B&N (More bad on top of ... you know...)

[fjtorres]

The full third FY quarter report is out:

http://www.shelf-awareness.com/issue.html?issue=3195

Still not good news.The

In the third quarter ended January 27, total sales at Barnes & Noble fell 5.3%, to $1.2 billion, and the consolidated net loss was $63.5 million, compared to net earnings of $70.3 million in the same period a year earlier.

In the quarter, sales at stores open at least a year fell 5.8% "primarily due to lower traffic." The company noted that in January, comp-store sales fell 3.5%, a slight improvement.

Boldface mine.

Moving forward, they are counting on Buzzword Bingo to obscure their lack of strategy:

The company also said that its long-term strategic plan is "focused on the following four key elements:
1) strengthening the core business by enhancing the customer value proposition;
2) improving profitability through an aggressive expense management program, which will be used to fund growth initiatives;
3) accelerating execution through simplification; and
4) innovating for the future, which will position the company for long-term growth."

Edit: the Financial Times has a piece out today.
(May or not work for you.)

https://www.ft.com/content/d41c9fcc-...a-4574d7dabfb6

Nothing terribly new but they end with this:

Sandell Asset Management, one of the company’s top investors, had urged*the company to sell itself, arguing that its “unconscionably low” market value failed to reflect its status as the “one truly national bookstore chain”.

At their peak in 2006, Barnes & Noble shares were worth nearly $32 a piece. The stock closed at $4.50 on Wednesday, giving it a market value of just $327.5m.

Shares fell another 3 per cent in pre-market trading.

Not so long ago, Nook alone was valued at $2B and Kobo sold for $315M.

The B&N warehouses and distribution system are probably worth more than tgat.
Gordon Gekko would be all over their stock.

[jhowell]

Using Google Translate set from Management Doubletalk to English yields:

1) strengthening the core business by enhancing the customer value proposition;
Sell cheap crappy products

2) improving profitability through an aggressive expense management program, which will be used to fund growth initiatives;
Cut staff to the bone

3) accelerating execution through simplification; and
Reduce the product selection

4) innovating for the future, which will position the company for long-term growth."
I plan to be out of here before the **** hits the fan

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by jhowell

Using Google Translate set from Management Doubletalk to English yields:

1) strengthening the core business by enhancing the customer value proposition;
Sell cheap crappy products

2) improving profitability through an aggressive expense management program, which will be used to fund growth initiatives;
Cut staff to the bone

3) accelerating execution through simplification; and
Reduce the product selection

4) innovating for the future, which will position the company for long-term growth."
I plan to be out of here before the **** hits the fan

In an idealized world (I know this isn't true):

1) strengthening the core business by enhancing the customer value proposition;
Offering a free customer loyalty program, or discounting all books the way Crown Books used to

2) improving profitability through an aggressive expense management program, which will be used to fund growth initiatives;
Cut staff to the bone (<--Yeah, I agree with you there) Maybe move back to smaller stores

3) accelerating execution through simplification; and
Focus on books and reduce/remove the rest (music, movies, toys)

4) innovating for the future, which will position the company for long-term growth.
Make Nook good again. Remember when it was seen as a worthy competitor to Kindle?

[Fbone]

Third quarter results include a non-cash goodwill impairment charge of $133.6 million, and a severance charge of $10.7 million associated with the Company's transition to a new labor model.

Excluding non-recurring charges, third quarter EBITDA would have been $137.7 million.

The losses appear to be just on paper.

[Fbone]

Regarding the layoffs, if the 3 or 4 full-timers couldn't turn the stores around the last 10 years, I doubt they'd be capable in the next year or so. I'm sure they've been aware of the company's past financial difficulties. Perhaps, any suggestions they made were rejected. Maybe they are automating their jobs. The company probably didn't want to pay their health insurance either.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Fbone

Regarding the layoffs, if the 3 or 4 full-timers couldn't turn the stores around the last 10 years, I doubt they'd be capable in the next year or so. I'm sure they've been aware of the company's past financial difficulties. Perhaps, any suggestions they made were rejected. Maybe they are automating their jobs. The company probably didn't want to pay their health insurance either.

I guess that's one way to look at it. On the other hand, the receiving manager at store #1278 probably doesn't play as large a part in turning B&N's fortunes around as the upper management that still have their jobs.

I used to work for B&N and am pretty sure the full timers did have medical, though I wasn't a full-time employee myself.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I guess that's one way to look at it. On the other hand, the receiving manager at store #1278 probably doesn't play as large a part in turning B&N's fortunes around as the upper management that still have their jobs.

I used to work for B&N and am pretty sure the full timers did have medical, though I wasn't a full-time employee myself.

So you are saying that they should have fired all upper management instead of receiving managers and lead cashiers? That is if the intention actually is to turn B&N around. It is far more likely that they simply prepare for B&N to be sold and gutted. "We really, really, really tried, but ..."

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by jhowell

Using Google Translate set from Management Doubletalk to English yields:

1) strengthening the core business by enhancing the customer value proposition;
Sell cheap crappy products

2) improving profitability through an aggressive expense management program, which will be used to fund growth initiatives;
Cut staff to the bone

3) accelerating execution through simplification; and
Reduce the product selection

4) innovating for the future, which will position the company for long-term growth."
I plan to be out of here before the **** hits the fan

cynical, but absolute truth.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

So you are saying that they should have fired all upper management instead of receiving managers and lead cashiers? That is if the intention actually is to turn B&N around. It is far more likely that they simply prepare for B&N to be sold and gutted. "We really, really, really tried, but ..."

Pretty likely.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

So you are saying that they should have fired all upper management instead of receiving managers and lead cashiers? That is if the intention actually is to turn B&N around.

If their intention was to follow those four points they mentioned to return to profitability? Yes.

It is far more likely that they simply prepare for B&N to be sold and gutted.

And that feels exactly like what they are doing.

[Richwood]

B&N has announced a new book club according to an email I received this morning. Below is a link to a write-up on the announcement.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/ho...ok-Club-Stores

[Richwood]

In March 2006 B&N stock reached a high of $30.29. Since then it has been on a down hill trend except for a brief jump in mid 2015 to $18.77. As of today it is under $5.00 Based on stock performance the whole board should be fired or resign in embarrassment. They have done a totally incompetent job it looks like to me.

[fjtorres]

Stock ~$4.80 Mar 5
52 week high $9.75
52 week low $4.10

Market capitalization is $323M.

If it drops much more somebody could go to GoFundme and raise enough to buy the corpse.

[Fiat_Lux]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

So you are saying that they should have fired all upper management instead of receiving managers and lead cashiers?

Yes.

Except in rare situations, such as the WaldenBooks that went without a store manager for four years, and an assistent manager for five years, the staff knows better than corporate what to do, to sell books. (The person that was doing all the managerial functions, had started at the store as a part time cashier, about a fortnight before the store manager of four years earlier left, and admitted that they had no idea how to do the job. They did it, only becuase they had more experience working in a bookstore, than anybody else at that location.)

Amber

[HLS]

Originally Posted by Fiat_Lux

Yes.

Except in rare situations, such as the WaldenBooks that went without a store manager for four years, and an assistent manager for five years, the staff knows better than corporate what to do, to sell books. (The person that was doing all the managerial functions, had started at the store as a part time cashier, about a fortnight before the store manager of four years earlier left, and admitted that they had no idea how to do the job. They did it, only becuase they had more experience working in a bookstore, than anybody else at that location.)

Amber

It seems common to have low level workers do upper level work without paying them. I worked the jewelry counter at JCpenney Outlet replacing the supervisor that ran it. Did they promote me to her level and pay me more? Nope. Also there was no way to post for promotional jobs there. You only got promoted if a manager liked you and offered you that promotion.

It was upsetting for I was the most loyal worker there. I never called off work, I worked double shifts almost every day and this is an industry that hires mostly teens that called off all the time with no repercussions. People got away with it for we had a huge turnover to where it was ignored. I would work 8 am to 5pm at the Jewelry and then 5pm to closing at 9pm as the evening receptionist and I only made $7.43 wage cashier pay. I still loved the job but could not support myself. Got evicted when I divorced so I had no choice but to scramble to get a better paying job. I left the job in 1998 I believe. I loved the job and would have stayed if I had a chance to move up. But it was bitter sweet. JCPenney closed all their catalog outlet stores a few years ago.

I also worked at The University of Kansas, Lawrence bookstore in the late 80's early 90's. Retail is hard work and low pay but i loved every second of it.