10 Brands That May Disappear in 2011
provided by
24/7 Wall St. has created a new list of brands that may disappear, which includes Readers Digest, Kia Motors, Dollar Thrifty (NYSE: DTG – News), Zale (NYSE: ZLC – News), Blockbuster (BLOKA.PK – News), T-Mobile, BP Plc (NYSE: BP – News), RadioShack (NYSE: RSH – News), Merrill Lynch and Moody’s (NYSE: MCO – News).
24/7 Wall St. regularly compiles a report of brands that are likely to disappear in the near-term. Last April, and again in December, we published our findings. Usually, it would take a full year before such a list could be compiled again. However, the current economic climate has accelerated this process and a majority of the brands on the first two lists are either gone, have been acquired, or have filed for bankruptcy.
With a number of the brands on the December list either gone or on a short-term path to extinction, 24/7 Wall St. has put together the latest version of the Ten Brands That Will Disappear. To qualify, we expect that brand to be gone by the end of 2011, or for its parent to be sold or go into Chapter 11.
Reader’s Digest was once the most widely read magazine in the world. According to the company, it still may be when its overseas editions are taken into account.
Last August, the company took its U.S. operations into Chapter 11 to decrease debt. It emerged from bankruptcy in February with $525 million in exit financing. The company cut the number of issues it publishes a year from 12 to 10 last year. It also cut its circulation guarantee for advertisers to 5.5 million copies from 8 million. It would have been unthinkable just a few years ago that a magazine as old and famous as Reader’s Digest would be shuttered. However, Reader’s Digest as it is known in the U.S. will be gone.
Blockbuster was the national leader in the video rental business for nearly two decades. Now it is contemplating Chapter 11 to eliminate debt. The company lost $65 million last quarter. Its revenue continues to fall rapidly as firms such as Redbox and NetFlix (Nasdaq: NFLX – News) siphon off its revenue. Blockbuster has more than 6,000 stores, so it is hard to imagine that the company could disappear. But, there is some precedent, even if it is on a smaller scale. Blockbuster rival Movie Gallery said in February that it would close all of its 2,400 U.S. stores. Blockbuster’s model of renting movies through physical locations has been destroyed by cable and satellite video on demand, DVDs via mail and dispensing machines. Blockbuster may still be around as a company that has movie kiosks and a small mail and Internet-delivered content business. But its brick and-mortar business is dead.
Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, the car rental company, is for sale. Hertz (NYSE: HTZ – News) is a potential buyer, as is Avis Budget (NYSE: CAR – News). Each of the larger car rental firms would use the Dollar Thrifty business to expand their market share. That does not mean that they would keep the brand. The current company is not much of a business. It made only $27 million last quarter on revenue of $348 million. It has more than $1.5 billion in “debt and other obligations.” The number of vehicles that Dollar Thrifty operates at any one time is only 95,000 compared to 420,000 for Hertz. The firm’s customer base and some of its locations may be valuable, but Dollar Thrifty can’t compete with Avis and Hertz. A decade ago, the car rental industry was able to support six independent brands. A significant drop in business and leisure travel and sharp competition among the companies has already caused the creation of Avis Budget. Dollar Thrifty will be the next casualty of the industry’s consolidation.
T-Mobile, the U.S. wireless provider, is owned by telecom giant Deutsche Telekom (DTEGY.PK – News). It is the No.4 cellular company in an American market that only supports two really successful firms — AT&T Wireless and Verizon Wireless. Even the third-largest company in the market — Sprint-Nextel (NYSE: S – News) — has 50 million customers. T-Mobile had 34 million customers at the end of last year. T-Mobile only had a profit of $306 million in 2009. That was down from $483 million in 2008. T-Mobile not only faces three larger competitors, it also has to begin to offer 4G service to compete with Sprint’s new WiMax service and LTE-based products from AT&T (NYSE: T – News) and Verizon (NYSE: VZ – News). T-Mobile may seek a partner to offer a 4G network, but there are no super-fast broadband networks likely to be finished before its three rivals offer the service. As it now stands, T-Mobile has no future in the U.S. A merger with Sprint-Nextel has been mentioned several times. The combined company would have a customer base about the same size as AT&T or Verizon. And the transaction would probably make Deutsche Telekom a large owner of the combined operation. Another alternative would be a merger with Virgin Mobile. Maybe Deutsche Telekom will just change the firm’s name.
Moody’s Corp. may have the name with the largest negative brand equity in the U.S. Scandals about the company’s rating of mortgage-backed securities and allegations that the firm compromised it ratings process to get business have ruined the company’s image. Moody’s is more than 100 years old, but the reputation it built over those years is irretrievably lost. There is a chance Moody’s could be ruined by civil actions, four of which are pending, and by charges brought by the U.S. government. Overseas authorities may bring a number of actions against the company as well. Moody’s activities are almost certainly to be more regulated, which will squeeze margins and hurt sales. Moody’s may end up selling its accounts to a new rating company, which would probably hire many of its employees. Pacific Investment Management Co. and other institutional investors have talked about taking on some if not all the roles that the current rating firms play. Research houses like Alliance Bernstein (NYSE: AB – News) could also take on some of those rolls. Part of Moody’s operation may stay alive, but there is not much left to salvage in the brand.
BP: The case against the BP brand is not so much that the company will enter bankruptcy. It is that BP may end up breaking into pieces for its own sake. This may be to put the liabilities for the Deepwater Horizon spill into a company that also holds escrow capital to cover the huge costs of clean-up and suits. BP may also want to separate its successful refining operations from its exploration business, or recreate an American- based company similar to BP America, which existed for two decades. A restructuring of BP would also allow the firm to take a badly crippled brand and give the oil operation a new name — much as it did when it changed its name from British Petroleum. The second time may be the charm.
RadioShack is one of the oldest retailers in the U.S. It was founded in 1921 and in the early 1960s was purchased by Tandy Corp. The Tandy name was used for some of Radio Shack’s retail stores. RadioShack is currently a takeover target. There have been rumors that the company may be taken private via a leveraged buyout or purchased by Best Buy (NYSE: BBY – News), probably for its locations. Best Buy would certainly not keep the RadioShack brand because it is considered downscale and does not have the reputation for quality products and service that Best Buy enjoys. RadioShack has already begun to rebrand itself as “The Shack,” an indication that it knows the older brand is a burden.
Zale Corp. was founded in 1924 by the Zale brothers. It was one of the earliest retailers to offer the ability to buy items on credit. By 1980, Zale had revenue of over $1 billion. In 1992, Zale filed for bankruptcy and by the end of that decade, its revenue was $1.3 billion — about the same as it is today. Zale has been at death’s door for some time. Its market value is down to $48 million. The company is trying to turn itself around, but most experts are not convinced. The company recently made the Forbes list for firms with extreme financial risk. In the last quarter, the retailer lost $12 million on revenue of $360 million. Zale is also in a very crowded market that includes retailers as large as Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT – News). Golden Gate Capital recently put money into Zale to buy it time. New money may defer the point at which Zale goes under, but it won’t prevent it.
Merrill Lynch may have been acquired, but that will not keep it safe. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Banks and other large financial services firms have a habit of buying large retail brokerage houses and then changing their names. Shearson is gone. So is EF Hutton and Prudential. In most cases the parent company wants to put their own names on the door. That is very likely to happen to Merrill Lynch, which was at one point the largest full-service broker in the U.S. Merrill is now owned by Bank of America Corp. (NYSE: BAC – News), and the buyout spawned a number of scandals that kept Merrill’s name in the paper for weeks and did a great deal to harm its name with customers. Bank of America will follow a time honored tradition, and Merrill Lynch will become BofA Investment Management.
Kia Motors Corp. is one of the two car brands of Hyundai of South Korea. It has always been a marginal brand. Its stable mate, Hyundai USA, has a reputation for high quality cars like the Sonata and Genesis. Kia sells “low rent” cars and SUV nameplates like the Sorento and Rio. As GM and Ford (NYSE: F – News) have already discovered, it is expensive to maintain multiple brands and storied car names, including Pontiac, Saturn and Mercury, are disappearing. Most Kia cars sell for $14,000 to $25,000. Hyundai has several cars in the same price range. Hyundai’s Sonata has quickly become one of the best-selling cars in America, and its Genesis flagship model competes with mid-sized BMWs and Mercedes. The parent company will take a page from several other global car companies and dump its weakest brand.
To read more on these brands and others, see the full article at 24/7 Wall St.
The 25 Most Powerful Women In Banking
There’s been a lot to mull over this year about gender equality in finance and business.
One recent survey by Catalyst, a nonprofit group that promotes women in business, found that 19% of women have lost their jobs in the past two year, compared with 6% of men. Then, there was Jack Welch’s comment a few months ago that women who take time off for their family are doomed to been passed over for high power jobs.
- JP Morgan’s
- Heidi Miller, No. 1 Woman Banker
Other studies are more upbeat. The Boston Consulting Group says women will drive the post recession economy because of rising female employment and because women are narrowing the wage gap with men.
Now US Banker magazine is finding some bright spots in its annual “25 Most Powerful Women in Banking” issue. Calpers, the giant California pension fund, hired the first female CEO, Anne Stausboll, in its 77 year-history, while Bank of America is said to be grooming Sallie Krawchek, who was recently hired as head of the bank’s Global Wealth and Investment Management unit, as a possible successor to CEO Ken Lewis.
At the top of the US Banker list, for the third straight year, is Heidi Miller, J.P. Morgan’s CEO of Treasury and Securities Services. One notable newcomer to the list is BBVA Compass retail chief Shelaghmichael Brown, who helped with that bank’s recent acquisitions in the US.
The magazine editors rank the women based criteria such as one-year performance, the results of business initiatives, management style and overall influence.
Here’s the full list, and for more rankings click here.
The 25 Most Powerful Women in Banking 2009
1) Heidi Miller, JPMorgan Chase & Co.
2) Karen Peetz, BNY Mellon
3) Pamela Joseph, U.S. Bancorp
4) Barbara Desoer, Bank of America
5) Carrie Tolstedt, Wells Fargo
6) Peyton Patterson, NewAlliance Bancshares
7) Deanna Oppenheimer, Barclays PLC
Mary Callahan Erdoes, JPMorgan Chase
9) Diane Thormodsgard, U.S. Bancorp
10) Julie Monaco, Citigroup
11) Lynn Pike, Capital One Bank
12) Cara Heiden, Wells Fargo
13) Avid Modjtabai, Wells Fargo
14) Donna Demaio, MetLife Bank
15) Mollie Hale Carter, Sunflower Bank
16) Diane D’Erasmo, HSBC USA
17) Ellen Alemany, Citizens Financial Group and RBS Americas
18) Anne Arvia, Nationwide Bank
19) Anne Finucane, Bank of America
20) Ellen Costello, Harris Bankcorp
21) Colleen Johnston, TD Bank Financial Group
22) Shelaghmichael Brown, BBVA Compass
23) Diane Reyes, Citigroup
24) Kay Hoveland, K-Fed Bancorp & Kaiser Federal Bank
25) Leeanne Linderman, Zions First National Bank
Fed Documents Fuel Concerns About Expanding Central Bank’s Role
By DAMIAN PALETTA
WASHINGTON — Documents unearthed by congressional investigators reveal disagreements among senior Federal Reserve officials about how to handle Bank of America Corp.’s acquisition of Merrill Lynch, fueling concern on Capitol Hill over giving the central bank even more power to regulate the financial system.
Federal Reserve
The glimpse inside the regulatory machinery provided by emails, memorandums and handwritten notes show a Fed that wrestled with how tough it should be on Bank of America, one of the biggest U.S. banks. It also shows Fed officials questioning more broadly their response to the financial crisis months earlier.
In December, Bank of America approached top U.S. officials about abandoning a deal, forged in the heat of the crisis, to buy investment bank Merrill Lynch. In the end, the government arranged a $20 billion rescue package for the bank to cover growing losses at Merrill.
In between, the documents show areas of disagreement within some of the Fed’s 12 regional reserve banks.
The Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, where supervision of Bank of America’s parent company is based, pushed for a tougher approach than other regulators, emails suggest. Bank of America officials appealed more than once to the Fed’s Washington headquarters to intervene.
Bank of America CEO “Ken [Lewis] may also raise his favorite perennial issue — that is, is the Richmond supervisory team on the same page as the [Fed] Board,” Fed governor Kevin Warsh wrote in an email Dec. 30 to Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and other senior officials. “Richmond staff was on our call today, but prior to the call, it sounds like they may have threatened a little more than ideal…”
On Jan. 10, Fed General Counsel Scott Alvarez wrote to Mr. Bernanke and others that Richmond Fed President Jeffrey Lacker was raising some issues over the final deal. Mr. Lacker wanted the entire Federal Open Market Committee to vote on any loan to Bank of America.
Mr. Bernanke responded at 2:01 a.m.: “Thanks. If we are nimble we can manage this.”
Whether or not Mr. Bernanke threatened Mr. Lewis’s ouster over the rescue remains a source of contention. Mr. Lewis suggested in testimony to New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo that the Fed chief did just that. Mr. Bernanke has denied making such a threat to Mr. Lewis.
On Jan. 16, just days before government aid for the deal was supposed to be announced, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston president Eric Rosengren sent Mr. Bernanke an email saying that the Fed shouldn’t dismiss too hastily the idea of tossing management at Bank of America.
Mr. Rosengren suggested such a shake up might be necessary, “particularly if we believe that existing management is a significant source of the problem.”
Mr. Bernanke, at a contentious hearing Thursday, defended the Fed against suggestions it had been too lenient with management.
“The supervisory process is not a onetime thing. It’s an ongoing process, and in an ongoing supervisory process, we have made demands of the Bank of America on terms of their board and management,” he told Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio).
The documents reveal Fed officials questioning the central bank’s response to the financial crisis even before negotiations began on the effort to aid Bank of America’s acquisition of Merrill Lynch.
“At this point I have [the] sense that the hearts and minds war in Iraq was handled better than it has been in this crisis, particularly within the Fed system,” wrote Meg McConnell, a top Federal Reserve Bank of New York official, on the day the House of Representatives voted down the Bush administration’s first financial-rescue package, sending the Dow industrials down almost 800 points.
The Obama administration earlier this month proposed giving the Fed powers to oversee and examine the largest companies in the financial system.
The disclosures could bolster the central bank’s argument that it needs more power to manage future crises. One reason for the government’s lurching response last year, officials say, was that it didn’t have the needed tools.
The Fed has been dealing with a steady stream of criticism from Republicans. Democrats have recently joined in, and the disclosures being aired through the congressional inquiry have put the central bank on the defensive.
Write to Damian Paletta at damian.paletta@wsj.com
