Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.

Stuart Olson Inc CUUHF

"Stuart Olson Inc is a Canada-based company. It operates in business segments that are Industrial Group, which offers services to clients in a wide range of industrial sectors including oil and gas, petrochemical, refining, water and waste water, mining, pulp and paper and power generation; Buildings Group, which includes construction, expansion and renovation of buildings for private and public sector clients in the commercial, light industrial and institutional sectors; Commercial System Group


OTCPK:CUUHF - Post by User

Bullboard Posts
Post by flavin87on Nov 08, 2012 4:32pm
294 Views
Post# 20578630

New Business Model

New Business Model

The idea of a construction conglomerate is a mistake. Aecon went down the same path and struggled as well. Only $33m of inter-company revenue was exchanged between the various Churchill subsidiaries or less than 4% of total revenue so Churchill is made up of a bunch of disparate companies that don't or can't work together.

The original concept of building a conglomerate was to take advantage of the supposed synergies between the companies when bidding or designing a project. In theory, the group could work together to offer a better and cheaper solution. This does not work for a variety of reasons.

Churchill has proven that it cannot manage a disparate group of companies. To recover shareholder value, they need to sell off the subsidiary units and concentrate on general contracting. In the process, they would be able to get rid of that bloated corporate office that cost $8.4m for the nine months to Sept 30, excluding depreciation and financing costs. Where is the accountability?

 

Bullboard Posts