Pages

Saturday, October 19, 2024

Hammerfall 2.0: Bouncing The Rubble

(Editor's note:  My apologies; responses may be delayed as I am headed to The Ranch this weekend for my monthly visit.)

One of the last vestiges of the layoff that indirectly triggered this entire relocation to New Home 2.0 -  rather unoriginally known as "Hammerfall 2.0" (to differentiate it from my first layoff in 2009 "Hammerfall") is the fact that I have continued to stalk my former employer on line.

Originally this was done from somewhat from a sense of tracking my friends and former workers (most of whom had their own Hammerfall a month after we were gone), but also from a rather long standing habit I have of tracking my former employers to track the one of two seemingly inevitable outcomes:  buyout/merger or liquidation.  My record here stands almost unvanquished in this one realm:  few of the companies that I have left through layoffs or moving on make in on their own.  Most of that is simply due to the modern market of the biopharmaceutical industry:  If you cannot go big (and few companies can, anymore) you either need to have something someone else wants or prepare to fight a rearguard action against dwindling funds and likely dwindling interest.

This week, the law averages caught up with my former employer.

There was a hint of course, a big solid hint when at the annual meeting three weeks ago, they laid off 60% of their current employees (I keep a few shares from my one time "This is the thing that is going to propel me to retirement" options trove, mostly so I can vote in the annual meeting).  The simple math after the layoff indicated they had something like 12 employees remaining after that.  12 employees, in case you are wondering, is not enough to keep a biopharmaceutical company running, especially with clinical trials ongoing.

Last Friday, after hours, they lazily let an SEC filing slip into the InterWeb (doubly convenient as it was a banking holiday on Monday) that the Board of Directors, after a careful review of the situation, had decided to wind the company down - followed by the typical sorts of things one finds in these announcements:  continuing to seek opportunities to partner, have engaged a third party firm to assist this process, all but key management laid off, etc. etc.

The stock price acted pretty much like you would expect, plummeting an amazing 73.5% upon the news.

For once I can take a ball park guess at the amount of money that was wasted (there is no other word) during the life of this company.  My estimate:  Probably around $200-250 million, of which only approximately $9.5 million remained at the end of 30 June 2024.  And a then burn-rate of $8.1 million a quarter, which means they were pretty much down to pocket change and coupons:  even a fool like me can do the math.

Oh, the promise that was there. Oh, the great things that were going to be done. Oh, the enlightened corporate atmosphere we were to have.  All now reduced to a number of empty labs and manufacturing spaces filled with equipment, reagents, product, supplies - and no-one to utilize them.

The end is written:  investors, creditors, and companies looking for a bargain will swoop in and buy things for pennies on the dollar.  The documentation and quality systems will quietly pass into the server version of limbo, the product (if there is anything left) sold off or disposed of, the office furniture and lab fittings and manufacturing equipment (at one point we had over 200,000 square feet of office, lab, and manufacturing space) disbursed among new, eager companies ready to try their luck or old ones looking to start up pilot plants and labs.  The name - as they always do - will slowly fade into the background of people's resumes, becoming a wispy memory that is never mentioned again other than "Oh yes, at one time I lived in New Home and worked at Company X".

I have a few corporate sanctioned materials:  A rather nice shirt, a coffee mug (I always keep the coffee mugs), a yoga mat.  Likely I could write them off as a donation for more than my stock is worth now.

This is the way.  This has always been the way.

You may note I sound bitter. I am, probably a bit more than most of the companies I have been at.  The errors were too big and the spending too egregious for anyone but the willingly ignorant and deceived to miss the signs.  Like many startups, they forgot their first job was to make product and generate income, not to do everything under the sun.  And like many startups, they failed in a series of downward falls, the wreckage of human lives strewn across the proverbial landscape.

And now, the baleful eye of Sauron turns towards the initiator of Hammerfall 3.0.  There can only be, of course the Current Employer to rule them all.

10 comments:

  1. Nylon127:15 AM

    An interesting look into your industry TB, coffee mugs and shirts, the detritus of employers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nylon12, for every company that "makes" it there are a large number that do not. Some of them are scrappy startups that manage their resources well and focus on the end goal: getting a product to market. Others focus on being everything a modern startup is supposed to be, forgetting the fact that "modern" companies that have things like mugs, shirts, free or subsidized foods or drinks, activities, etc. are companies that have established their income stream - it is an outcome, not an input.

      Too many companies have fooled themselves - across all industries - that they have to provide the extras for the work environment, and too many people have convinced themselves they will only work at they will only work at companies that provide such things. Are they nice? Sure? Are the earned? Also yes.

      I fear a great many of us - who knows, myself included perhaps - are about to experience the reality of what "earning a living" really means.

      Delete
  2. Anonymous8:23 AM

    Almost sounds like the world of heavy construction in a way, we just get hammerfall more often

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon - It goes on a lot in the shadows. Occasionally the larger failures come to light, but if there is no need to report things they do not. If one did not know this company, you would never have found it. It was buried in the SEC filings, not the press releases.

      Delete
  3. I can't remember exactly which book it was, "The Millionaire Next Door" by Thomas Stanley or " Bogleheads Guide to Investing" by Taylor, but one of them studied businesses and it was something like 90%+ of all new businesses fail within the first so many years. It is a staggering amount. But, as Stanley researched, most millionaires are self made people from starting their own business, which I suppose is why people keep starting new businesses despite the odds.

    On a somewhat related note, if I had to list the most influential books on my life, those books would be numbers 1 and 2.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would believe those statistics Ed. And traditionally I think it has been a road to wealth - but I think the elements of that, discipline and hard work, could be applied in other ways to reach the same end. example, I failed my own small business. I have done pretty by working in my industry, living, somewhat frugally, and doing some not too original, saving and investing through company available plans and a financial adviser.

      The sad reality a lot of people do not want to believe is that there is no quick road to financial success, only a lot of hard work.

      Delete
  4. Interesting post, TB. Dan and I have seen similar in his industry, trucking. This sort of thing seems to be a pattern and makes me think the system is set up to allow for failure without impunity. I'm guessing there aren't consequences enough to motivate people to not fail, to motivate them to work hard at making a business a success.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Leigh, the reality is that there are a number of points where this sort of things is supposed to be caught. As a corporation, there is a board of directors that is supposed to act on behalf of the best interests of the investors. They seem to not do this, but rather take executive management at face value. Executive management is supposed to be able to provide leadership towards success through business acumen and experience. They apparently failed to provide either. And goodness, even the institutional investors are supposed to represent the best interests of their companies. Even as late as a month ago, they voted in a bloc to support executive management.

      There are the sorts of things that make capitalism hard to justify

      Delete
  5. Enjoy your epicaricacy. You've earned it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John, the odd thing is that I hate being right about these kind of things. Yet, I more often than not seem to be on the mark.

      Delete

Comments are welcome (and necessary, for good conversation). If you could take the time to be kind and not practice profanity, it would be appreciated. Thanks for posting!