Re: (Hudson in respect to AMC)

[Jerry Casper <gremlingts@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- farna@xxxxxxx wrote:

> Well, Hudson was obviously the weaker company
> finance wise,...I'm of the
> opinion that the so called merger hurt Nash/AMC more
> than it helped. There was a gain of dealer
> locations, but a lot of them switched to other
> makes. So other than talent, what was any gain???

  Like many mergers, the "stronger" company sells off
the  brick-and-mortar assets ( real estate, machinery,
and any other concrete assets that are not needed in
the new company ) to help finance the merger and to
take whatever is left useful for the new. Could have
been increased dealer networks, even if some did
switch. I think the real estate assets are probably
what helped finance AMC as they divested themselves of
Hudson's out-dated plants and resold them. There must
have been some reason to do the merger, otherwise sane
business men wouldn't bother. COnsidering that AMC
stayed in business another 33 years is a testament to
the triumph over the tragedy of the times. 





		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail