Oops, they did it again (aka, Buffet sells themselves. Again)

Steve

Clarinet CE/Moderator
Staff member
CE/Moderator
April 3, 2012 - Fondations Capital acquires Buffet Group together with CDC Enterprises and the management

Fondations Capital announces the completion of the acqisition of Buffet Group for an enterprise value of 58 million euros.

Fondations Capital has completed the acquisition of Buffet Group for an enterprise value of 58 million euros, representing 7.9 times last twelve months EBITDA.

http://www.fondationscapital.com/uploads/actualites/communique/59-pr-buffet-group-en.pdf
 
For those of us who haven't done accounting for a long, long time (like me), definition.

Interestingly, Fondations Capital, according to their website, owns a restaurant chain and a prefab-concrete industry. Let's see ... well, they could put musical instruments directly IN the walls, rather than hanging them ON the walls ....

If you look at Fondation Capital's website and look at their "Who We Are" page, keep in mind that "EBITDA" bit: looks like they're going to try to make as much profit as possible from Buffet Group, even if that means reselling them. I think that there might be a good chance of splitting off portions of the Buffet Group and selling them to the highest bidder, discontinuing marques that are unprofitable (or not profitable enough) or just selling off the entire Buffet Group to the highest bidder.

I'm fairly sure that whatever will happen will happen in a year or less.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
...is there an eBay department for companies, shell or shelf corporations?
 
Would it be naive to hope that the Buffet Group (more specifically Keilwerth, for whom I have just become a dealer) could benefit from this?
That's difficult to say - it probably depends on the motivation of the new owner (or whoever buys a company) - it just to park some money, to bolster up the portfolio for a future trade, to sustainably earn money, or to make the world a better place by tearing a musical instrument manufacturer's company from the sharks' greedy fangs? (cue angelic choruses and cheesy sun-through-clouds effects)

When I was young, many successful companies were actually owned by whomever knew shop, business and marketplace, and who was actually working there (if only as a patron, but nonetheless). But that was when a company's worth was measured by the inner value of their products or services, and not the name stamped on the product.
 
Last edited:
about a decade ago (and more) in the US companies started buying other companies to diversify their core product risk by increasing their portfolio of companies. This was mostly companies that had some relevance to the core products.

CitiBank, or CitiGroup now is a prime example. mergers and buyouts in their industry. Buying other banks to expand customer base and outreach.

But then the recent move has been to go back to core products, the basis of what the "company" is all about. CitiGroup selling off assets (of course the financial crisis didn't help), and other large companies selling/splitting to get back to core fundamentals (Kraft foods).

But a cement & restaurant company buying a musical instrument company does not make much sense other than to grab a profitable company for pure profits. (ie, Daimler Benz of Chrylser to grab the cash pot that they had, though at least that was the same industry).

We can probably take a good guess that fondations does not have the knowledge to reengineer/streamline the BUffet Group.

But then why did the Buffet group allow this?

Did they need an infusion of capital and in europe I'm not sure if the banks are out to loan corporations money at this time ?? (in 2008/2009 you couldn't pay a bank to get a loan in the US - I tried to get a $5,000 loan with a cash $5,000 collateral .. go figure)

right now with the Euro woes and this that I read this past week, I wouldn't want to own a large company in france at the moment
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-05-03/why-france-has-so-many-49-employee-companies

of course, a little search found the public strategy ...
http://www.mmrmagazine.com/4948/news/fondations-capital-acquires-buffet-group/

Bank financing of the acquisition has been provided by BNP Paribas, HSBC, LCL and Banque Palatine allowing for a reduction of the indebtedness and providing flexibility to finance future growth.

As the new shareholder of Buffet Group, Fondations Capital intends to implement with the management, led by Antoine Beaussant, a growth strategy through, “organic growth and acquisitions in order to establish the group as the world reference in wind instruments.”

Antoine Beaussant, CEO of Buffet Group, said, “We are leading a deep and rapid transformation of our group while respecting the fundamental values of our brands, associated with innovation and technology. Fondations Capital will allow us to further expand the global reach of our group through new investments and new acquisitions.”

Xavier Marin, CEO of Fondations Capital, added, “Buffet Group is a French company of excellence, with production sites in Europe and a local presence from Japan to Brazil. It will take advantage of the development of musical practice throughout the world and will play an active role of consolidation in its industry.”

I guess they plan on buying Yamaha, Conn-Selmer and Steinway.
 
Transformation is the latest management speak. It means stuff around and hope we can cover the cracks well enough to find a buyer at a higher price.

Gives me the creeps.

Why do these guys have to re-invent English and avoid reality?
 
I generally say, "Oooh. Shiny." Result's the same.

FWIW, I understand the concept of what they think: company A does something that makes its business really, really profitable and they buy company B and think that they can make company B as profitable using similar techniques, regardless of the fact that A and B are two completely different businesses. A LOT of buyers don't go further into understanding how a process that worked in company A can't work in company B because they're way too dissimilar.

It SOUNDS like Buffet Group isn't profitable at the moment. If the reason for this is just because management doesn't know how to manage, that can be fixed. If the problem is more, "Our products just can't compete in this market!" that's a big problem that Fondations will probably not have a solution for.
 
I can't speak for European corporations, but in the USA, standard procedure is:

1. A Corporation is purchased and put under new management

2. New management seeks ways to cut costs. This usually means cutting quality, firing highly paid and experienced workers and hiring cheaper labor with little or no experience.

3. New management seeks to increase the perceived value of the newly purchased corporation. In the case of a brand name that commands respect (Buffet, Keilwerth), this means spending the money saved in labor costs on advertising.

4. In the short term, profitability of the newly purchased corporation increases. Management takes a bow, assumes credit for everything, sells the corporation, and finds another corporation to destroy. The once proud corporation is left to the new owner, but it now produces crap, and dies.

5. One CEO makes multi-millions. The world loses a priceless commodity.
 
I can't speak for European corporations, but in the USA, standard procedure is:

1. A Corporation is purchased and put under new management

2. New management seeks ways to cut costs. This usually means cutting quality, firing highly paid and experienced workers and hiring cheaper labor with little or no experience.

3. New management seeks to increase the perceived value of the newly purchased corporation. In the case of a brand name that commands respect (Buffet, Keilwerth), this means spending the money saved in labor costs on advertising.

4. In the short term, profitability of the newly purchased corporation increases. Management takes a bow, assumes credit for everything, sells the corporation, and finds another corporation to destroy. The once proud corporation is left to the new owner, but it now produces crap, and dies.

5. One CEO makes multi-millions. The world loses a priceless commodity.

Yes, agree - you missed two points:

Company A strips assets from company B in the form of cash, patents, specialist knowledge, key employees and transfers it to their own company.

Company A blames pervious owners, or post company A owners when the victim (comapny B) fails, previous owners when it's still on company A's watch, buyers once Com[any A has exited with a fat profit.

ITT, Bell, ICI, Landrover, ICL...... Anyone
 
However, I don't see how Buffet's patents will help in the concrete and/or restaurant business :).

Y'know, maybe Fondations screwed up and they thought that they were buying an all-you-can-eat Buffet chain.
 
BTW, while I am cracking jokes, it's gallows humor: Keilwerth was rescued from insolvency by Buffet and now Buffet needs rescuing. I have worked for several companies that have gone bankrupt and/or have been purchased while I've been working there and it's not fun. At the very least, you have that queasy feeling in the pit of your stomach that any day the new company is either going to axe your entire department or ship you to a different job that will be for less pay -- or is more work for the same pay. In other words, and especially because I know we've had a couple Buffet Group and Keilwerth folks browse here, I do feel for you. I hope it all works out!

I've also been an accountant at a large company that was (surprise!) bought out. I can understand how the finance folks think. You tend to think in a bit of an impersonal way because everything's numbers. If you sat down and really thought, "Hey. There's no more budget for IT. How are those folks going to do their job? How is this going to affect the other employees that need IT support?", you'd probably decide that you should change professions.
 
I can't speak for European corporations, but in the USA, standard procedure is:

1. A Corporation is purchased and put under new management

2. New management seeks ways to cut costs. This usually means cutting quality, firing highly paid and experienced workers and hiring cheaper labor with little or no experience.

3. New management seeks to increase the perceived value of the newly purchased corporation. In the case of a brand name that commands respect (Buffet, Keilwerth), this means spending the money saved in labor costs on advertising.

4. In the short term, profitability of the newly purchased corporation increases. Management takes a bow, assumes credit for everything, sells the corporation, and finds another corporation to destroy. The once proud corporation is left to the new owner, but it now produces crap, and dies.

5. One CEO makes multi-millions. The world loses a priceless commodity.

French companies are severely restricted by their labor code, even more so than Germany is.
I provided a link above in reference to it. They cannot operate the same as US companies when it comes to eliminating labor.

The labor code seems to not take into varying sales and manufacturing trends, and anything else that adds a variable to manufacturing costs including labor. If you go above 49 employees you better be really sure that you can forecast your longevity in the industry. As for steamlining, if you automate your technologies and improve profits, you cannot just eliminate people.

“If you make a mistake in your hiring plans, you can’t correct it.”
...
“For the 100 employees we have in France, we have 10 employee representatives, for whom we have to organize weekly meetings even when there is nothing to discuss,” Haan says. “Every time a social security contribution changes, which is frequently, we have to update software and send our HR people for training. We can’t fire anyone without exorbitant costs.”

The code sets hurdles for any company that seeks to shed jobs when it’s turning a profit. It also grants judges the authority to reverse staff cuts years after they’re initiated if companies don't follow the rules. The courts even deem some violations of the code a criminal offense that could send executives to jail.
...
Software maker Viveo Group, an arm of Geneva-based Temenos Group, began the required talks with the workers’ council in February 2010 because it wanted to cut about a third of its 180-member staff, according to court records. Viveo offered employees a voluntary departure plan in June of that year as the council dragged its feet on evaluating the earlier proposal, court records show. The workers’ council then went to court to block the cuts. It won a ruling against the original plan in January 2011 on the grounds that Viveo was forecasting an 18 percent increase in sales, meaning its future didn’t depend on the layoffs. France’s highest appeals court is reviewing the decision and is expected to rule on May 3. “What holds back hiring in France is the lack of clarity on how to legally cut jobs,” says Déborah David, a labor lawyer at Jeantet Associés in Paris who has followed the case. If the decision is upheld, Viveo will have to take back the workers and hand over two and a half years in back pay, she says.
 
So I'm going to guess that the Buffet group is profitable to an extent. But if sales drops and inventory increases they end up being business as usual no matter if they stop production like they do in the US to let demand catch up with supply.

It's really an interesting labor code that they have in France ... one which would, as stated, stifle businesses.

Additionally, I believe France only allows 35 hour work weeks. I found this interesting in regards to Formula1 because a few years ago Renault (based in France) complained that they could not work their french staff more than 35 hours whereas in England the F1 teams worked the staff as much as needed.

This article sounded all nice, except for the last paragraph
http://www.expatica.com/fr/employment/employment_information/French-labour-law-Contracts_16104.html
Labour law
It is famously difficult to fire an employee in France; the French worker is protected on all sides and it is always the employer who is looked upon with suspicion. All dismissals must follow very strict procedures and an employer must request a meeting (in writing) with the employee in question, and the employee has the right to have a co-worker or union rep present during the meeting. The dismissal itself must be executed with a written document which explains precisely the legal reasons for the firing.


DISCLAIMER: I'm just a business economist. Please consult your labor lawyers in france for more accurate information. :p

more french labor law info
http://www.economist.com/node/17421434


page 32 on is quite interesting
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=lawfirms
 
Last edited:
It's really an interesting labor code that they have in France ... one which would, as stated, stifle businesses.

DISCLAIMER: I'm just a business economist. Please consult your labor lawyers in france for more accurate information. :p

These labor laws are typical of Southern Europe (France included) and are seen as the main reason why these countries have, paradox !?, a higher unemployement rate than, say, Germany or Switzerland. If you are an entrepreneur with a small company and a big order, you can't hire extra workers to do the job, knowing you'll be forbidden to dismiss them if business goes down. Thus your company will go down the drain at the next crisis and disappear when it could have survived and rehired had it survived.
 
Couple of points... There's no requirement to hire new staff as permanents employees. And many companies, govt included in Germany, employ people on temporary contracts. Many of the teachers, for instance, are employed on contract and do not know from one year to the next whether their job is secure or not. After a time, these temporary contracts are treated as permanent, but after a time (years).

Trouble comes in the other way in the US - good guys get fired to maximise profits... Families and especially kids suffer.

Perhaps we have too much labour protection here, but you certainly have too little. And the two extremes haven't done a lot to help Europe or the US compete with the low costs of prodcution in the far east. In some ways you could argue that the lack of labour protection in the US has fuelled the move to far eastern, instead of US based manufacturing.

Personally I believe we need something in between these extremes, but the US' lack of labour protection was one of the factors which stopped me from moving there a few years back when I needed to set up a new home in a new country.
 
Couple more points...

In a way, our current system seems to become a victim of its own success.

- In order to increase profits, manufacturers reduce cost, in many cases by reducing staff.
- equal productivity with decreased staffing requires an increase in automation.
- increased automation allows manufacturers with less skilled employees to be competitive.
- new manufacturers will likely sell products at a lower price than their well-established competitors (unless they're operating the luxury segment)
- the trend to save manifests itself also on the demand side. Requirements may be bent a bit in favour of reduced prices. Consumers buy cheaper merchandise as long as it is considered "good enough".
- manufacturers witness a decrease in profitabilty and also in sales volume as there are more competitors fighting for a more or less stable number of consumers.
- manufacturers will figure a way to reduce their product cost even more. Reduce staff, outsource labour, go offshore, ...
- And we're spiralling down...

Now I am not talking about protecting local marketplaces. But unless we consumers are willing to pay more for a good product manufactured under good conditions...and unless manufacturers are willing to hand down some of the profit to their workforce, then I believe that sooner or later our model will crash as much as Communism has.

Maybe it's time that we expand "fair trade" to our own countries... ;-)
 
...
- And we're spiralling down...

Now I am not talking about protecting local marketplaces. But unless we consumers are willing to pay more for a good product manufactured under good conditions...and unless manufacturers are willing to hand down some of the profit to their workforce, then I believe that sooner or later our model will crash as much as Communism has.

Maybe it's time that we expand "fair trade" to our own countries... ;-)

And thus the two base problems.

Consumers want to spend as little as possible on a given item
and Manufacturers want to maximize profits for the shareholders.

With consumers this is easy to see and understand. Why should we pay retail for a sax when we can buy it from a mailorder company. Siimple math .. spend $6,000 for a clarinet/sax at a retail place or pay $3,500 for it from a mailorder place. It doesn't take rocket science to figure out the result once the consumer is educated enough.

This was the trend I first came about in 1980s when I bought my Selmer sax ... from (what is now WWBW.com) versus the local retail store which wanted much more for it of which my paperroute money couldn't afford.

Of course the shift to consumers spending less reduces the total profitability from raw materials to the store shelves. Which leave industries wanting to keep up the profitability for shareholders thus they look for lower cost manufacturing.

Many industries have left the US ... electronics (to Japan in the 1970's & 80s) Hello SONY .. goodbye FISHER.

The cotton & textile/clothing manufacturing (in the 1980's & 90s).

Automotive in the 1990s. The company I worked for in 2005ish we were paying (including benefits) $18ish per hour per employee in our texas plant, $8 ish per hour per employee for our Mexico plant (in visual sight of the US plant) and $0.25 per hour per employee for our China plant. We closed our UK, Australian and German plant already due to too high of production (labor) costs. Why ? our competitors were sourcing most of their products from China and we were last to do so.

This of course excludes shipping costs with China being the largest with the longest lead times.
 
The US laws favor businesses and free trade. There are business that have moved their corporate headquarters from the US to places like the Bahamas
(I can't find the article I really want to find but this is somewhat informative)
http://www.focus.com/fyi/10-big-businesses-that-have-moved-abroad/


And even Apple is in that game. They are based in California, but to bypass taxes they have an office in Nevada (no taxes).
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/b...x-states-and-nations.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
 
Back
Top Bottom