Re: Brink's Home Security to go away by 2012

["Kid" <super@xxxxxxx>]

"noauth" <anon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4d8a357dc2cde1f3cc2d6defa8aae134@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> RICHMOND, Va.--Brink's Home Security is going to have to find a new name
> by 2012.
>
> Industry watchers were taken by surprise by the news, included in a
> lengthy May 30 SEC filing, that Brink's Home Security has been paying
> royalties (7 percent of revenue--roughly $33 million in 2007) to sister
> company Brink's, Inc., to use the Brink's Home Security name and will lose
> that privilege three years after the two companies are spun off into
> independent firms by The Brink's Company at the end of this year.
>
> "Brink's Home Security is the mass marketing brand name of choice for the
> residential user; the Brink's Home Security name is golden," said industry
> analyst Jeff Kessler. "It's going to be a challenge to come up with
> another brand name [like Brink's]."
>
> The branding news was greeted with enthusiasm by Brink's competitors. Russ
> Cersosimo, CEO of super regional Guardian Protection, called it "great
> news." He said Brink's is "the best run national company out there. I've
> admired Brink's and their numbers for years." Cersosimo said he's "not
> afraid to compete with them, but the challenge is competing with that
> name: Brink's is synonymous with security ... We welcome the break-up."
>
> Did the hedge funds who were pushing for the spin-off, such as Pirate
> Capital and MMI Investments, know that the brand name would be going away?
> Or did they not care, figuring they'd be off to greener pastures by 2012?
> Thomas Hudson of Pirate was precluded from commenting because he sits on
> The Brink's Company board of directors. Clay Lifflander of MMI did not
> return calls from Security Systems News seeking comment.
>
> Asked this question, Ed Cunningham, spokesman for The Brink's Company
> said, "As we went through the process, branding was always raised as an
> area of importance to both units."
>
> Kessler, who's been following the company for years, said he'd never seen
> those royalty numbers spelled out in a filing before. He noted that The
> Pittston Company, which then owned Brink's, Inc., launched Brink's Home
> Security in 1983 and BHS did not become "profitable or revenue neutral for
> the first eight years." He surmised the royalty may have been a sort of
> payback to the Brink's, Inc.
>
> Kessler also noted that The Brink's Company has a five-year non-compete
> agreement with BHS. At that time, The Brink's Company could launch another
> physical security company, although Kessler said he believes Michael Dan
> (CEO of The Brink's Company) would be more likely to enter the commercial
> industrial space, rather than the residential, light commercial business
> that BHS is in right now.
>
> Asked if The Brink's Company intends to launch a new physical security
> company once the non-compete expires, Cunningham said, "All I can really
> tell you is that it won't happen before five years."
>
> There's also a good chance, Kessler said, that Brink's Home Security may
> be acquired by another company within the next three years, which would
> render the branding question moot.
>
> The rebranding issue will be a challenge, but BHS is in good shape and has
> steady-state cash flow--a metric Kessler considers important in
> determining the profitability of a security company's recurring base of
> business--"that's higher than any one I know of in the public market." He
> also said the "top notch executive team" at BHS, notably CEO Bob Allen and
> CFO Steve Yevich, mean the company "is in good hands."
>

call it:
1    BINKY
2    BANKS
3    SCUM SUCKERS
4
5     2 DOORS AND A MOTION.
6    YOU'LL NEVER OWN IT.