• Go to page :
  • 1 2
  • Text Only
Voting History
rated:
So with Hostess likely to go out of business, people appear to be engaging in a twinkie buying panic and are willing to pay outrageous prices for them. A scan of eBay shows at this time a few hundred listings of twinkies selling for between $20 and $40 a box - and many of these show that at least some people are actually buying at that price!

EDIT: Of course, as many FWFers have pointed out below, if Hostess does go bankrupt another company will likely begin making them, but at least for now people do appear to be willing to pay inflated prices.

Member Summary
Most Recent Posts
One of the main Hostess factories is by my house with these union workers out striking on the road. My good friend worke... (more)

brettdoyle (Nov. 19, 2012 @ 4:10p) |

The problem for management and the stockholders is that if they liquidate they will no longer own the company.

stanolshefski (Nov. 19, 2012 @ 4:38p) |

...just thought I'd leave this here.

RT @CNBC: BREAKING: #Hostess and Bakers Union agree to mediation, preventing shut do... (more)

tetromibi (Nov. 19, 2012 @ 4:53p) |

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.


My stash
Disclaimer
Here is my stash.

EDIT to agree: Twinkie isn't going to die. This is what happens when Unions get too powerful. Hostess can't operate profitably with wages/pensions demanded by the Unions, so they're forced into bankruptcy where the Union will be dissolved and a new company will re-structure and take over operations.

This is the way it should work. Companies should die...it doesn't matter how iconic. We shouldn't bail out twinkie makers.

Some other company will buy the rights to the name if they liquidate and start cranking them out again. I suspect the only person buying right now is Honey Boo Boo.

Hostess's assets will be bought, and someone else will make the Twinkie, or something very similar. There are other snack companies such as Little Debbies.

Even if another company buys them, someone appears to be dumb enough to be currently buying them on eBay for $40 a box (on the auctions for multiple Items, I saw one with 5 boxes at $40 a box where someone had bought 3).

+1^^^

Twinkies and Hostess style cupcakes will still be made. Competitors see value in the products associated with hostess and will scoop them up at the BK sale.

You must have not seen this ebay link

I'd much rather buy the rights to produce Twinkies than a box of twinkies....

Some of my co-workers had the bright idea of ebaying twinkies as well and went twinkie hunting at lunch. Sadly for them, most stores shelves were already cleaned out.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jtes/31-people-hoarding-twinkies-in-anti...

Plenty others have come before...and the shelves bear evidence...

treasurebeacon said:   You must have not seen this ebay link

Isn't it a law that you have to post a warning next to a link like that!!


Don't reveal my "well worn" eBay niche !!!

Twinkies are the ultimate eBay item...they're as shelf-stable as toys and rocks.

"I am not answering questions on Twinkies."

Al3xK said:   Here is my stash.

EDIT to agree: Twinkie isn't going to die. This is what happens when Unions get too powerful. Hostess can't operate profitably with wages/pensions demanded by the Unions, so they're forced into bankruptcy where the Union will be dissolved and a new company will re-structure and take over operations.

This is the way it should work. Companies should die...it doesn't matter how iconic. We shouldn't bail out twinkie makers.


Workers were being asked to accept cuts, but top executives had gotten massive raises as Hostess was about to enter bankruptcy. Private equity investors came in, saddled the struggling company with massive debt while pulling out large sums for themselves in fees. This is NOT how it should work.

jumi said:   Al3xK said:   Here is my stash.

EDIT to agree: Twinkie isn't going to die. This is what happens when Unions get too powerful. Hostess can't operate profitably with wages/pensions demanded by the Unions, so they're forced into bankruptcy where the Union will be dissolved and a new company will re-structure and take over operations.

This is the way it should work. Companies should die...it doesn't matter how iconic. We shouldn't bail out twinkie makers.


Workers were being asked to accept cuts, but top executives had gotten massive raises as Hostess was about to enter bankruptcy. Private equity investors came in, saddled the struggling company with massive debt while pulling out large sums for themselves in fees. This is NOT how it should work.
Sucks when you agree with both points.

jumi said:   Al3xK said:   Here is my stash.

EDIT to agree: Twinkie isn't going to die. This is what happens when Unions get too powerful. Hostess can't operate profitably with wages/pensions demanded by the Unions, so they're forced into bankruptcy where the Union will be dissolved and a new company will re-structure and take over operations.

This is the way it should work. Companies should die...it doesn't matter how iconic. We shouldn't bail out twinkie makers.


Workers were being asked to accept cuts, but top executives had gotten massive raises as Hostess was about to enter bankruptcy. Private equity investors came in, saddled the struggling company with massive debt while pulling out large sums for themselves in fees. This is NOT how it should work.


This comment sounds cliche of the 99%'ers. The top executives are managing 18,500 employees and they're necessary for the company to operate. The unskilled laboror making $20/hour boxing twinkies can take a paycut...it happens.

I don't get why people at the bottom think they should be on par with people at the top and be treated fairly.

Now if the company got screwed over by large fees...that's poor management. And it's a private company, they can do what they want.

etee said:   Twinkies are the ultimate eBay item...they're as shelf-stable as toys and rocks.

"I am not answering questions on Twinkies."


"...that prices on eBay have skyrocketed."

There was a Twinkie market on eBay before this morning?

jumi said:   Al3xK said:   Here is my stash.

EDIT to agree: Twinkie isn't going to die. This is what happens when Unions get too powerful. Hostess can't operate profitably with wages/pensions demanded by the Unions, so they're forced into bankruptcy where the Union will be dissolved and a new company will re-structure and take over operations.

This is the way it should work. Companies should die...it doesn't matter how iconic. We shouldn't bail out twinkie makers.


Workers were being asked to accept cuts, but top executives had gotten massive raises as Hostess was about to enter bankruptcy. Private equity investors came in, saddled the struggling company with massive debt while pulling out large sums for themselves in fees. This is NOT how it should work.

Once you've invested your millions in Hostess, then you can have a say in "how it should work".

How it shouldn't work is people with no skin in the game expecting to be able to dictate a company's policies and operation.

Al3xK said:   jumi said:   Al3xK said:   Here is my stash.

EDIT to agree: Twinkie isn't going to die. This is what happens when Unions get too powerful. Hostess can't operate profitably with wages/pensions demanded by the Unions, so they're forced into bankruptcy where the Union will be dissolved and a new company will re-structure and take over operations.

This is the way it should work. Companies should die...it doesn't matter how iconic. We shouldn't bail out twinkie makers.


Workers were being asked to accept cuts, but top executives had gotten massive raises as Hostess was about to enter bankruptcy. Private equity investors came in, saddled the struggling company with massive debt while pulling out large sums for themselves in fees. This is NOT how it should work.


This comment sounds cliche of the 99%'ers. The top executives are managing 18,500 employees and they're necessary for the company to operate. The unskilled laboror making $20/hour boxing twinkies can take a paycut...it happens.

I don't get why people at the bottom think they should be on par with people at the top and be treated fairly.

Now if the company got screwed over by large fees...that's poor management. And it's a private company, they can do what they want.



One report says the CEO at one point got a 300% pay raise while the company was failing and bleeding money. So its not that they just begrudge the executive having a high salary but that he got a big fat pay raise while the rank and file took pay cuts and the company lost money.

They also apparently had 6 different CEO's in an 8 year period. Can't imagine there was good management going on with that much job turnover at the top.

But yes if you make $15-20/hr to work in a bakery PLUS a pension and healthcare benefits then you're a fool to think you can play hardball when negotiating a labor contract with a bankrupt company thats been bleeding cash for a decade.


I think its notable that it was apparently only the bakers union that went on strike and didn't negotiate. The teamsters had already negotiated a contract and accepted pay cuts.


Its screwed up all around.

SUCKISSTAPLES said:   Don't reveal my "well worn" eBay niche !!!

Are you bidding or selling?

Glitch99 said:   jumi said:   Al3xK said:   Here is my stash.

EDIT to agree: Twinkie isn't going to die. This is what happens when Unions get too powerful. Hostess can't operate profitably with wages/pensions demanded by the Unions, so they're forced into bankruptcy where the Union will be dissolved and a new company will re-structure and take over operations.

This is the way it should work. Companies should die...it doesn't matter how iconic. We shouldn't bail out twinkie makers.


Workers were being asked to accept cuts, but top executives had gotten massive raises as Hostess was about to enter bankruptcy. Private equity investors came in, saddled the struggling company with massive debt while pulling out large sums for themselves in fees. This is NOT how it should work.

Once you've invested your millions in Hostess, then you can have a say in "how it should work".

How it shouldn't work is people with no skin in the game expecting to be able to dictate a company's policies and operation.


I'm not a Hostess shareholder (I suppose I might be as part of some mutual fund, but not in direct holdings) , but I do think that this model of executives at failing firms getting huge raises and bonuses is completely absurd. This has happened at companies whose stock I DO hold, and it makes my blood boil. Rewarding failures like Pandit at Citibank or the string of losers at HP or these bozos at Hostess is highly unethical if not criminal and boards and execs should be held accountable.

So should unions and workers, but to claim that they have no skin in the game while short term management who pull big $$ out while failing to make positive changes do is not valid to me.

Al3xK said:   jumi said:   Al3xK said:   Here is my stash.

EDIT to agree: Twinkie isn't going to die. This is what happens when Unions get too powerful. Hostess can't operate profitably with wages/pensions demanded by the Unions, so they're forced into bankruptcy where the Union will be dissolved and a new company will re-structure and take over operations.

This is the way it should work. Companies should die...it doesn't matter how iconic. We shouldn't bail out twinkie makers.


Workers were being asked to accept cuts, but top executives had gotten massive raises as Hostess was about to enter bankruptcy. Private equity investors came in, saddled the struggling company with massive debt while pulling out large sums for themselves in fees. This is NOT how it should work.


This comment sounds cliche of the 99%'ers. The top executives are managing 18,500 employees and they're necessary for the company to operate. The unskilled laboror making $20/hour boxing twinkies can take a paycut...it happens.

I don't get why people at the bottom think they should be on par with people at the top and be treated fairly.

Now if the company got screwed over by large fees...that's poor management. And it's a private company, they can do what they want.


So failing CEOs should get huge bonuses unrelated to their success? If a CEO or other high level executive is not willing to take a decent compensation package with most tied to positive performance then they aren't worth it. More should be like Steve Jobs -- little actual salary, huge pay because the company succeeded. Massive pay regardless of failure is wrong. Period. I am not a 99%er, just someone who believes that most of us, especially investors, are being seriously fleeced by a generation of managers who have convince folks like you that they deserve big bucks win or lose, succeed or fail. I say that's bogus. Period.

Note I also think lower line workers should be held accountable and have some pay based on goals and performance.

jumi said:    Rewarding failures like Pandit at Citibank or the string of losers at HP or these bozos at Hostess is highly unethical if not criminal and boards and execs should be held accountable.
The decision to reward someone or hold them accountable is up to those who's cash is paying the person. If you, a union, or anyone else doesnt like it, they are welcome to buy enough of the company to make (or atleast have an influence on) such decisions.

Glitch99 said:   jumi said:    Rewarding failures like Pandit at Citibank or the string of losers at HP or these bozos at Hostess is highly unethical if not criminal and boards and execs should be held accountable.
The decision to reward someone or hold them accountable is up to those who's cash is paying the person. If you, a union, or anyone else doesnt like it, they are welcome to buy enough of the company to make (or atleast have an influence on) such decisions.


Too often it is not -- it is up to the boards of companies. Most shareholders do not have a real voice, and most boards are not putting up the money for the pay they approve.

jumi said:   So failing CEOs should get huge bonuses unrelated to their success?
So random Joe Schmoes should be the ones deciding this, rather than those who are actually paying the bonuses? If I choose to give an employee a bonus or raise, it's nobody else's business why or if he deserves it - it's coming out of my pocket.

Glitch99 said:   jumi said:   So failing CEOs should get huge bonuses unrelated to their success?
So random Joe Schmoes should be the ones deciding this, rather than those who are actually paying the bonuses? If I choose to give an employee a bonus or raise, it's nobody else's business why or if he deserves it - it's coming out of my pocket.


Maybe that's the case if you are sole owner of a small to medium business. In these cases, though, that is not the case. The money to pay huge bonuses for failure was coming from debt or from shareholders $$, not the wallets of those making the decisions.

Hostess was private. So theres no shareholders to dictate anything.

Don't like your working conditions and pay? Find a better job elsewhere.

Unions are yet another example of social welfare at its finest in this country.

I love conversational comments. If you own your own subway and decide to give your manager a 300% raise, regardless of performance, and cut employees wages $0.10/hour, do you think it should be anybody else's business what you do? It's a private company.

jerosen said:   Hostess was private. So theres no shareholders to dictate anything.

Private C-Corps still have shareholders. It's just that they can't buy/sell/trade their shares on a public exchange.

jerosen said:   Hostess was private. So theres no shareholders to dictate anything.

In the typical private equity debt load bonus days setup the ones left holding the bag are the shareholders of the banks who hold their debt (and the public who bail them out).

Word on the street is that our re-elected president is looking for ways to reduce healthcare costs for the country and has declared a war on junk food. Take a look at DMND stock price recently if you don't believe me. First that, now this... too coincidental not to be true.

What's next? Going to figure out how to bankrupt Doritos?

I'm not saying it's a conspiracy, but it's a conspiracy.

We always need Twinkies as food after a nuclear holocaust. That said, someone will buy the assets anyway. Don't worry.

jumi said:   Glitch99 said:   jumi said:    Rewarding failures like Pandit at Citibank or the string of losers at HP or these bozos at Hostess is highly unethical if not criminal and boards and execs should be held accountable.
The decision to reward someone or hold them accountable is up to those who's cash is paying the person. If you, a union, or anyone else doesnt like it, they are welcome to buy enough of the company to make (or atleast have an influence on) such decisions.


Too often it is not -- it is up to the boards of companies. Most shareholders do not have a real voice, and most boards are not putting up the money for the pay they approve.
And who hires the board? "most shareholders" dont have a "real voice" because they typically own 0.00000003% of the company. Buy a real stake, get a real voice - otherwise it's pretty obvious you are just along for the ride.

Private company can do whatever it wants to. Did they bleed money thru their musical chair management style, you bet. Did they bleed money by having to cover the shortfall in the Teamster multiemployer pension system specifically paying more as other companies in the system closed their doors? Most of Hostess's competitors are nonunion and their unions have bled the company dry in that their labor costs are unsustainable.

Assets, specifically the brands will be sold and made by another company and the Baker's union will be the ones responsible for the loss of a lot of jobs including those of their fellow union brethren who agreed to cuts.

magika said:   So with Hostess likely to go out of business, people appear to be engaging in a twinkie buying panic and are willing to pay outrageous prices for them. A scan of eBay shows at this time a few hundred listings of twinkies selling for between $20 and $40 a box - and many of these show that at least some people are actually buying at that price!

EDIT: Of course, as many FWFers have pointed out below, if Hostess does go bankrupt another company will likely begin making them, but at least for now people do appear to be willing to pay inflated prices.


What's with the red and all the side discussion? He's right. Any savvy FWFer would be buying all the boxes of Twinkies they can find. Check eBay...damn!

nullterm said:   magika said:   So with Hostess likely to go out of business, people appear to be engaging in a twinkie buying panic and are willing to pay outrageous prices for them. A scan of eBay shows at this time a few hundred listings of twinkies selling for between $20 and $40 a box - and many of these show that at least some people are actually buying at that price!

EDIT: Of course, as many FWFers have pointed out below, if Hostess does go bankrupt another company will likely begin making them, but at least for now people do appear to be willing to pay inflated prices.


What's with the red and all the side discussion? He's right. Any savvy FWFer would be buying all the boxes of Twinkies they can find. Check eBay...damn!

The savvy FWFer would've already bought them all at the beginning of the week (knowing the strike was likely to disrupt supply anyways), to drain when the "crisis" hit (yesterday) and be done with them by the time the panic subsides (probably by the end of the weekend, once people start realizing any shortage is only temporary).

I underestimated my town. Large chain groceries, local Midwest stores, gas stations, convenience stores, dollar stores, even vending machines. All sold out.

What a waste of time convincing my wife that we DID in fact space for 200 boxes of snack cake products..

Skipping 26 Messages...
...just thought I'd leave this here.

RT @CNBC: BREAKING: #Hostess and Bakers Union agree to mediation, preventing shut down. via @fredontv



Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

TRUSTe online privacy certification

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2014