Other People’s Money

What could Andrew "Jorge" Jorgenson have done to save his company?
Summary:
Norman Jewison directed Alvin Sargent's adaptation of Jerry Sterner's off-Broadway satire of the excess of the '80s, with Danny DeVito as corporate raider Lawrence Garfield, as he is better known, Larry the Liquidator. Larry spends his waking hours searching for companies to take over. One morning he comes across New England Wire & Cable, an obsolete, money-wasting parent firm of an otherwise profitable collection of subsidiaries. Protecting this publicly traded company from Garfield and arguing that businesses should be about community and family. This company has seen better days but is not debt-ridden and contains plenty of cash. Larry hopes to raid the company and strip its assets. But the company's president, Andrew Jorgenson (Gregory Peck), wants to continue in the wire and cable business. For help, Andrew seeks out his daughter-in-law, Kate Sullivan (Penelope Ann Miller), a New York attorney who is as obsessive about saving Andrew's company as Garfield is about destroying it. When she walks into Garfield’s office, Garfield immediately falls in love. But they are adversaries, and they have to decide if love or corporate buyouts come first. This all comes to a head during a shareholder's meeting inside the factory, where both Andrew and Garfield state their cases regarding Andrew's beloved company.

Problem Statement:
 Garfield first offers Jorgenson a peaceful takeover by demonstrating that the unprofitable parent is harming the profitable subsidiaries and depressing the stock price. Garfield wants to take over the company which is owned by Andrew Jorgenson. He has attachment with the company and wasn’t rational to his approach, due to which he was running the company which was in losses, Wire & Cable Company’s loss are barred by other sub-companies. The company’s product lifecycle was at the decline stage, where as Ander was defensive towards risk He did not take any innovative step in developing new product line in order to be debt free. The company was in risk as it had only one particular buyer.

  

  Problem Related to Shareholders:   He could have brought more shares by either taking debt on him or on company this would have helped him in leading the command in the company. this was the time when cables were just getting outdated and fiber optics was the future. Andrew could have saved the company if on time he could have developed the product line so as to save the existing product line and to survive in the competitive world. Since the company’s product was at declining stage he should have got into expertise form of business or into similar line of business which would have helped the business grow. Garfield not only took over the company but also gained the trust of the stake holder. This was the suitable time to enter in fiber optics as there was more sales probability in fiber optics. Also he could have won the votes by selling the company which is going to be giving more dividends in the near future or the company whose stock price will rise in the near future. Conclusion:  The fact that Andrew did not borrow funds to buy the company’s share back fired on him as a result of which Garfield took over the company.  Andrew’s character was rigid in nature and also he did not involve with time which is not good for the business Andrew has lost the company to Garfield as the board of director did not trust in hon and his vision toward the company Problem Related to the Product:  Andrew could have diversified or updated its product portfolio. Instead of company being a debt free company Andrew could have bought machinery which could have helped to reduce the cost of product and could have helped them sell the product at a cheaper prices resulting into more sales for their product.  .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful