at JC Penney, no one would notice anything different by looking at them.
I will give them credit for Hickey and for Bobby Jones, even though they muffed up those two great ideas.
Ed - I agree completely. But, and not to be overly pedantic, I fail to see how the initial use of an Acquisition Corp should have been indicative of the subsequent mismanagement you mention above.