This was done by Cerberus, they saddled Remington with a bunch of debt that really wasn’t theirs, taking liquidity/equity out of the company and basically playing a shell game to move the money to other holdings.

It pretty much had zero to do with product or how Remington itself was being ran.

Anyway it’s old news.

The old news has become today's reality as it appears the company is mired in a sea of inertia, controlled by the bean counters with the creative minds and marketing people at Big Green apparently being ignored.

What is the factual basis for your speculation? Anything?

If I were “speculating” no factual basis would exist, much in the case of a shotgun expert “speculating” that SBE III stocks flip/flop when a round is fired.

My observations on Remington are predicated on 4+ decades in financial services and the history of events when other companies have gone through bankruptcy and how creditors tend to behave once they have control of the business. They often assume a caretaker position with the intent to unload the liability at the first opportunity with product development a ancillary concern, at best.

You are: you don't have a clue. It is the flaccid power of a fake name, misused, again.

Ad hominem doesn’t wear well on you, sir. Having a screen name (according to you) obviates the opinions of ~99% of all members of this site including most all our moderators.

IMO, you’re speculating on that I’m speculating.

If, I don’t have a clue, feel free to pre-issue any and all Remington Arms press release(s).

Do you have any specific information actually about REMINGTON regarding this, or are you simply applying such vast knowledge indiscriminantly to any entity emerging from Bankruptcy where creditors have stakes in the ownership?

Not taking a shot at you. I'm trying to understand your logic, as you've not actually mentioned anything whatsoever regarding the actual company in terms of financials, decisions, product lines, changes in strategic planning, etc.

I know this is a very old thread, but if I had to guess. I believe that the Bankruptcy was caused by two handgun releases that were not ready to be released and just totally flopped. Heck they would not even run. People lost confidence.

Even if it were, and I`m not at all sure that it is, the fact that Remington has been out from under bankruptcy protection for over two years makes it moot.

Actually, not even remotely correct. The bankruptcy was the result of the Cerebrus private equity deal, the fact that they leveraged Remington to take cash out in the form of loans, that those loans required cash interest payments, and then that demand across the board slowed down making it impossible for Remington to pay the interest on the hundreds of millions of dollars in loans. Contributing factors were the attempted consolidation (poorly executed) of multiple product lines into the new southern manufacturing facility. However, it was very very much the outstanding debt taken on for no reason other than Cerebrus could siphon money out of it that caused the bankruptcy. This was all well documented, with several NYT, and WSJ articles talking about how it happened.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... ville.html

Explains how Cerberus bankrupted Remington, and it had zero to do with guns/product. It was a money shell game.

Of course I don't have specific information (as they're a private company) and never said I had such. What I did convey is the opinion based upon decades of observation with similar situations. Then, when you look at the apparent stagnation of the company regarding new product lines that seems to be borne out. The small(er) gauge market (especially 20's) appears to be gaining traction and IMO predicated upon the increasing number of female shooters and aging of the male shooter population. There's a gaggle of us on this board that would jump on a 20 gauge V3 as an example and I'd bet a marketing survey would be most illuminating. For one, I definitely need to increase the number of green boxes up in the attic.

This.

Oh! That’s different.

Opinions and gaggles. I can’t believe Remington hasn’t been beating down your door with a spectacular job offer. I mean, opinions and gaggles. How could that not be taken seriously.

Maybe, I should try crowing like a rooster?

Or just stick to things you actually know about. You must have some mighty big axe you’re grinding. Which would be fine if it was remotely relevant.

1) Remington isn’t in BR
2) No ‘creditors’ are directing them
3) They’re turning out decent guns for the money.

That's what I thought. Your logic is not connected. I also have decades of observation, and what I've observed is that it's bad form to make assumptions without data specific to the organization itself. It seems as though you're applying a VERY broad brush.

Secondly, you might want to temper your thoughts about smaller gauges, as female shooters are adopting 12ga quite well, thank you.

My thoughts on this are that without perusal of their sales at a, and comparing that to peers, as well as understanding what their OPEX looks like, etc, any such opinions are no more well founded that a magic eight ball. But that's just me.

Guys,

If you take issue with my opinions that’s fine as we all have one and some are bigger than others. Also, I am no expert nor do I pretend to play one on the Internet.

Actually, the creditors who include JP Morgan, Franklin Assets among others do own them and replaced their board of directors with their own people.

Hopefully they can turn it around but their fit, finish and quality dropped and they really hosed up Marlin under Cerberus.

I wonder how many of you fellers actually go shoot and hunt? That’s fine, but being owned by a former creditor is hardly the same as being run by creditors while in BR.

And if you’re looking for old times nostalgia, yeah, maybe they ‘ruined’ Marlin. Have you seen some of the Marlins after getting the Sturgis treatment?

I’m not sure many of you whiners would actually know ‘quality’ if it hit you upside the head.....