Fender Going Public. Are you going to buy shares?

[Toppscore]

NO, Silly! NOT an April Fools Joke.

This is serious. Probably a May Wall Street Public Offering.
Trading under the symbol "FDNR".

http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_new...llion-offering

Are you going to buy shares in the company the supplies your income tools?

Work hard.
Save your money.
Buy Telecasters and Fender products.
Here is your chance to fund your 401K,
lifetime health benefits
and your kid's college education.

Play a Telecaster ~ Have a Life!!!
Toppscore

[Lee Harvey]

Not interested.

[SoK66]

This is an ominous sign. They are many millions in debt and are going public for that reason. Not a good position to be in, signaling their existing revenue and sales forecasts won't be enough to cover the debt, reinvest, etc. Look for US production to end in all but high end offerings, probably close Corona production, etc. Sad.

[wallis222]

Originally Posted by SoK66

This is an ominous sign. They are many millions in debt and are going public for that reason. Not a good position to be in, signaling their existing revenue and sales forecasts won't be enough to cover the debt, reinvest, etc. Look for US production to end in all but high end offerings, probably close Corona production, etc. Sad.

+1

[JDRNoPro]

I've thought about it but have had concens about the very points SoK66 outlined.

Might be fun to have some ownership of the Fender name, but doesn't meet my investing criteria.......unfortunately.

[keithb7]

Once a company becomes a publicly traded company things change. In the end, the directors must make decisions that will be best for stock values and not for it's customers. I would like to hear of an example that proves my theory wrong. Investors want to see a good profit for their investments. A lot of them might invest in hops, oil, pork bellies or Fender. Makes no difference as long as they get a good return rate. Fender will be trying to bring in those investors by showing strong share prices. More often than not, through almost any means possible within their area of experise. As long as Fender puts out great products and we keep buying them, they'll be fine. If they start to cut corners to drive costs down and profits up, oh boy, we have a problem.

[Toppscore]

Originally Posted by keithb7

Once a company becomes a publicly traded company things change. In the end, the directors must make decisions that will be best for stock values and not for it's customers. I would like to hear of an example that proves my theory wrong. Investors want to see a good profit for their investments. A lot of them might invest in hops, oil, pork bellies or Fender. Makes no difference as long as they get a good return rate. Fender will be trying to bring in those investors by showing strong share prices. More often than not, through almost any means possible within their area of experise. As long as Fender puts out great products and we keep buying them, they'll be fine. If they start to cut corners to drive costs down and profits up, oh boy, we have a problem.

Thanks, Keith. I agree with what you say. Mismanagement and misunderstanding
the market place has got to have cost Fender profit and market share.

Does Fender really need all of the Squire guitars, Mustang amps & the way too many various product lines?
Can't Fender have fewer product lines and incorporate models from low to high within fewer BRAND NAMEs
with different features & quality? I feel Squire competes with the low-end Fender Mexican and
low-end Fender American. I feel the Mustang amp line-up takes sales away from other areas.

I invest in a lot of stock. I have read about Fender, and if it was a smaller & less significant
musical instrument company, it would go under or be sold to a competitor.

But, Fender is a "Name Brand Icon" part of Americana and should get the extra boost it deserves, IMHO.
If that means having a board of directors and voting in professional business and marketing managers,
I am all for it! When CBS took over, Fender was just a sub-division of CBS with less day-to-day
hands on decision making. When the employees bought it back, the most popular players left standing
got the management positions. Were they the best to REALLY RUN Fender??? Doubt it.

Now, we get a chance to look forward, root for, bring our love and passion
to be directed towards a much better and more well managed company. I cannot wait.

Do you want Fender to be run by Asian or European or South American Billionaires? Not Me.

Look at the following companies that are still USA owned. They all have had ups & downs.

Name ONE of the following companies you'd LOVE to see owned by FOREIGNERS?

General Motors
Coca Cola
Green Bay Packers Football
Harley Davidson Motorcycles
Boston Celtics Basketball
IBM
Fender Guitars & Amplifiers
Facebook
Google
Apple

Toppscore

[winny pooh]

Wait, Fender is in debt?! How is this possible?

[Donald77]

a good question..

[Toppscore]

Originally Posted by winny pooh

Wait, Fender is in debt?! How is this possible?

How many Fender amps, guitars & accessories have
you ever purchased brand new from Fender Dealers?

Toppscore

[winny pooh]

Originally Posted by Toppscore

How many Fender amps, guitars & accessories have
you ever purchased brand new from Fender Dealers?

Toppscore

It's bad manners to answer a question with a question. Hard facts are preferable please.

[pondcaster]

Still waiting to hear some idea of what the price per share will be?

Would like to own a few shares for fun but definitely not intending to make any real $ on them... not like KO for instance.

Yep, I'm kinda surprised to hear (in this thread) that Fender is in trouble, money-wise?

[CoolBlueGlow]

Fender has a quarter billion in debt, against revenues of about 700m. Biggest debtor is Guitar Center.

They lost money in 2010 and managed a small profit in 2011.

IMO, the brand is extended about as far as it can go. All that leaves is memorabilia and trinket sales, or the extension of cheap cheap cheap into foreign markets. That doesn't sound like a recipe for a solid investment to me.

just my 2c

CBG

[WireLine]

Your 2c is likely worth more than their stock. Think about this: Fender really doesn't produce anything that will be worthwhile in 5 yrs anymore. Their main competitors are their own ghosts, as the very best things ever produced by the brand are pretty much accepted as public domain, and cannot be produced by Fender at a reasonable price point anymore. The market for their product lines shrinks every few years. They have expanded to the auto sound market for whatever reason. The company takes the best sounding (IE most expensive) items off the market, opting to flood the market with inexpensive stuff that appeals to the 'thousands of mediocre sounds' crowd instead of 'two GREAT sounds' market - this seems like corporate Hail Mary.

Originally Posted by CoolBlueGlow

IMO, the brand is extended about as far as it can go. All that leaves is memorabilia and trinket sales, or the extension of cheap cheap cheap into foreign markets. That doesn't sound like a recipe for a solid investment to me.

just my 2c

CBG

[Toppscore]

Originally Posted by winny pooh

Wait, Fender is in debt?! How is this possible?

Winny. You answered your own question with a question
I was just taking charm school lessons from you



Anyway, why has Fender lost money or how is it possible?

1000s of companies lose money.
Fender would not go under, just would set itself up for a take over.
As I mentioned, and being a marketing & advertising professional,
IMHO, they have too many confusing product lines.

Fender easily could have the Mexican, Japanese & American
product lines, and have each one represent a different level price point.

Fender could get rid of the lower name brands (Squire Mustang amps, etc)
and maintain the top end brands. Fender could merge all guitars under the
Fender Name and keep the Telecaster Stratocaster Jaguar Mustang etc
Get rid of the Squire Tele & Strat and make those models low-end regular Fenders.

Just as the auto companies do, like GM.
GM owns the Brands: Ponitac Buick Oldsmobile Chevy Volt Camero Cadillac, etc.
Then within each brand are many different cars with various features, quality & pricing.

Anyway, you have to love certain Fender products and wade through others.
Toppscore

[yark14]

Originally Posted by Toppscore

Thanks, Keith. I agree with what you say. Mismanagement and misunderstanding
the market place has got to have cost Fender profit and market share.

Does Fender really need all of the Squire guitars, Mustang amps & the way too many various product lines?
Can't Fender have fewer product lines and incorporate models from low to high within fewer BRAND NAMEs
with different features & quality? I feel Squire competes with the low-end Fender Mexican and
low-end Fender American. I feel the Mustang amp line-up takes sales away from other areas.

Interesting points, however, I think the Squier line and Mustang amps are what keep the company afloat. Someone in this thread mentioned that Fender had revenues of $700 million....if you take the cheaper stuff out of their line, that revenue figure drops significantly.

Does the Mustang take sales from other areas? Probably. You also have to remember that they are competing against other companies, not just themselves. Digital modeling technology is exploding right now in terms of quality, and will be the dominant amp type for the near future. The Mustang line is, IMO, easily the best out there. Without the Mustang line, VOX, Roland, Line 6, etc., would dominate total amp sales. Fender can't afford to give up their position in the amp marketplace.

As far as guitars and the multiple brands...they want to produce a guitar for each price point. Sure, the Squiers are cheap copies of the Fender guitars, but if Squier used their own unique designs - sales would go way down. The classic strat and tele image/sound for very little $ is why Squier has been successful.

Now, the same "competing against ourselves vs. others" point that I made about the Mustang amps applies to the Squier guitars too. A ton of companies make cheap knock off strat copies, cheap knock offs are by far the highest selling guitars in the world in terms of volume. Those guitars will be made and sold for $50-200, and there is nothing Fender can do about it except make their own guitars to compete in that price point. They do a heck of a job too, IMO.

Now, about the brand names. They don't want to dilute the Fender name. Branding a $129 Bullet as a Fender harms the perceived quality of the $1000+ MIA guitars. There needs to be a way to differentiate the different products across the price spectrum. It'd be like Ferrari putting their name on a $20,000 cheap family sedan. That is why higher priced GM cars are branded Cadillac, and Lexus is the luxury division of Toyota.

[m.hallier]

Originally Posted by Toppscore

How many Fender amps, guitars & accessories have
you ever purchased brand new from Fender Dealers?

Toppscore

All of my fender products have came new from a fender dealer and 95 % of those are from a local dealer.
I just prefer buying new.

[Toppscore]

Originally Posted by WireLine

Your 2c is likely worth more than their stock. Think about this: Fender really doesn't produce anything that will be worthwhile in 5 yrs anymore. Their main competitors are their own ghosts, as the very best things ever produced by the brand are pretty much accepted as public domain, and cannot be produced by Fender at a reasonable price point anymore. The market for their product lines shrinks every few years. They have expanded to the auto sound market for whatever reason. The company takes the best sounding (IE most expensive) items off the market, opting to flood the market with inexpensive stuff that appeals to the 'thousands of mediocre sounds' crowd instead of 'two GREAT sounds' market - this seems like corporate Hail Mary.

Every company has current and past products that customers like or dislike.
I believe the current line-up of Fender products is prettly darn good.
Look at all of the custom shop amps and custom shop guitars.

I would love to own the $5000 VibroKing.
Look at all of the great new products.

I own the following three modern amps (as well as 10 other vintage amps):
The Fender G-DEC -Thirty is totally awesome
The Fender Supersonic series are a fantastic mix of tubes and modern technology
Plus, Fender is an innovator. I just bought a CyberTwin.
The CyberTwin is NOT a modeling amp, but a fantastic break through in technology
applied towards the Twin Reverb type chassis with tons of tonal options.

I cannot wait to get my hands on the new Fender Machete 1x12 Combo Amp.

I just went down Fender's list of amps and of the highest priced 25 amps,
all are good. And will be around for five or more years to come.

Most boutique amps are Ma-Pa shops copying others while adding a touch
of something trying to be unique. Who can keep up with a big company like
Fender when it comes to R&D and applying new technology into modern
amps at a good price point? Fender is not perfect. I believe they need
management changes and a stock offering will be great towards that end.

But, for the masses, Fender is the best at offering excellent low-end products.
For the real "picky pros" and hobbyists, Fender competes very well.
There are just too many Fender products for someone to brush off Fender
in one big swoop. Fender will be around.

I will probably buy 100 shares. My bet is that they will open up a $12-$15/share.

Toppscore

[Toppscore]

Originally Posted by m.hallier

All of my fender products have came new from a fender dealer
and 95 % of those are from a local dealer. I just prefer buying new.

You buy new, local, green and with a Five Year Fender Warranty!!!
You get ten shares of "Good Customer Stock".

I also buy new.
Never know who sat on that amp last

Toppscore

[Toppscore]

Originally Posted by yark14

Interesting points, however, I think the Squier line and Mustang amps are what keep the company afloat. Someone in this thread mentioned that Fender had revenues of $700 million....if you take the cheaper stuff out of their line, that revenue figure drops significantly.

Does the Mustang take sales from other areas? Probably. You also have to remember that they are competing against other companies, not just themselves. Digital modeling technology is exploding right now in terms of quality, and will be the dominant amp type for the near future. The Mustang line is, IMO, easily the best out there. Without the Mustang line, VOX, Roland, Line 6, etc., would dominate total amp sales. Fender can't afford to give up their position in the amp marketplace.

As far as guitars and the multiple brands...they want to produce a guitar for each price point. Sure, the Squiers are cheap copies of the Fender guitars, but if Squier used their own unique designs - sales would go way down. The classic strat and tele image/sound for very little $ is why Squier has been successful.

Now, the same "competing against ourselves vs. others" point that I made about the Mustang amps applies to the Squier guitars too. A ton of companies make cheap knock off strat copies, cheap knock offs are by far the highest selling guitars in the world in terms of volume. Those guitars will be made and sold for $50-200, and there is nothing Fender can do about it except make their own guitars to compete in that price point. They do a heck of a job too, IMO.

Now, about the brand names. They don't want to dilute the Fender name. Branding a $129 Bullet as a Fender harms the perceived quality of the $1000+ MIA guitars. There needs to be a way to differentiate the different products across the price spectrum. It'd be like Ferrari putting their name on a $20,000 cheap family sedan. That is why higher priced GM cars are branded Cadillac, and Lexus is the luxury division of Toyota.

I am not saying to get rid of the lower end amps and axes.
I am saying keep the name "Fender" on all of them:
Fender Stratocaster
NOT Fender Squire Stratocaster II
. . . . . have the right models and price points, just less brands, IMHO.

The point is, Frontman Mustang PawnShop HotRod, etc. Gets confusing.
There are another ten different Fender amplifier brands, as well as the
above four "low-end" brands.

Keep the Fender products, just market them
better while under fewer "SUB"-Fender names
. . . . as does General Motors with a variety of cars.
Much less marketing and advertising costs,
less product divisions and overhead and "less being different"
and more being towards one solid company.

Toppscore