Jason,

I am only vaguely aware of what your company does; I believe you are involved with the manufacture of industrial chemicals?

Whatever your product process, is there anything about your business that is highly proprietary? I am assuming that there is.

If you were offered the opportunity to build a plant in China and gain access to a larger market at the price of revealing exactly how to do everything you do, would this be worthwhile for you?

Should be safer planes overall, I mean, we'll all be protected from radiation with all that lead paint!

The answer is no. Obviously, I'd think they'd rip me off. Why would anyone not. Knowing this, why would it be a good deal? I had a similar offer from Costa Rica a few years back. I said no for the same reason.

Again, if you can automate the manufacture of your product here in the U.S., the Chinese cannot beat you. The best part is that the automation is tax deductible. Yes, it's expensive up front but it's cheaper than taxes and once it's paid for it's free.

Others have said yes.

Perhaps the difference between a caretaker management and an owner/founder management structure.

It is not surprising that you are concerned about the shape of your company circa 2050 while others are more focused on Wall Street's quarterly reaction.

is it possible for someone from the USA to sue a manufacturer in China? or would it just not be worth the trouble? Or maybe the chinese gov would not allow it? If that were the case their profit margin would automatically be double. Then add the money saved by chinese labor and an airplane builder becomes extremely profitable. I bet they could build and sell a continental io550 for $5,000 and make money.

Yeah, "going public" is yet another move that I'll never understand either. If you have a successful and profitable company, why would you sell it? The reporting requirements are outrageous too.

Can airplane manufacture not be automated the way automobile manufacture is automated?

As long as they do business here and have money here, they have exposure.

Seems to me that to get the aircraft certified here in the States, the FAA would require some sort of setup whereby you could go after the company if they sold a product that killed folks. U.S. office etc. I'm sure they're not ever going to close the Cirrus offices here.

I would assume that lack of volume is a large part of the problem. Automated tooling is expensive but affordable when spread out over a build run of 500,000. (For reference Ford sold over 400,000 explorers/year from 1999 to 2002 in the US alone)

If you are building 25 Barons's a year I can't see it being cost effective.

I feel I am as patriotic as anyone, yet there is a disconnect between our rhetoric and our actions and I am as GUILTY as anyone. When it comes time to put our money where our mouths are through our investments, 401K, IRA's, etc. we look for the largest returns, period. The days of buying a good USA company and holding without question until retirement are gone. We live in a world where even a steadily profitable company is a bore. We want fast money and if that means moving manufacturing out then do it, post a big quarter, and I keep the stock. Fail to outpace the S&P for a couple of months and I'll dump the stock and move on to one with management that knows how to post big numbers.

Cirrus lacking the more lucrative corporate products probably had to find some investment in order to continue to grow and they did. If this means they will survive then god speed, I only wish our investment and banking system could have provided them an answer.

Food for thought
http://www.cultofmac.com/check-out-the- ... ired/82586

Old reason: to raise needed capital for expansion, R&D, etc.

New reason: pure greed, happily serviced by an investment banking industry that serves almost no useful social purpose.

I've done both types of IPOs and I can tell you that the former is the big loser these days.

I got that issue and read the article. It's interesting.

+1

Not following