In the early sixties, Torrington considered an acquisition of Fafnir. It fell apart because there was no benefit to Torrington. Bennett came along in 1985 and thought differently. Was it megalomania? It is hard to conceive how given a few more years after initial inquiry, the Fafnir operation would suddenly become attractive.
The question for those who have dealt with Fafnir is “Was there a benefit to Torrington of acquiring Fafnir?” We know their plant in Arkadelphia, Arkansas was subsequently shut down. There were labor problems at the HQ plant in New Britain, Connecticut, more at the Newington plant. These also were shut down. The plant in Wolverhampton, England was sold off to Timken. What did Fafnir bring to Torrington other than a noose?
It is hard to rationalize the Fafnir acquisition as a strategically sound move. If it was such a good acquisition why were its production assets soon decimated? Did we think we could resolve a labor union dominated company?
Going back again to Lieberthal, “ Progress Through Precision…” p. 140 “No single event would have greater impact on the changing complexion of The Torrington Company than the merger with the Fafnir Bearings Division of Textron in the fall of 1985.” Ask yourself, why would Textron want to sell? Does one sell off a good thing?
For that matter, in 1987, Torrington additionally acquired the commercial bearing assets of New Departure Hyatt, which was a division of General Motors. Again, would GM sell a good and profitable operation? Were we buying sick businesses with blinders so that given the exposure, in time, Torrington itself would acquire the malady?
Another question, was this the beginning of Torrington’s downfall? Tom Bennett felt the “sales and market position of Fafnir were 100% complementary with those of Torrington” and yet the resolution to move forward was to close down its manufacturing facilities.
The Fafnir brand was made to replace “Heavy” or “Bantam Bearings” and a new outside VP, Steve Martin, was put in charge. Was this an improvement over the Torrington people who had brought us thus far or, were we digging ourselves a grave full of heavy bearings that Timken would ultimately covet ?
In 2003, Timken initially approached IR with an interest solely in the Fafnir Division (previously known as “Heavy Bearings“) but then got interested in Needle Bearings. Must be Needle Bearings were a juicier plum.
It appears Timken now expects to run Needle Bearings the way they run Heavy Bearings, without the Engineering lab support so vital to automotive and multi application uses. Good luck, Timken.
Our perspective is retrospective, with one proviso, The Torrington Company no longer exists.
Now, that’s a mouthful. Fafnir, benefit or noose.
Norm M.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Norm, I suddenly found this while reading all of the threads concerning Torrington and wondered if, at this late date, you would be interested in something that I considered as a personal discovery during my assignment for moving their Customer Services to Torrington. It is really a comparison study of our moving the Bantam Bearings Customer Services with what we/I found doing the same function after the Fafnir acquisition.
I might add, right now, that someone in our upper management was very enamored with the Fafnir After Market Distribution systems which he felt, at the time, were head and shoulders above the Torrington Distribution and Warehousing system. (I didn't then and, with the passing of time, my opinion has not changed.)
These were and still are the results of my personal involvement in both instances but it you feel that they are not germane to this thread we shall go no further since I feel that we might be opening old wounds.
As of now right, here in sunny Florida, the temperature outside my window stands at a shuddering 35 degrees and we are headed for another night in the 20s with a wind chill in the teens.
Best regards
Bill Goodrow
“Sunday, August 5, 2007
DISCUSSION TOPIC - 6.FAFNIR, a benefit or a noose”
I suddenly found this while reading and trying to catch up on all of the threads concerning Torrington and, if I may, a couple of very personal observations and conclusions:
When I was sent to South Bend to begin the moving of their Customer Service to Torrington, part of the assignment was an assessment of the people’s attitudes involved. South Bend was, in a word, Torrington and, while there was a normal sadness at the prospects, as well as the magnitude of the move, the overall cooperation, and attitudes expressed, were positive and constructive!
When I drew the same assignment after the Fafnir acquisition it was like walking into a mine field. I’m not at all sure if Ed Vrabec has access here but we both remarked, at the time, about the same disturbing attitude of general resentment, and condescension, towards those of us representing Torrington.
I had one of the people, we were trying to interest in moving, actually say, in so many words, that they considered us the enemy and would do little to make the switch over easy. Even though she acknowledged working for Torrington, she would always be a Fafnir employee and never cooperate with us.
Needless to say she figured prominently in my report and stayed in New Britain but her attitude was pervasive amongst all of the people, that I had to deal with, who ultimately did move to Torrington. In more than a single instance, over the following years, I had reason to doubt the value of trying so hard to integrate them into our overall structured systems.
One more point, if I may, and that is, while the Fafnir management people were preparing for their move, many meetings took place in Torrington and from everything that I heard, at the time, they were not happy campers by a long shot which more or less underscored what the individual said to me about not cooperating with us but on a much higher level on their management scale.
Periodically, I would have my lunch in a place in Torrington then called Applebee’s and one day when I was there four of their management people came in and sat in a booth directly behind mine. They were having a war council and laying plans for sand bagging our people at that afternoon’s planned meeting, and taking control of a situation that they felt Torrington had no right in controlling. They obviously did not know, or seem to care, who I was and I got a real earful. I called our people and alerted them to what was about to happen and from what I heard back their plotting didn’t come off, according to their plans.
In response to your question, I would have to say, even now, NOOSE which ultimately became yet another millstone around our necks!
I am not sure if this is what you wanted but it does comprise the situations, as they existed, at the time, and proved to be a great study of human nature. The result of buying this particular competitor was in effect the same as buying a whole bag of poison pills which, in my estimation, is what we did then. Slow death! Theirs and ultimately ours, also.
Bill Goodrow
Norm,
I just read Bill Goodrow's comments about his experiences following the acquisition of Fafnir by Torrington (IR) in the eighties. Bill had a bad time trying to move the Customer Services function into one unit, even though Fafnir was already wholly owned by Torrington (IR) at that time.
You had previously commented on an earlier (sixties) attempt to merge the two companies, which failed because there was no benefit to Torrington. I'd like to add a little of what I knew about the discussions of benefits prior to Torrington's withdrawal.
One of the preliminary steps intitially taken was to design a bearing catalog for what would have been the merged companies. That was worked on primarily by Bearing Engineering and Corporate Advertising. During one of our "progress meetings" in the corporate headquarters (area), I was a "fly on the wall" spectator and overheard candid comments by top management about pros and cons of merger.
The most potent "con" seemed to be who would control the merged companies. Both Torrington and Fafnir were publicly owned companies, but while Torrington's stock was quite widely held, Fafnir stock was tightly held by a fewer number of owners.
It was then perceived that Fafnir interests could have virtual control after a merger, which, of course, was not acceptable to Torrington.
So whether or not the outright acquistion in the eighties was well thought out, at least there was no question about who would be in control.
And, as they say, the rest is history.
Jack Conboy, from sunny Florida
Having just read Jack Conboy's comments concerning the 60s failed attempt of bringing these companies together has to beg the question of why the heck would anybody after that try again so soon after what had transpired then?
It would seem to this untrained eye that during the interim Fafnir had used the old military ploy of demonizing their enemy! Us! This further explains the "mine field" that we walked into over there and why there was so little cooperation. Even after we got them moved physically to Torrington, they pretty much isolated themselves and there was always the “us against them” environment when we tried to do something with or for them. In retrospect— seemingly doomed to failure from the get go!
Again the questions of HOW & WHY was this allowed to not only take place but happen??
Conboy is in sunny Florida and Goodrow, as we write this, also in Florida, has a temperature of 45°!
Post a Comment