Aster1 Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 These may have already been mentioned, but I have two other cent's to throw into the mix: 1) I haven't seen the more recent figures on what Guitar Center owes Fender, Gibson etc. but it was a pretty damn big chunk of $$$ and somehow I don't believe it's been retired. The vendors, that may not all be in great shape, could be the biggest losers in this equation. 2) I have a friend/mentor that was a major shareholder & CEO of a large bottling company in the USA, now sold out & retired from that business. He has told me many times that the major task, over the last 15 yrs, is to nanny sit the investors/mutual fund managers. Not run the business. People are demanding returns close to 20-25% yearly and are ready with tar/feathers when it hits 15% yearly returns. I hear so many fume about big business wanting to make $$$. We are the reason for that. How many have a retirement plan that's invested into the markets? EVERYONE unless ya don't have a dang retirement plan. Who has IRA's or other investments. REGULAR JOE'S are demanding these evil big businesses to MAKE HUGE MONEY all the time for the investments they have. Directly or indirectly America is responsible for a huge change in the way business is done with regards to making money. How many businesses are totally privately held? Yes, Gibson & Fender are and maybe this is for the best not to sell your soul to the devil. Public traded companies are totally at the mercy of the puppet masters (shareholders & investor managers) and that is a problem. Stocks didn't trade at the daily level levels in the 50's-70's and I remember reading that in the 50's only 4% of America was invested in the markets!! In 50's the market returned 19% with the boom from WWII growth, 60's 8% and 70's 6%. Big difference in the demands. People invested into a company, held their stocks longer term, and took a dividend. No massive trading that destabilizes a company. I don't know how any traded business knows how to forecast what they have to work with. My point is WE ARE THE BIG COMPANIES and have a huge responsibility in much of the mess of business. Aster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Searcy Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 I think I have found the real problem. New Study Finds Only 88% Of Guitar Center Customers Become Famous Musicians New Study Finds Only 88% Of Guitar Center Customers Become Famous Musicians WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CA—Contradicting conventional wisdom that shopping at the musical instrument retail chain guarantees one a renowned and highly successful career in music, a new study released Monday revealed that a mere 88 percent of Guitar Center customers go on to become famous musicians. “While these findings may surprise anyone who has ever watched a Guitar Center customer noodle around on a Martin that is well out of their price range or play a slightly off-key rendition of Joe Satriani’s ‘Surfing With The Alien’ through a Marshall practice amp, our data indicate that as many as 12 percent of these individuals will never make it big,” the study read, adding that though music executives regularly prowl the store’s aisles, scrutinizing the deafening clamor of 20 guitars being played simultaneously in hopes of finding the next Eric Clapton or Steve Vai, the reality is that an alarming 1 out of 10 patrons of the music equipment superstore nationwide manage to fall through the cracks. “Granted, most of these individuals still achieve modest success, putting out a couple of solid albums and attracting a strong regional following, but they just never quite reach the level where they’re selling out stadiums night after night on massive world tours.” The study went on to conclude that every one of Guitar Center’s customers would almost certainly become international music celebrities if they started buying the most expensive kind of strings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobF_ Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 LOL - I had forgotten about that one. Funny stuff Searcy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Searcy Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 I read it on the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimi Mac Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 These may have already been mentioned, but I have two other cent's to throw into the mix: 1) I haven't seen the more recent figures on what Guitar Center owes Fender, Gibson etc. but it was a pretty damn big chunk of $$$ and somehow I don't believe it's been retired. The vendors, that may not all be in great shape, could be the biggest losers in this equation. 2) I have a friend/mentor that was a major shareholder & CEO of a large bottling company in the USA, now sold out & retired from that business. He has told me many times that the major task, over the last 15 yrs, is to nanny sit the investors/mutual fund managers. Not run the business. People are demanding returns close to 20-25% yearly and are ready with tar/feathers when it hits 15% yearly returns. I hear so many fume about big business wanting to make $$$. We are the reason for that. How many have a retirement plan that's invested into the markets? EVERYONE unless ya don't have a dang retirement plan. Who has IRA's or other investments. REGULAR JOE'S are demanding these evil big businesses to MAKE HUGE MONEY all the time for the investments they have. Directly or indirectly America is responsible for a huge change in the way business is done with regards to making money. How many businesses are totally privately held? Yes, Gibson & Fender are and maybe this is for the best not to sell your soul to the devil. Public traded companies are totally at the mercy of the puppet masters (shareholders & investor managers) and that is a problem. Stocks didn't trade at the daily level levels in the 50's-70's and I remember reading that in the 50's only 4% of America was invested in the markets!! In 50's the market returned 19% with the boom from WWII growth, 60's 8% and 70's 6%. Big difference in the demands. People invested into a company, held their stocks longer term, and took a dividend. No massive trading that destabilizes a company. I don't know how any traded business knows how to forecast what they have to work with. My point is WE ARE THE BIG COMPANIES and have a huge responsibility in much of the mess of business. Aster Pretty spot-on in my book... The biggest foil in it all is government regulation and government taxation raping every cash-cow it can get it's genitalia into! The whining about record profits of the oil companies by democraps is so intellectually dishonest as to be evidential of possession of an extra chromosome! Every working class man woman and child has stocks in a 401K or retirement plan of any kind is invested in Exxon/Mobil period! The other lie is that it is the oil companies pulling the profits out of oil... The federal government makes far more "profit" from oil than oil companies ever do! The level of taxation out of a gallon of gasoline, diesel fuel, and/or home heating fuel dwarfs the "profits" pulled by the oil companies! These same purveyors of taxation without representation are what our country here was founded upon to rebel against such out-of-control wealth confiscation and tyranny! Couple that with what the out-of-control legislators do on a federal, state, and local level to every business ever conceived and you know why only the biggest companies maintain liquidity and profitability. The moment they do the money whore-mongers in politics want a piece of the pie and tax them further and further in a never ending battle of who gets to collect the profits of business the business or the government... The out-of-control legislators are the same schmucks promising every pet cause on the face of the planet money and support for their secured votes so the same people in charge of taxation are the same people promising the world to all of their campaign supporters and voters... Tell me that ain't a conflict of interest and I'll call you stupid! To make it "fair" all of the new taxation levied upon big business cash cows must also be levied upon the Mom & Pop little guy or it would be an "unfair" tax and the legislators go along with that nonsense regulating with percentage rates that are marketed as "fair." All it will take is for GC to piss off the wrong legislator and do something that isn't Politically Correct in the eyes of the disconnected politicians and they're done-fer! Just ask Henry @ dear ol' Gibson how it feels to follow the American Dream and buy into the ideal of fairness and get his world turned upside down for not playing the political game to the satisfaction of politicians... I too have received great treatment, help, and deals from my local GC and personally don't want to see them go... If the government would back the F off, as Milod has pointed out, the world would be a far better place, but we the people just aren't capable of holding politicians accountable for their unAmerican tyranny, wealth confiscation, and taxation without representation as our forefathers once did! Let's put the blame where it belongs, on us for allowing this to happen by letting the government/politicians run amok and unchecked! They're supposed to work for us, not themselves, and certainly not the other way around! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Searcy Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 And that's when the fight started... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zigzag Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 Someone defending the oil companies?... I'm okay. This is just a test, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookieman15061 Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 These may have already been mentioned, but I have two other cent's to throw into the mix: 1) I haven't seen the more recent figures on what Guitar Center owes Fender, Gibson etc. but it was a pretty damn big chunk of $$ and somehow I don't believe it's been retired. The vendors, that may not all be in great shape, could be the biggest losers in this equation. 2) I have a friend/mentor that was a major shareholder & CEO of a large bottling company in the USA, now sold out & retired from that business. He has told me many times that the major task, over the last 15 yrs, is to nanny sit the investors/mutual fund managers. Not run the business. People are demanding returns close to 20-25% yearly and are ready with tar/feathers when it hits 15% yearly returns. I hear so many fume about big business wanting to make $$. We are the reason for that. How many have a retirement plan that's invested into the markets? EVERYONE unless ya don't have a dang retirement plan. Who has IRA's or other investments. REGULAR JOE'S are demanding these evil big businesses to MAKE HUGE MONEY all the time for the investments they have. Directly or indirectly America is responsible for a huge change in the way business is done with regards to making money. How many businesses are totally privately held? Yes, Gibson & Fender are and maybe this is for the best not to sell your soul to the devil. Public traded companies are totally at the mercy of the puppet masters (shareholders & investor managers) and that is a problem. Stocks didn't trade at the daily level levels in the 50's-70's and I remember reading that in the 50's only 4% of America was invested in the markets!! In 50's the market returned 19% with the boom from WWII growth, 60's 8% and 70's 6%. Big difference in the demands. People invested into a company, held their stocks longer term, and took a dividend. No massive trading that destabilizes a company. I don't know how any traded business knows how to forecast what they have to work with. My point is WE ARE THE BIG COMPANIES and have a huge responsibility in much of the mess of business. Aster I have seen the enemy......... and it is us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookieman15061 Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 Someone defending the oil companies?... I'm okay. This is just a test, right? Really! That'd be like defending the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Searcy Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowdyMoon Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 defend?...government?..taxes? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIZbGSXeWWE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zigzag Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 Let's not get diverted from the OP with political BS, please. The problem with GC is a poor business plan that is not flexible enough to adapt to a changing market and economy that put them deeper into the red. Bain is guilty of making a bad investment and loading extra debt onto GC without a viable plan to save it. Gibson and Fender are both guilty of allowing GC to get behind in paying the bills. Gibson needs GC in order for their business model to work. Fender doesn't need GC, and IMO, is better positioned to recover from the GC disaster, because of their system of distribution and the value of their product to the consumer... my uninformed opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobF_ Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 Let's not get diverted from the OP with political BS, please. The problem with GC is a poor business plan that is not flexible enough to adapt to a changing market and economy that put them deeper into the red. Bain is guilty of making a bad investment and loading extra debt onto GC without a viable plan to save it. Gibson and Fender are both guilty of allowing GC to get behind in paying the bills. Gibson needs GC in order for their business model to work. Fender doesn't need GC, and IMO, is better positioned to recover from the GC disaster, because of their system of distribution and the value of their product to the consumer... my uninformed opinion. I agree with the idea that Fender is better positioned. In contrast, Gibson has less presence and seems to be squeezing the late 50s early 60s for every drop they can. They are introducing modern stuff, but it doesn't seem to be catching on. IMO, their release of a 20th Anniversary edition of the *reissue* of a guitar tells the story pretty well. Gibson guitars are too hard to get hands on. While they've done a great job of keeping the prices up, they're slowly undoing the things people value in their guitars - nibs anybody? At the price point of Gibson, I'm NOT going to buy without trying the guitar out first. At present, it is too much trouble for me to hunt down specific models I want to try, and when I find them I have to travel. That travel will more than likely be to a GC or three. From my perspective, if GC were to go away, I would likely never see a real Gibson guitar in a shop ever again. Even with GC still hanging on, the selection of standard models is increasingly limited. OTOH, Fender is sold in my local shop. GC has been a great thing for me. I've shopped there and at smaller shops. When I do have to buy sight-unplayed, I can order from GC, try out the guitar, and return it to a brick/mortar GC. The downside? For all I know, the stock I do see in a GC all comes from returns. OTOH, when you're feeling put off by the idea that somebody has already played a guitar you're thinking of buying, ask yourself this question: "Was my spouse *really* a virgin when we married?" What's more important, your spouse or your guitar? Yes, I'm well aware that neither will have really low answer counts :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saturn Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 So let me understand Gibson's dilemma with GC.... I had heard years ago that Gibson required a store to purchase a minimum of $100,000.00 worth of inventory in order to be a licensed Gibson dealer. This ensured only the mega stores carried new Gibson products and left out the smaller, local shops. If GC ceased to be a "going concern", wouldn't Sweetwater and Sam Ash just pick up the slack? Or is it that GC purchased a bunch of Gibson stock on credit and might not pay up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 Aster pretty well nailed it again. I honestly cannot understand how Bain is targeted other than partisan politics when it's functionally every larger corporation doing exactly the same thing. And it's "us" responsible. Don't get me wrong, I'm not happy with what I see in current U.S. - and by extension, most worldwide - businesses, but there are so many factors involved that it's naive to point just to one. In a sense, we're "back to the '70s" when corporations were expanding into businesses they didn't know, then hired "experts" to manage them for those high stock returns. The problem is that a business plan that wasn't sustainable often was the one chosen by the board that represents the stockholders - as Aster noted, "us" - because that offered the greater profits. Many U.S. businesses, in fact, business segments, have dropped dead and/or shrank to cash cows with lessened "product" (which could be service) for exactly the same reason. Take the example of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union. Whether one is "pro" or "con" when it comes to unions, one cannot argue that the "management" of the union itself certainly did little to keep the clothing manufacturing trade in the U.S. Another factor, whether one likes it or not, is a matter of international treaties and international trade law. Much as it might seem a good idea to embargo certain sorts of foreign-made materials into one's more wealthy nation, in many cases it simply cannot be done. I have a hunch that some of that latter may be changing as everybody begins to look at their resources, both human and natural, and questioning whether their long-term strategic and economic interests are being well served. But as long as current law, national and international, holds, and as long as the economy of even semi-developed nations sinks under rising costs due to government actions, stockholders in any large corporate endeavor will seek their hedge in higher corporate profits. If we're among folks with retirement plan investments - as Aster noted, virtually all of us the U.S. at least - "we" are the ones forcing the economy into the mindset of maximum profits and then a selloff of stock into another corporation that is able to provide such high returns. Yeah, long run, we've a real problem. Short run, it's fear-ridden investments and shifting of such as retirement funds from a solid long-term business plan into short-term greater profits. That's demanded to keep many of those funds solvent - not the rich seeking greater riches, but the poor schmucks who believed "the system" would work for them regardless of politics. m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aster1 Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 So let me understand Gibson's dilemma with GC.... I had heard years ago that Gibson required a store to purchase a minimum of $100,000.00 worth of inventory in order to be a licensed Gibson dealer. This ensured only the mega stores carried new Gibson products and left out the smaller, local shops. If GC ceased to be a "going concern", wouldn't Sweetwater and Sam Ash just pick up the slack? Or is it that GC purchased a bunch of Gibson stock on credit and might not pay up? I had understood that GC owed a fair chunk of $$$ to about everyone when Bain Investment stepped in to turn it back around. Again, best understanding I had was that Bain negotiated with all the vendors to "float" the debt with GC and allow them to keep current and not belly up on them all. All the vendors knew that they'd get nothing at that point. This has been going on for several years (think buyout was in 2007 or 08). Sometimes selling prices to find the bottom doesn't work out that well. Panasonic, Sharp, LG, & most all other makers of HDTV's found that out a couple of years ago and have been raising their prices to recover profitability. The plan of losing $10/unit but making it up on massive volume has been disproven several times since I was in business school. Aster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveFord Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 Wait a minute, back up just a bit: you mean Lynda really wasn't a virgin? I guess that explains her two kids. One thing that Guitar Center needs to do is to remove Used Guitars from their site when they've been sold. That would be helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bender 4 Life Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 Really..? Thousand dollar bills you say? That's incredible. they did exist at one time, as bills for bank to bank transfer only, much as todays $10,000 "bill" (banknote) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookieman15061 Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 Wait a minute, back up just a bit: you mean Lynda really wasn't a virgin? I guess that explains her two kids. One thing that Guitar Center needs to do is to remove Used Guitars from their site when they've been sold. That would be helpful. LOL! You're right that is the ONE thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Searcy Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 they did exist at one time, as bills for bank to bank transfer only, much as todays $10,000 "bill" (banknote) Yea, I think they stopped printing them in the 40's. Still see them a lot in Guitar Center these days though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobF_ Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 $10,000 is the new $1,000. The $1,000 are used primarily for lighting cigars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modoc_333 Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 So let me understand Gibson's dilemma with GC.... I had heard years ago that Gibson required a store to purchase a minimum of $100,000.00 worth of inventory in order to be a licensed Gibson dealer. This ensured only the mega stores carried new Gibson products and left out the smaller, local shops. If GC ceased to be a "going concern", wouldn't Sweetwater and Sam Ash just pick up the slack? Or is it that GC purchased a bunch of Gibson stock on credit and might not pay up? Gibson doesn't have stock. It's privately owned and they aren't giving up ANY control. Just not their style. Also, someone mentioned earlier that Fender was in a better position than Gibson if GC went under. It may look like this from the outside if you are only looking at those buy-in requirements, but this really isn't true. Fender has requirements too... but WAY tighter money. Fender prices are almost all perfectly in the scope of GC. Gibson really doesn't sell as many high end at GC as you would think. Epi is the big mover there. I have a pretty good idea of how both companies are doing, and I would say that Fender is in the lesser position if GC tanks compared to Gibson. Here is something for you to think about..... Fender has a lot of smaller dealers, but most of their eggs are in the GC basket. Gibson has moved on to only their larger dealers. What happens if GC tanks? Well, Fender is left with what they have. Gibson can simply expand back out to those smaller dealers with new (easier) yearly requirements and make up some of that loss. Who is really in the better position then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobF_ Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Gibson doesn't have stock. It's privately owned and they aren't giving up ANY control. Just not their style. Also, someone mentioned earlier that Fender was in a better position than Gibson if GC went under. It may look like this from the outside if you are only looking at those buy-in requirements, but this really isn't true. Fender has requirements too... but WAY tighter money. Fender prices are almost all perfectly in the scope of GC. Gibson really doesn't sell as many high end at GC as you would think. Epi is the big mover there. I have a pretty good idea of how both companies are doing, and I would say that Fender is in the lesser position if GC tanks compared to Gibson. Here is something for you to think about..... Fender has a lot of smaller dealers, but most of their eggs are in the GC basket. Gibson has moved on to only their larger dealers. What happens if GC tanks? Well, Fender is left with what they have. Gibson can simply expand back out to those smaller dealers with new (easier) yearly requirements and make up some of that loss. Who is really in the better position then? Uh ... Fender? They are already where Gibson will have to move back to if GC fails. Also, re: stock. I'm pretty sure 'stock' was in reference to guitars in GC stores rather than shares of the company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modoc_333 Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Uh ... Fender? They are already where Gibson will have to move back to if GC fails. Also, re: stock. I'm pretty sure 'stock' was in reference to guitars in GC stores rather than shares of the company. you're probably right about the "stock". I just didn't read it right! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tweed2 Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 I've heard from more than one in the "Business" that F*nd*r is having financial issues and GC is being dragged down by it, too. I have no reason to doubt them, if anybody knows what's going on, they would. Too bad on both counts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.