Other People’s Money (1991)

 “What is a business worth?” For Larry the liquidator (played by Danny DeVito) a business is worth the price of its stock, for Jorgy, the entrepreneur who inherited the New England Wire and Cable Company from his father, a business is about the people associated with it. The tension between these two perspectives- The shareholder view of financial economics and the stakeholder view of management- provides the basic story for the movie Other People’s Money (1991). Larry the liquidator is always on the lookout for good companies that he can buy and sell to make a profit. One day he comes across a small firm New England Wire and Cable Company that was ably managed by the second-generation of the founding family and was completely debt-free. When Larry’s offer to buy the company is refused by the owners, he pursues a hostile take-over. Larry’s attempts for the hostile takeover are repeatedly stalled by Kate, the step-daughter of Jorgy. Finally, the shareholders are asked to vote on whether they want to keep the company private and retain the existing management, or are willing to let Larry acquire the company so he could sell it and make a good profit for the shareholders. (You can check out a more detailed summary of the movie here.)

The movie is a romantic-comedy. It does a good job of presenting hostile takeovers and corporate acquisitions in a fun way. Companies, big and small, can be attractive targets for takeover and acquisition for a variety of reasons. The movie effectively portrays how a company which is apparently being run well (i.e. the management is honest and caring and the company is completely debt free) may be attractive to corporate raiders who can help shareholders get a better return for their money. The management of the company, like Jorgy in the movie, try their best to defend against these attacks using a number of tactics. The recent Microsoft-Yahoo story relates well to the movie. Microsoft made an offer to acquire Yahoo, but Jerry Yang the founder CEO of yahoo did not want to sell his company. He was able to stall the offer for a while, force Microsoft to make a better offer, and convince his board to finally reject the offer. However, as is well known, Yahoo’s problems are far from over. If the management of Yahoo is not able to come up with a plan to strategically redefine and reposition Yahoo soon (as Jorgy’s step-daughter was able to do in the movie), the days of Yahoo as an independent company may very well be numbered.

The movie is certainly worth watching, especially for students and instructors interested in topics related to corporate strategy, acquisition, diversification, takeovers, and entrepreneurship.

Advertisements

61 responses to “Other People’s Money (1991)

  1. Nice writing style. Looking forward to reading more from you.

    Chris Moran

  2. Anthony Olenik

    Other People’s Money is an excellent Hollywood take on corporate takeovers and ways to escape them. Jorgy’s New England Wire and Cable Company is fiscally responsible and a great buy for a person seeking to buy and re-sell a business at a profit. Company acquisitions are often surrounded by difficult decisions and a lot of business realm politics.
    Warren Buffet’s company Berkshire Hathaway profits from acquiring all of or buying a share of well-run companies that have much more potential. With a controlling influence, the new owner takes the company beyond what it originally was to capitalize on the investment as much as possible. It is difficult for a company to avoid such a take over from a determined buyer, especially if the company is publicly traded versus being privately owned. Strategic positioning and actions can potentially avoid a takeover though if the original owner doesn’t wish to part with his or her company.

  3. Other People’s Money is a movie about the takeover of New England Wire and Cable. In this movie, Garfield is in the business of using the hostile takeover to gain control of companies and then sell them off into small pieces to make a profit. Throughout the course of the movie you see all of the dealings and agreements that are made and broken in trying to acquire and protect this company. In the end Garfield is able to gain control of the company by proving to the shareholders that this company is already dead and he is just allowing them to make some profit in the meantime.
    What this movie teaches about mergers and acquisitions is that in the case of an acquisition the company being acquired is reluctant to have this happen. It also poses the dilemma that providing the maximum value to shareholders may mean that many people lose their jobs. In tying this movie together with Roger and Me, we can see that a lot of times factories are closed done while they still seem to be profitable and supporting a town, but in the near future this may not be the case and the factory is likely to close anyways. Also, it showed that New England Wire and Cable, even with their perfect balance sheet, was unable to avoid becoming obsolete because they were unable to focus on the changes in technology and adapt accordingly. The decision at the end of the movie to turn the factory into one which makes airbags shows an excellent business sense by Kate to be able to not only please Garfield, but also to save the factory and the town it supports.

  4. Niamh Delaney

    Other People’s Money is a film that juxtaposes two ideologies on running a business. The first ideology is a very old school way to run a company focusing on hard work, staying away from debt, and caring about the employees and the community. The second ideology is more cutthroat and centers on making money regardless of who gets hurt.

    At the beginning of this movie, I was completely against “Larry the Liquidator” and his attempt to close down the wire and cable factory. His actions were entirely driven by his desire to make a quick buck. I kept thinking about the damage that closing the factory would do to the local town, and how awful it was of Larry to dispose of everything that Andrew worked all his life for. At the shareholder meeting when I Larry came on stage to give his speech, I assumed that I would be appalled by his greedy proposition. While his motives were clearly fiscal, he surprisingly brought up some prudent issues. The wire and cable business was bound to become obsolete, because of new technologies like fiber optics The company had not managed to keep pace and as a result they too were on the brink of failure. Inevitably the stock holders and the town would lose when the company went under; keeping the company running with a temporary band aid would only buy so much time.

    Of course since this movie has romantic comedy feel to it, everything has to work out happily ever after in the end. In reality I do not know how likely it would be for both parties to work together for such an amicable ending . I think this film should be a reminder to companies to keep on top of there R & D as well as consistently revaluate their business model and strategy. Today’s technology is ever changing and a company that makes tremendous profits now, is not guaranteed to continue to make profits in a year or two.

  5. I like romantic-comedy movie. And this one is really fitting my favor. No matter how people love about money, when they refer to love, everybody would like to put love on the first stage, which would always attract the audiences’ eye bows. Larry, who has a high reputation in the business world, is a liquidator, acquiring all kinds of companies and then selling them separately to gain huge profits. In the movie, he seems very competent in dealing with other people. He thinks the most exciting thing in the world is to earn money, especially getting money from others. However, when he met Jorgy, everything changed. Because he fell in love with Jorgy, he can not do his business like what he used to do. During the discussion between Larry and Gregory Peck, Larry performed so well in discussing the operation of company and drawing on the blackboard, which already attracted me so much to dwell on watching this movie, let alone the last debate with all shareholders in the end of the movie. The thoughts that Larry talked about the capitalism is really outstanding. If you are the shareholder, after listening to the presentation in the shareholders’ meeting, you would also doubt the thoughts you believed before.

  6. Jun (Kurt) Guo

    In 1980s, facing the competition from the development of Japanese companies, many American factories shut down. A lot of workers were facing unemployment. And this movie is talking about this kind of story. New England Wire and Cable Company can not operated well, then a wall street banker wants to buy and sell it later to earn a big benefit. From the point of society, when the firm is bankruptcy, all its workers would lose their jobs. But from the view of shareholders’ benefit, if the firm is keeping operating, it would not good for their profit. This movie although pays a lot of attention on talking about the cold world of capitalism, its real meaning is the love can overcome everything, even the money. Although Larry keeps saying that he loves money, he can not be happy even if he can successful buy the company if he could not win the love from Jorgy.

  7. The one thing that I can take from the movie, “Other People’s Money,” is that decisions aren’t theoretically as easy as just basing everything on profitability. Any time a strategic move is made within a company, such as Mergers & Acquisitions, it involves more people than just the acquirer and the acquired. One has to take into account all stakeholders and shareholders because everyone shares different sentiments and values the company differently. Or does he? As discussed in the blogs about “Roger and Me,” does a company have obligations to its people? Or does profitability override all decisions? Within reasonable ethical boundaries, I believe that a corporation’s sole purpose is to make money, and whether or not the corporation gives back to the people is just a bonus. As much as the movie tried to portray Larry as ruthless and heartless, Larry the Liquidator is a metaphor for the harsh reality.

  8. The movie “Other People’s Money” provides a theatrical view on the issue of mergers and acquisitions of other companies. A man called “Larry the Liquidator” does what seems is whatever is possible to obtain the best deal and further himself in the world of business. “Larry the Liquidator’s” latest target in the film is a New England Wire and Cable company that is a family owned business by a man named Jorgy. The process of Larry attempting to acquire the business of Wire and Cable ensues throughout the film, leading to a shareholder vote as to whether or not they want the firm to be acquired by “The Liquidator”.
    Larry gives a speech to the stockholders, trying to convince them to reinvest their money into other profitable ventures. It seems funny that Larry mentions that the firm in an obsolete technology and that one should invest all of their money into fiber-optics, as the movie is a little outdated for current times. Larry mentions that it makes much more sense for the stockholders to invest in something that is going to make them money, and not to invest their money in the share of a shrinking market. He gives a crazy example of investing in bull-whips, and saying again why would you invest in something that you know is going to be obsolete, even if it is the “best” bull-whip maker. While, his speech has some merit with the fact that it makes little sense to invest in something that is outdated or obsolete, the way that Larry conveys the message and the approach he takes is very distasteful. Stating things such as “who cares about the community” and the employees of the company, and that no one has a responsibility to them, he shows very little compassion to the people of the company. He shows little regard to the actual people of the company and solely to the money aspect of deal.
    The film obviously brings up issues of the strategic benefits in mergers and acquisitions and likewise the implications that such mergers have on those businesses that are being acquired. With the issue of acquiring a firm, there can be ethical implications as well, which is an important factor to not overlook.

  9. Jeff Wolniewicz

    Other People’s Money is a look at mergers and acquisitions through the eyes of a romantic comedy, a bit of a strange mix. Despite the strange mix, the movie does provide an interesting look at how many people the takeover of a company can impact. Larry the Liquidator is a shrewd businessman that is always looking for new companies to buy and sell in order to make a profit. He is clearly driven and motivated by money. Larry sets his sights on the New England Wire and Cable Company in the movie. Larry faces opposition Jorgy, owner of the small company, every step of the way. It eventually boils down to a shareholder vote to determine if the company is to be sold to Larry.

    I do want to point out that many people have criticized Larry and his business tactics. They have felt he is apathetic and doesn’t care about the lives of the people that work for the companies that he buys and sells. They’re absolutely right, he doesn’t. In order to be good at his job he needs to remove that personal aspect and look at things objectively. Business is about making money, not about making friends. Although we would all like to live in a world where everyone is happy and makes money, that is not the world we live in. Certain industries and businesses come and go, and as long as this happens there will be somebody there to profit from it.

  10. The film is about the aquisition of a wire and cable company by a man who makes it his business to aquire companies, set as a romantic comedy. There are certainly some mutual strategic advantages that can be gained by a companies through alliances and mergers, through aquisitions however, a more clear line can be drawn to differentiate a winner an a loser in the process. This is the theme in the movie, about aquiring other’s money by taking what they have invested in and built and making it liquid. “The only thing I like better than money is other people money,” said Larry the Liquidator about what motivates his actions. This mindset sets the table for the debat between Jorgy and Larry to the stock holders. Jorgy offering that a business is worth more than its stock price, and that one day the company will be worth more alive than dead. Larry arguing that in order to stay profitable one must know when to reinvest and not go down with the ship. This is the message in the film about aquisitions, there is a time to cut losses and be aquired (or liquidated) and there is a time to hold your ground and weather the storm. The trick is being able to understand which one to do as situations arise. What is good about this movie is that both men offer good points that anyone who plans on investing should consider. The issues of responsibility to the community, obsolescense in technology, investing strategy of stockholders, ethics, and aquisition posibilities all arise as potential things to consider when making strategic management decisions. For Larry the stategy is simple, “make as much as you can for as long as you can, and whoever has the most when he dies, wins.” If it were only that simple.

  11. Jennifer Gilligan

    Other People’s Money is a good movie to watch when discussing mergers and acquisitions. Larry the Liquidator is in love with money, especially when it belongs to other people. He is known for taking over companies and making a large profit off of it. Larry’s current interest is a family run business called New England Wire and Cable. After numerous negotiations Larry still refuses to back down from his battle to take over the company.

    At the annual stock holders meeting they have a vote to decide whether the shareholders want to liquidate the company or not. After both sides give convincing speeches, Larry wins and acquires New England Wire and Cable. The argument here comes down to whether a company’s purpose is to support jobs for employees or is it to make a profit for shareholders. You could argue either way depending on your point of view. Obviously if you are involved with the company there is an emotional connection that would sway you one way. The movie makes Larry seem like an awful man but in reality he is acting in the best interest of the shareholders. He takes out the emotional aspect and strictly works to make a profit. Making profit is what business’s set out to do, so is Larry really a bad guy? I think both arguments have a strong standing.

  12. This is a great movie for any viewer who just wants to be angry at the financiers who have actual vision. It would be far to easy to see ”Larry the Liquidator” as the evil villain, but in reality, he is the only one in this film with any kind of vision for the company. Companies are ruined all the time by not adapting to the times. In the situation of New England Wire and Cable, an elderly President refuses to adapt to a changing world, which inevitably would have led to the eventual demise of the company, all the employees, and in this one horse town, the entire town. In this way, the President and board of Directors was completely disregarding the best interests of the shareholders and stakeholders! In reality the options for this company were adapt to the times, go out of business, or take Mr. Garfield’s plan and actually generate some money for the shareholders. If we look at this situation, given that the company was completely unwilling to change their business, the only way they would have every found the Japanese airbag deal was through Larry Garfield’s interaction with New England Wire and Cable. Without Larry the Liquidator’s input, this company would have continued fighting for whatever decreasing market share they could in the ‘red ocean’ segment they were operating in. On a totally different note, Larry showed what I consider intense insight by predicting fiber optic cable’s dominance in 1990. At this time fiber optic was really still a pipe dream, whose financial success was completely unrealized. I think this film does a truly fantastic job showing that Mergers, hostile take overs and acquisitions can have extremely beneficial results in terms of corporate survival, and adaptation.

  13. Michael Warren

    This romantic comedy demonstrates mergers and acquisitions. Larry Garfield, a liquidator, plans on using his hostile takeover techniques to take over New England Wire and Cable. He is always looking to takeover a company and sell it at a sizeable profit. Garfield’s continuous attempts to a hostile takeover are delayed and fail throughout the movie. It is not until the end where the shareholders are asked to vote if Garfield should acquire the company or not. Larry Garfield was given control of New England Wire and Cable. Mergers and Acquisitions are important to the business world. A company that is being acquired in an acquisition may be hesitant to have this occur even though are strategic advantages to them. The company needs to know when is the right time to hold out or to accept the merger/acquisition and cut loses.

  14. The movie introduces the normal acquisition of the corporations. When referring to the take over, there always exist the conflict between the interest of labors and shareholders. It is always the issue beyond profit. The ethical issue is always debatable and is no right answer. The movie is happy ending with win-win strategy, but how about the real life? From an outsider, we always blame companies the lack of social responsibility. But how would we do if we take the similar position like CEO or Garfield? It seems unreasonable today to run a business on the belief of tradition and the people in the community without taking the profit into consideration. Of course, the action Garfield did is also not to be praised. How could we balance the profit and social responsibility is really tough. In my opinion, I think man should always try to contribute to the society and thus make the world better. What we do could be small. However the results may influence a lot beyond our imagination.

  15. Other People’s Money provides several insights into the concept of mergers and acquisitions. Larry Garfield is the chairman of Garfield Investments and he specializes in taking over failing or about to fail companies and selling off its assets piece by piece. Oh, and he’s able to turn a substantial profit in the process.

    The movie is centered around the potential takeover of New England Wire & Cable. The company is not really in trouble yet but it will be in the near future due to its products becoming more and more antiquated. Larry delivers an amazing speech to the firms stockholders trying to convince them to sell their share and get out with a little money. He’s also asking them to not think about the moral/ethical implications of such a decision.
    Although, I don’t think the shareholders had much of choice.

    Current management refused to invest for the future nor did they keep up the times. Technology has changed and now fiberoptics are at the forefront of the cable industry. They ultimately have to act in their best interest. They’ve been losing money over the past several years due to the fact the stock price is 1/6 of what it was 10 years ago. Now, they finally face an opportunity to turn a little profit from this takeover.

    Overall I feel like this movie paints a pretty clear picture about acquistions in the business world. There are obviously a myriad of things to consider but ultimately one must realize that you have to strike when the iron’s hot or you’re going to be left out in the cold. The goal of any company is to make profit. That is the only goal of consequence. How they get there is up to management. However, management has a responsibility to its shareholders and it seems like the managers of NE Wire & Cable did not live up to expectations and they messed up. They’re now paying the price for their transgressions and rightly so. The investors deserve to see a little light at the end of this tunnel. Go Danny Devito!…I mean Larry….the Liquidator.

  16. Why fight what is inevitable? The energy wasted on fending off an acquisition can usually be put to better use in ensuring that top dollar is paid for the target company than useless and often pathetic attempts to stop the acquisition from taking place. As is seen in the film Other People’s money, Danny DeVito’s character, “Larry the Liquidator”, perfectly portrays the view of what a corporate raider would be like. However if you look at Larry from a financial point of view Larry is a responsible player in the efficiency of markets. If Larry didn’t exist shareholders would have to question whether the companies they invest in are actually doing the most they can in their – the shareholders –interests. The ironry in the story plays out at the end when we discover that in the 11th hour there is a Japanese Company that can use the production from the plant and the business can be salvaged. However this new opportunity would not have presented itself had it not been for the acquisition that Larry pulled off and the sudden urgency that never existed within the company previously. Efficient companies cannot sit by stagnantly and let the market change around them. “Sharks” like Larry exist to ensure that if a company is doing wrong and there is a profit that could be made, that the truth be exposed and that the company be bought out or perhaps sold off in order to maximize the “Owners” value. Without such expectations no public company can be expected to do what is right by their shareholders at all times. In the end the truth will prevail and if a buyout is inevitable then there are enough players out there to make it happen.

  17. Scott Buckley

    The film Other People’s Money tells the familiar American story of corporate takeovers. It depicts both sides of the conflict very well, one being what’s best for the shareholders and the other being the destruction of jobs in a small town. Each side has valid points in support of its position. Both Jorgy and Lawrence give solid speeches at the shareholder meeting. Jorgy focuses on non-monetary values and explained that better times were ahead. Lawrence spoke about money and the here and now. Mr. Garfield ultimately convinced the shareholders that the liquidation of New England Wire and Cable was the best option. Throughout the movie and in other cases where I have seen this scenario play out, I always wonder why the only two options are to shut-down or continue to operate at a loss. Why isn’t there any middle ground? Since the company had no debt and leverage in most instances can be a good thing, I thought that Lawrence should give the company a loan at a cheap rate to improve or change production. That way both sides have a chance to win. Sure enough, something close to what I was thinking did happen at the end. Kate presents an offer to Lawrence to switch from producing wire and cable to screen nets for airbags. He loves the idea plus keeping the plant makes him look better in Kate’s eyes.

  18. Wen Jiun Tsai

    “Other people’s money” is a movie describing the hostile takeover. Larry the liquidator, is a typical raider in the takeover. He makes money by means of exploiting shareholders’ money and his mouth to convince them. In the process of takeover, it always come into interest conflicts. Both raider and the shareholders desire to gain the maximum benefits, and thus it is hard to say who is not business ethical to earn the most benefits. Takeover is all about games. The raiders try to stand in a better position to take the most benefits, but the shareholders also have the rights to agree or disagree the takeover. It all depends on what the beliefs shareholders hold.

    The movie ends in a romance rather than the preying money games to color the life with love. What matters most for a man is all depends on what you believe.

  19. After watching the movie, Other people’s money, I feel that it is an interesting film. The reason is not only because the movie is a comedy but also some viewpoints addressed by Larry in some plots. Especially, when he talked about what the investors care about is nothing but the stock prices. If a person is one of internal personnel in a company, he/she should care about the management and operations of the firm. However, if a person is an investor or shareholder, he/she should care about how much money he/she can make by trading this stock. Lawrence Garfield, the Wallstreet liquidator, wanted to find an undervalue company and buy and hold the stock until mispricing is revised. In this buying and selling process, Larry made great profits. In the movie, Larry wants to acquire New England Wire and Cable, a family-owned local business in a dead industry. Because of technology innovation, there is no competitive advantage for this company. New England Wire and Cable tried to survive in this dead industry. They have strong balance sheet, good financial performance and care about the employees. How they use these points effectively is a big challenge to them. Merge and acquisition could be one way but not the only way. They utilized all their advantages to corporate with Japanese company and want to benefit shareholders and themselves.

  20. The movie “Other People’s Money” brought up the issue of acquisition and business ethics. Larry the liquidator is so obssessed about money and the way he make his money doesn’t make me feel good. I mean even he could be very rich; he will be a rich but disgusting guy. In the movie, he wants to acquire the New England Wire and Cable company and sells it for a higher price. The way that he presents to the shareholder is so coldbloodedly, although he makes his point but couldn’t he be nicer and show some sympathy?

    Anyway, this movie does bring up the attention on competitive advantage of the acquisition or merger and it is also a lesson that reminds companies to take the ethical issue into account.

  21. Jiaxi(Zeta)Chen

    As Larry the liquidator says that the only thing he likes better than money is other people money. He thinks that one must know when to reinvest and not go down with the ship for the purpose of profitability and interests of all shareholders and stakeholders.
    From my point of view, even though Larry’s strategy for business is kind of extreme—make as much as you can for as long as you can, and whoever has the most when he dies, wins. But I think that Larry is a very good metaphor of the crucial real business world. Especially now the technology is developed very fast in an unbelievable way. Even the company is not really in trouble yet, but nobody can deny the possibility that it might go to bankruptcy because of the obsolescence of products. And Larry delivers an amazing speech by educating and convincing company’s stockholders that now fiber optics are at the forefront of the cable industry, but the New England Wire and Cable Company didn’t keep pace with other competitors , which makes it might turn out to be on the brink of failure. So now sell their shares and get out with some money to put into other prospective investments is the best way for them. Basically, I could say that I agree with Larry because the primary goal of any company is to make profit. If a company doesn’t develop their new technology and at the same time, the management of company still sticks with their obsolete technology, why don’t invertors clear their mind earlier and change their investment plan for this company to avoid losing money in near future.
    Business is business, if a business can’t be operated with a profitable strategy, how can it pay off to all the investors of this company? How does it supply job opportunities and prosperity to the community? Unfortunately, all unethical issues will come out at the end, then why don’t they let the unethical things come right now to minimize the damage of closing the company to the community?
    This movie reminds us those companies should keep on top of their R & D as well as revaluate their business model and strategy consistently. If we can expect the potential danger of company in near future, probably we should think about merger and acquisition to protect our investors. To some extent, it also protects the community and employees to lose more interests when the company goes to bankruptcy. Anyway, “other people’s money” is a good romantic-comedy. It does a good job of presenting hostile takeovers and corporate acquisitions in a fun way. We probably should follow Larry’s mindset of business when we are dealing with this kind of similar situation. If I was Jorgy , I would take Larry ‘s ideas of merger and acquisition to plan a better future for this company.

  22. Lindsay Burleson

    Along with being a witty comedy, this movie has a little bit of a theoretical basis. In our recent discussion of mergers and acquisitions in class, we were able to identify the strengths and weaknesses, successes and pitfalls for the companies involved. The text analyzed the steps needed to make money. The cavit of the text is uncovered in the movie Other People’s Money. The companies involved in any merger or aquisition are not the only players in the game. Employees and the community must also have their role. This role is significant, not mundane. Personally I love Gregory Peck’s speech to stockholders. I feel it exemplified some of the ideals that upper mgmt should display.

  23. Wen-Ting (Doris) Wei

    This movie expressed the basic rule of the world: “The weak are the prey of the strong.” Larry the liquidator acquired New England Wire and Cable which was in dead industry in order to make huge profit, but totally ignored the welfare of employees and community. If he cared about human, money wouldn’t play such an extreme role in capitalism. Technically, if we think of a weak firm as a resource, we will use it up, exploit it and wear it out to maximize its value along with some other resources. From investor point of view, who care which industry to put money in, who care whether employees are treated fairly and who care how a company execute its social responsibility? The only thing they care is the outcome of the investment, which we could easily realize. However, we are human beings, not animals. Most people can’t make ruthless profit from their mind because they just wouldn’t sleep well at night if they are also sick of capitalists. In the end of the movie, love beat money……..I like the plot.

  24. Larysa Karasev

    This is a perfect movie to watch especially in the light of our late discussion of mergers and acquisitions. I agree with previous commenters’ feelings and thoughts. In the beginning I considered The Liquidator as a bad person who never cares about people, but later on my attitude has changed dramatically. In such complicated business combinations many issues become more important in the long run; also it is absolutely evident that there is no a situation when everybody win, there is always a party that suffers. A merger player must have a huge courage as people struggle. Emotions usually make the decision-making process more complicated; cold blood is needed in order to succeed. We see from this movie how Denny De Vito makes perfect strategy for every takeover, does not let emotions to withdraw and makes profit. He does not set the goal to care about people; his primary aim is to find proper project, analyze it and create value for shareholders. Overall this is a very good movie to watch.

  25. Rachael Schwartz

    Coming from small business it is hard for me to watch a film like this without feeling bothered. It is understandable that big corporations are out to make a profit, and truthfully in this case it doesn’t bother me nearly as much as it would if the “mom and pop” business was an innovative and unusual small business. I have seen countless businesses in the toy industry be bought by large corporations and ruined. These small companies usually create the most innovative, unusual, and exciting toys in the industry and once they get bought the innovation tends to fizzle away. This movie is just a stereotypical portrayal of the big business man and the poor little business attempting to stay afloat. Nothing new and nothing too exciting.

  26. Other People’s Money provides a comedic aspect to a movie about financial management, the relationship between the shareholder and the company, and prospective mergers and acquisitions. OPM portrays how the rich become richer at no expense, how the big business try and bully the little guys; Garfield even asked Kate to marry him while she was on a date with another man. This movie shows that you have to be forceful and go after what you want. OPM lightens the situation at hand with humor which sets this movie apart from other types of “wall street” esque movies that present the hard facts and nothing else. OPM shows that business is conducted in the now; you have to think what’s best at the given moment and “if it’s worth more dead now than alive”. Even when it looks like the end had come, Kate makes Garfield another offer to buy back the shares and the saga continues. At the beginning of the movie, Garfield says that you don’t have to be hungry to eat a donut and the same principle can be tied to money. You don’t have to use your own money to make money, as Garfield puts, he loves Other People’s Money.

  27. Chin-Hsiang Lin

    I like this movie not only because it is my favorite type movie-romantic comedy but also because it took some strategic views to attract me. The critical point always comes down to whether a company’s purpose is to give jobs for employees or is it to make a profit for shareholders and in reality, there is always blame came from people who tend to think that a company should take the social responsibility to employees. I was thinking about that if I were the CEO one day, which side I will stay in during watching the movie. But overall, in my youth opinion for now, I think no mater what strong reasons companies give for surviving itself, companies should take the ethics or social responsibility into the serious issues firstly.

  28. William Haller

    This movie chronicles an inflection point of NE Cable and Wire, which ultimately determines will the company live on, or be liquidated by Larry.

    The speeches made by Jorgeson and Larry sum up the pertinent business ideas very well. Jorgeson states passionately that a company has to produce value, its financial decisions have to produce value, there needs to be ethics in decision making, the shareholders and employees both must be considered, the community matters, and there is more value to a company than the price of it’s stock.

    Garfield emphasizes the need for the company to produce money, whether through its bottom line, or through selling its assets to another company. Unless there is money to be had, a business has to purpose. That’s how he can best justify his position of being a “liquidator.”

    I feel combining these critical ideas together paints the best picture. A good acquisition must identify all the value of a company and see how that value compares to its stock price. What intangible assets exist and how can they produce a synergy or enhance the acquiring company? What unknown potential lies in the employees’ knowledge? If a firm can truly gain from these assets above and beyond the “book value” of the firm, it is worth looking into. If no profit can be made from either the firm itself or the acquiring firm, the core business is either obsolete or improperly utilized and must be reevaluated.

  29. I find it interesting to see the varying perspectives of dying industries in this film. It is easy to look at outsourcing, plant closings, mergers and acquisitions in the heartless, immoral perspective most workers and citizens adopt to cope with it, but in reality such decision are sometimes necessary. In the case of New England Wire and Cable, on paper the company was still profitable and would seemingly have no reason to liquidated. However from the other end of the spectrum sometimes it is necessary to take a proactive approach and realize the business was not sustainable in the long-term and requires radical action. When it comes down to it no manager wants to close down, sell the business, or fire people but one must separate person emotion from what is ultimately best for the entire company as a whole, there’s no crying in business.

  30. Kuo-Shen Huang

    I think that it is very interesting movie and I also learn a lot from this. Larry acquire other companies and sell these corporations to others in order to make a bunch of profits. His approach of making money would make others disagree with his behavior and even be thought as the “Pirate”. However, he still thinks that the most significant thing in the world is money, especially all of this money from others.
    What I think in the movie is that acquisition as well as cooperation in the textbook actually means that it would help “both sides” of company gain profits and advantages but not just for your own profits or, in that way, it finally will fail for both sides. Like Larry in this movie, even though they temporarily take a considerable amount of money from others, it is possible for him eventually to lose other benefits they may not imagine.

  31. This is a great movie about the “merger and acquisition” frenzy of the 80’s, and has absolutely stellar acting and writing. The crescendo to the movie comes in the two speeches before the company shareholders. The speeches punctuate what is more the reality in today’s world. Corporate take-overs and liquidations are not simply a bunch of greedy business people enriching themselves at everyone else’s expense. From an economic point of view New England Wire and Cable should be shut down. It’s in a business. The money from selling this failing business can be invested in a business that viable and growing.
    What’s refreshing about the movie is the writer did not set up a straw man to argue either point of view. Both sides present intelligent arguments from believable characters. The movie challenges us that what is rational is not always what feels good. An efficient and productive economy is one that has the ability to change, but there are costs – people get displaced.

  32. Other People’s Money touched on the strategic management topic of acquisitions. Larry Garfield in interested in taking over New England Wire and Cable and sell pieces of it for a profit. Larry is obsessed with money and doesn’t care who stands in his way. Acquisitions are sometimes necessary for companies to survive in a turbulent business environment. They can be used to expand a company or as a defense mechanism against competitors. Companies would be wise to consider the costs and benefits of mergers if they are ever put in their position, especially with the increase of globalization.

  33. Larry is a business person with ambitious and business vision; he makes rational analysis instead of emotional decisions. He made a successful speech which is strong and rational which provided me with a different perspective. His success in speech depended on the core concept he tried to deliver, that is emotions do not develop the company, responsibility to employees and communities should not be the top concern, and instead, the key issue is to maximize shareholder’s value. The acquisition under some circumstances benefits the shareholders a lot, and also meets the good intention to create new jobs and provide service to the economy by invest the money somewhere else. The fine line between company’s responsibility and business profits can never be drawn, and it is really easy to criticize when we are not in the situation. The merger and acquisition is the trend and if it is creating the value and benefit the overall population while scarifies small portion of people, it is still worth adoption. When Coca cola acquired the largest native juice company in China, against voices was all over. However, since the opportunity and benefit are there which speaks for itself, we could tolerant part of the drawbacks to support the overall maximized benefits.

  34. Philip St. Clair

    While this movie discusses the concept of mergers and acquisitions quite well, the clear contrast in the movie is on the idea of: What does a business stand for? Jorgy is an entrepreneur and believes that a company should make profit but above all else should serve the community and employees first. Larry believes that a company’s sole purpose is to maximize profits and should serve the shareholders. The employees are secondary to Larry.

    I hate to be so cold hearted but I have to agree with Larry ideology, however I do not agree with his tactics. It is true that an organization, at its core, is to serve the shareholders and should always be trying to maximize profits for the shareholders. This is what business is all about. Many people that advocate the opposite school of thought merely do so business in many cases supporting the employees and community is an excellent way to potentially maximize profits. The retail industry is a great example. Happy employees translate to happy customers which translate into a better bottom line.

    Still, though I have never been a big supporter of hostile takeovers. There is a reason that the word hostile has a negative connotation. I would consider Larry’s actions unethical and while I agreed that cash is king is the business world, relationships and human decency are just as important.

  35. Lauren Spielberg

    The movie Other People’s Money is a great example of when companies should be acquired and when they should divest certain business areas. Jorgy had too much pride in himself to give up his family’s business, even though it was a better business move. He also didn’t divest the New England Wire and Cable part of the business. This part was causing the company to lose money and didn’t provide any added value. The industry was also dying and Jorgy was ignorant to this. This section of the entire business could have potentially survived if Jorgy had adjusted and changed with the times. Fiber-optic cables were the new technology but Jorgy turned a blind eye to this and continued to make regular cables. The only way for the company to stay afloat was to be acquired by a larger company, which was the end result.

  36. First off, I think this movie had the worst actors pick for the main roles (maybe it was because it was bought and paid for by Dunkin Donuts). I would have liked to see Richard Gere, Michael Douglas, or Tom Cruise (pre scientology) play Lawrence Garfield the corporate raider.

    Acting aside, I agree with other posters who have sided with Garfield. I believe that companies who do not change with the times are only hurting their local economy, employees, and shareholders more than instituting change. The problem is that older people hate change, they avoid like the plague. The lack of change leads to a multiplier effect on the problem and eventually you get situations like the economy in Upstate New York, where during the 70s, 80s, and 90s cities in upstate saw companies fail/relocate at an exponential rate. The main problem is that old management and unions did not allow the facilitation of change in a company. God forbid the answer to a company’s problems was to restructure its operations.

    During the 80s, you saw investors do something about this problem. Corporate raiders bought up stock in companies that had a higher liquidation value than book value. They forced their way into upper management and once in, they sold off the company (for a hefty profit). Thomas Boone Pickens and Carl Icahn come to mind when I saw this movie (also Gordon Gekko from the movie Wall Street was depicted as a corporate raider). They were not the most popular guys, but they were able to shake up the corporate world and make management understand that they need to change or lose their job.

  37. First off, let me start off by saying what an awful, AWFUL movie (in terms of acting, cinematography, excessive product placement, and a love storyline that made me want to vomit). DeVito, an unfortunate looking man as it is, played a character so repugnant I almost could not even focus on the issues of Mergers and Acquisitions.

    As in “Wall Street,” in the 80’s mentality of buy-out and liquidate, DeVito’s character plots a hostile takeover of a wire producing company, owned and operated by his love interest’s family, this love interest is also the lawyer representing the wire producing company against DeVito’s advances (both personal and professional). A dynamic plot twist! [Insert scoff here.]

    I can honestly say I learned nothing of Mergers & Acquisitions from this movie. I already knew lawyers make bank from M&A without really doing much (I plan on being such a lawyer). As far as buying a majority of shares to gain control of a company, well, a 2 minute clip from the end of “Batman Begins” would 1. explain the concept better in less time and 2. be more entertaining.

    This movie was more focused on the disgusting love story between DeVito and the lawyer. The mention of an M&A was merely a mini-plot on the back burner to facilitate the meeting of DeVito and Kate. The movie repulsed me and taught me nothing. And for the love of all that is business, bloggers: not EVERYTHING in this class is about small businesses or toy stores. The wire company was publicly traded and, according to Larry, worth at least $100 million. Did you even watch the movie?

  38. Other People’s Money outlines the story of a hostile takeover & liquidation attempt by Larry the Liquidator on a family-managed cabling company in New England that happens to be trading at a price lower than its liquidation value of $25 per share.

    In my opinion, the movie makes a perfect case for capitalism as the driving force behind innovation and improving our lives. For $25 a share, New England Cable is worth more dead than it is as a functioning business. Assuming the share price of a company is the investor’s outlook on that company, everybody is better off burying it than keeping the company going. The fact that Jorgy and his family have emotional moments about losing this business that has been passed down for generations is minor and irrelevant – if you’re not willing to play by the rules of the game, don’t play in the first place and don’t become a public company.
    What I did pay attention to however, is the fact that Larry agrees to resell his shares at $28 once New England decides it’s going to make steel wires for air bags in Mitsubishi’s cars. If it wasn’t for the short, bald, greedy, hopeless romantic trying to take over and liquidate New England Cable while hitting on the lawyer, the company might not have been inclined to go out and make air bags.

    We are all safer thanks to the corporate predators out there. Of course, it’s just a movie…

  39. Philip Pellegrino

    This movie is about the take over of a hostile takeover of a family owned company by a big corporation that specializes in this type of thing. It is very similar to the movie Wall Street that we watched earlier. The company Michael Douglas’s character owned would take over companies and sell them off in pieces to make a profit, very similar to what Larry tried to do in this movie.
    The main idea is that companies need to learn to change with the times. If the decision is made to become a publicly traded company and you allow your company to lag behind industry changes and trends, you are all but opening the door to a hostile takeover and sale of your company. In this movie, it took just that to make the company change and decide to make airbags.

  40. The “Other People’s Money” is a great movie that presents hostile takeover and company acquisitions in a funny way. In the movie, Kate stands between Larry the Liquidator and the New England Wire and Cable, a family company that had fallen on hard times but had no debt. The situation is complicated. For Larry the strategy is simple, “make as much as you can for as long as you can, and whoever has the most when he dies, wins.” But things are not that simple in the reality. He tried to convince the management of the company to sell their share to make money but they wouldn’t let him do so. It became more complicated when Larry fell in love with Kate, who tried hard to defeat him in the struggling of the company. Eventually the movie ended up with a happy ending and showed that takeovers and acquisitions can bring benefits to the company.

  41. Other People’s Money is a typical example of today’s society. Everyday companies merge or become acquired due to falling profits. Mr. Garfield is just another corporate exec with the desire to earn as much money as possible. With taking over the New England Cable and Wire Company, many common people will lose their jobs. This actually reminds me of the Michael Moore film as GM sold its plants in Flint to earn a larger profit. These large corporations don’t care who they step on as they make their way to the top.
    However, Devito makes a solid point, as he explained how the technological changes of time do not support the unchanging capabilities of the firm and soon enough it will become an outdated production. I am personally a huge fan of Danny Devito, so I did enjoy this movie. His doughnut reference, when stating that he doesn’t need to be hungry to eat a doughnut, further symbolizes his desire for money, or other people’s money as he says. You don’t need to be at a loss to yearn money, rather money is always desired. Money is what makes the world go round. Survival of the fittest is the key as Devito or Darwin have said.

  42. Abraham Mizrahi

    What I found interesting about “Other People’s Money” was its relevance to today’s economic crisis. This movie came out in 1991 and it doesn’t seem like anything has changed. Jorgy says, “Lets kick his ass back to Wall Street.” There is still a huge divide between Wall Street and Main Street. America has still not come to the realization yet that for there to be a strong economy, Wall Street and Main Street need to be in sync and not at opposition to each other.
    Also, inefficient companies need to cease being inefficient for them to truly be worth anything in the future. I think New England Wire and Cable is a perfect representation of the American auto industry. A company like GM has not adapted fast enough to a rapidly evolving market, the same way that New England Wire and Cable was operating in a dying industry. GM’s profits and its share price have decreased, and its workers are being paid higher wages. However, in order to save the jobs of these workers who operate as part of an inefficient and unprofitable system, America has decided that the rest of the population should bear the burden by bailing them out.
    The most important element to success, as Larry mentions, is continuous education. Technology is constantly evolving and complacency with the old way of doing things will not take a company into the future, but rather slowly drain it of it power.

  43. Inessa Kylymar

    The movie “Other People’s Money” shows how acquisitions are done. The main character Larry, (DeVito) makes money by buying companies that have strong assets but are badly run. He found that Wire and Cable Company is worth more than it’s selling for its stock. The whole process of acquiring the Company wasn’t shown as ethical. Even though the both sides agreed not to act during two weeks, they acted through a third party. They were trying to buy as much stock as they could to gain a significant share of the company. The director of the Company wanted to keep his plant as he was worried about people who might be laid off by the acquisition and he ran the company for so long so he didn’t want to give it away and Larry just wanted to make money.
    At the end of the movie, they decided to hold a stockholders meeting so they can decide what to do with the company. I like speeches that were on that meeting. The director was concerned with workers who will lose their jobs, and Larry was talking how the company might not have profit as the technology is developing and its product is not used as much nowadays. Eventually, Larry got his votes and won the deal.
    As for me, I agreed with both sides. As merging and acquiring lead to laying off people and most of the time top management is not concerned with what happens to workers. On the other hand, the plant is not profitable, which makes the Company lose money. And there is something that needs to be done about it.

  44. “Other People’s Money” does a fantastic job explaining how and why corporate takeovers happen. After viewing this film though, I was a bit confused as to why more smaller companies are not taken over. How is a small company ever supposed to grow into something big ( say to make air bags at a wire and copper factory) if a wall street merchant or a big company takes it over first? I feel like without A LOT of laws and guidelines, it is easy ( even with the injunctions and sorts) to take over a company. These rich companies and people, like Danny Davito’s charachter, have so much money that it seems almost too easy to make millions turning over a company.
    The other interesting this from this movie that I took away from it was the battle between one’s personal life and one’s business life. At what point do you have enough money? Is it ok to break apart a company and ruin your chance at love to make unnecessary profits? However, you can also argue that what Danny Devito did was the most admirable thing to do, because he helped the shareholders make some money and helped them out of a dying business.
    The stockholders meeting was the most interesting part of the movie, because I really got to see the conflicting priorities that stakeholders have. Most want to maximize profits, but is everyone willing to close a factory or become unethical to do so? This movie raised this question in numerous ways.

  45. Julio Romero

    Others people’s money is a great film that also presents the two sides of the controversy surrounding the shareholder view versus the stakeholder view. Danny DeVito does a great job of portraying Lawrence Garfield, or Larry the Liquidator, an entrepreneur who is always looking for companies he can buy and/or sell to make a profit. At the same time, Jorgy, the head of New England Wire and Cable, tries to stop Larry and his hostile takeover, and keep the company afloat in the community. This is a microcosm of what is constantly going on all over the world. Companies start off innovative and often successful, end up going public to stir growth, reach their level of maturity, and eventually fall to new companies with a more innovative product. It is the cyclical nature of a free-market economy. The situation can very much be compared to the back and forth of Microsoft and Yahoo, or even IBM’s departure from the Binghamton area. Once IBM left, they left behind a city in ruins, that had to start all over. My favorite part of the movie had to be Danny Devito’s speech to the shareholders, in which he claims that the “company is already dead”. He also goes on to say that the surest way for a company to die is to gain more market share in a shrinking market. He also reminds the shareholders that the reason they invested in the company in the first place is profit. Certainly a movie I enjoyed watching and would watch again.

  46. Andrew Lizotte

    This movie really hits on the stakeholder and the shareholder theory. The stakeholder theory states that a company has a moral responsibility to make decisions based on how it affects all individuals who have a stake in an organization. The shareholder theory states that a company has a moral responsibility to make decisions based on maximizing shareholder wealth.
    Larry Garfield makes his money through acquiring companies and then selling them for a profit. The bottom line is all he is concerned with. Larry’s action point to him possessing a very individualistic view on business, believing that everyone is better off when people act based on self-interest. Jorgy, the owner of New England Wire and Cable is the exact opposite of Larry. He believes that companies have a moral responsibility to the community in which it is operated.
    I tend to fall somewhere in the middle. I do believe that a company has a responsibility to act morally, but it is also necessary to make some tough decisions that may detrimentally affect some people. In the case of the wire and cable industry, the industry is in the process of advancing technologies through the use of fiber-optics. New England Wire and Cable had not yet embraced these changes and remained blind to industry trends. Without changing the direction of the manufacturing plant, the company would have been run to extinction (enjoyed Larry’s speech). So while the manufacturing plant was a vital part of the community, change was needed in order to keep the plant relevant.
    So, I kind of have to side with Larry in this case. Companies must invest in research and development and must be willing to “destroy” their current business model before their competitors do. New England Wire and Cable failed to do this and this is ultimately what led them to the point where they fell victim to the hostile takeover.

  47. Other People’s Money is a great movie that displays the business concept of mergers and acquisitions and corporate takeovers. Lawrence Garfield, who is a ruthless Wall Street executive, clearly proves that power and money can make a person very greedy for more. Garfield, also known as “Larry the Liquidator,” had a strong desire to buy New England Wire and Cable and was determined to do so because “Carmen,” his screen kept showing its high stock price. His sole objective is to make as much money as possible and take over companies without considering its effect on the people that work at the company being acquired. This conveys the shareholder and stakeholder theory. Garfield’s goal is to maximize shareholder wealth and he is always looking out for his own self-interest. This is demonstrated when he discusses his survival of the fittest theory in relation to business takeovers, where profitable companies will survive and those that are not will fail.
    Garfield is juxtaposed to Jorgy, who is the owner of New England Wire and Cable. Jorgy has pride in his company, since he built it up himself and really seeks to protect his workers. He strongly opposes the idea of Garfield buying his company because he fears that they will be exploited. I really enjoyed his character, since he puts the interest of his workers ahead of himself and cares about his company instead of the money. But, in order to try to keep his company, Jorgy hires his stepdaughter Kate, to defend them from Garfield’s moves in overtaking the company. He overlooks the fact that the wire and cable industry is struggling to make a profit and is really hindering the company as a whole. This movie shows that it is important for companies to adapt to new technologies. However, while Garfield and Kate go back and forth trying to gain an edge over the other, they begin to fall in love and Garfield begins to see that there’s more to life than money and that all the wealth in the world means nothing without someone to share it with. In the end, Garfield is more persuasive in front of the shareholders when the decision to become acquired comes to a vote. This voting scene is my favorite part of the movie because Jorgy’s speech was really meaningful and heartfelt. Even though the majority of the votes went to Garfield and he takes over the company, it seems that he has changed for the better and money is not his motivating force any longer.

  48. Andrew Perez

    The movie “Other People’s Money” illustrates how investors like Larry Garfield are able to see an opportunity for a profit and take advantage of it. In this movie, “Larry the Liquidator” wakes up one morning to find that New England Wire and Cable, a wire company, stock is increasing. Larry makes it his main goal throughout the movie to take over Jorgy’s business in search of making a profit. Jorgy tries everything possible to get Larry away from the idea of taking over the business, he tries to pay him off, get the stock price up, and even brings in his daughter, a successful lawyer, to come in and try to negotiate a deal with Larry. It becomes more and more apparent as the movie goes on that Larry slowly puts a stranglehold on Jorgy’s business, as even Jorgy’s co-manager Bill starts to doubt the company’s future.

    At the end of the movie during the stockholder’s annual meeting, Larry wins over the crowd by telling them that the wire and cable division will be obsolete due to the production of fiber optics in the future. Larry shows them that they will be investing there money into something that will eventually lose a significant amount of value and become obsolete. After the votes come in, Larry wins control of the company and is successful in taking over Jorgy’s business.

    I really enjoyed this movie. The constant tango between Jorgy’s contingent and Larry is quite comical. Jorgy and his family do everything possible to pay off Larry, but due to his capitalist ways and free enterprise advocacy, Larry successfully achieves his objective of making a buck. This movie is a prime example of what is a very common thing in the business world, corporate takeovers. Weaker companies that lack capital are seen as big opportunities to larger companies who have more money. Larry saw an opportunity for a profit, he had the money to achieve his vision, and he capitalized on Jorgy’s mistakes. I noticed that during the stockholder’s meeting, Jorgy mentioned that at least Robber Baron’s left something like a railroad (when he was referring to how Larry was going to take his company and leave nothing). That reminded me of how Robber Barons are mentioned in Greenspan’s Fraud.

  49. Samantha Geasey

    In this movie, you see Larry trying to acquire and liquidate a wire and cable business. All he is concerned with is making money. We get to see this acquisition from both sides and how both react to each others moves and propositions. Larry has discovered that this company is worth millions and he wants to take the part of it that is burning money and liquidate it.

    Poor Jorgy is so committed and loyal to his company and town and wants to do everything he can to keep it alive when really he maybe should have tried to come to a deal that would have saved the company from Larry getting exactly what he wanted. Larry ultimately wins the shareholder’s votes by showing them that they would be investing in something that would be obsolete with future technologies and lecturing them that you invest for the future.

    I think this movie was a good and entertaining example of fighting for what you want in the business world and the power of a great proposition.

  50. Donelle Bailey

    In this movie the upside and downside of acquisitions were highlighted. Even though Larry Garfield was quite determined in acquiring New England Wire and Cable he made a valid point. The company wasn’t making money and eventually that line of production would be obsolete so the best thing for Jorgy to do was to sell his company where it would be turned into a more profitable business. However at the same time I felt bad for Jorgy because the business had been in his family for a number of years and he went the extra length to make the company debt free which can be a good, yet bad thing as illustrated in the movie.

  51. Other People’s Money – Film Review
    It’s amazing that in spite of Danny DeVito’s obnoxious demeanor and extreme lust for money I was actually convinced that he was in fact correct regarding the future of the company. He was doing it for dollars, plain and simple. But in his attempt to convince shareholders that New England Wire & Cable is de-facto dead, he illustrated how the company has simply reached an inflection point, pointing that changes in the industry are coming (fiber optics) and that a takeover is in their best interest. Sure, the alternative that was reached in the end with the Japanese airbag deal was superb but the lesson remains, in my opinion, to always be aware of external factors; even when the organization is seemingly healthy as was the case in New England Wire & Cable.
    DeVito represents the 1980’s-1990’s capitalistic American (and New Yorker) obsessed with success and money (and Duncan Donuts). It took me back to the recent Bernard Madoff debacle and other unethical incidents in the world of business. There are many points in the film where I was sure he has had enough of his own greed and was going to give in to the lawyer (the kiss scene where he pretends to not know Japanese) but I guess his love for money – and winning – was stronger than anything.

  52. Martin Nowak

    This movie was a great example of aqusition and mergers. It showed the behind the scene deals and contracts. It has underlying message that not even good companies (without debt) can be in danger of being overtaken for profit. On one hand it partially explains market efficiency, where changes of technology can change business industry. Company such as this cable firm that is not ready for such a change is in trable. On the other hand this movie shows the advantage of having a debt.

  53. Jonathan Comack

    When it comes to corporate takeovers this movie was all about the dichotomy between shareholder vs stakeholders as presented by the characters portrayed by Danny Devito and Gregory Peck. What I thought was awesome is that it is an argument where both were completely right when it came to a corporate takeover. Peck presented the stakeholder prospective that a company has a responsibility to its employees and its community by going through the point that you can do best what you know best and for them that’s wiring. He presented that if you just maximize today’s value it might not be what is best for you in the long run. This is the difference between the two sides. Devito’s character retorts that its best for everybody to make the most today so you have the most to invest in tomorrow wherever that may be. His point is that whatever you gave to a town or employees is not a responsibility but a burden that is imprudent to hold on to. The great part is at the end of the day they were both right because Devito won originally by getting the shareholders there money to do what they want and then when the Japanese long term deal came in he sold the company back to the employees and they made a profit along with Devito. So, the moral of this story is even though the methods and the people were highly flawed, the markets worked out for everyone.

  54. This movie followed the shrewd character Mr.Garfield who is all about money and his ploys to buyout New England Wire & Cable. The owner of the company is Mr.Jorgenson who firmly wants to keep the company. During one of the conversations with Garfield he says, “Do business with you? I got a company to run.” He did not care that his business was not doing as well as it could. What he cared about was working hard and keeping jobs within the community. This movie showed the struggle between the internal stakeholders and the shareholders of the company. For Garfield it is all about playing the game. It is about making as much money as you can for as long as you can. It is all about free enterprise where it is about the survival of the fittest.

    During the proxy vote we see both sides of the issue at hand. Both make convincing arguments. Jorgenson starts by sayingbthat now they may be worth more dead rather than alive, but when the time comes the company will still be there. When there is more roads, and bridges that need steel they will still be around and be able to meet the demand. This would cause the value to rise much more than Garfield’s offer.

    On the-other-hand Garfield says they are dead, and the company is not going to rise again. The reason why they will not be able to survive is because there are new technologies. He basically says “so what?” that employees will lose their jobs. Garfield tells the shareholders that they do not need to respond to them. He says to them they are the shareholders because they want to make money. Garfield is all about making the stockholders richer. He urges them to take their money and invest it into something better for the future. And who knows perhaps they will invest it in something that will create new jobs and growth for many more people.

    It is hard to see who it right and wrong. It is a double edged sword. There are winners and losers. I can see it from both sides of the argument. Although it is terrible these employees are losing their jobs, the stockholders are the ones that provided an investment into the company. Furthermore, they could now invest in something else that will advance the society more, and create even more jobs. This movie really shows the dynamics that exist when an acquisition and merger occurs and how there are both winners and losers.

  55. This movie shows us how small and old businesses are threaten in the global business world when they cannot survive or cannot be managed well and it also shows us the conflict that arises between the shareholders and stakeholders. Garfield Investment Company that owns the % 30 and increasing shares, try to liquidate its investment arguing that the business entered the decline phase and it is needed to be replaced, renovated or sold before it dies. On the other hand, founder of the company believes that they invested more than money in the company and they survived under bad conditions before and they can survive again. In addition they believe that the stakeholders’ rights and desires more important than shareholders’ and the sale of the plant will affect the community in a very bad way. In the proxy vote session, both sides make their arguments try to convince the shareholders and try to get the votes. After the speeches, most of the shareholders think like Garfield and in that way, I think, the movie tries to show us what should be done in that situation and show how both stakeholders and shareholders gain from that decision.

  56. Other people’s money is a movie that really does explore the ins and outs of mergers and acquisitions. Larry is notorious for liquidating companies and generating profit from a purely objective standpoint whereas Jorgy is so blinded by his subjective ideals that he is reluctant to pull out of a failing investment. Had Larry’s approach been more like microsoft’s approach in their Yahoo bid, where a venture that was essentially a acquisition was masked as a merger to alleviate tension, then perhaps Jorgy might have been more willing, though his personality in the movie would have made that difficult. Larry’s reputation did not help him at all in his goals and actually impeded progress. Once again, the debate surrounding corporate responsibility is brought up as maximizing shareholder’s wealth is pitted against the fate of employees and the company as an entity and we can see the thought process/incentives and priorities of different parties involved in the takeover/acquisition process in selecting targets and reacting to such a situation.

  57. Tamara M Pitter

    The film Other People’s Money tells the true story of corporate takeovers and how to TRY to escape them. It depicts both sides of the conflict very well, one being what’s best for the shareholders and the other being the destruction of jobs in a small town. Each side has valid points in support of its position. Both Jorgy and Larry gave solid speeches at the shareholder’s meeting. Jorgy focused on non-monetary values and explained that better times were ahead. Larry spoke about money and the here and now. Then Mr. Garfield ultimately convinced the shareholders that the liquidation of New England Wire and Cable was the best option.
    I thought that Lawrence should give the company a loan at a cheap rate to improve or change production. That way both sides have a chance to win.
    Later on Kate presents an offer to Larry to switch from producing wire and cable to screen nets for airbags. He loves the idea plus keeping the plant makes him look better in Kate’s eyes.

    All in all I believe it is difficult for a company to avoid such a take over from a determined buyer, especially if the company is publicly traded versus being privately owned. Strategic positioning and actions can potentially avoid a takeover though if the original owner doesn’t wish to part with his or her company.

  58. Denzel White

    Other’s People’s Money was a shining example of how mergers and acquisitions work. For some who don’t know how merger and acquisitions work, it gave a great break down of the different procedures. What I also loved about this movie was it showed that as times change business has to change. The elderly president was afraid to make changes. In business you have to be flexible to ideas and sometimes listen to the youth. A company has to always be ready for change. Nothing stands still in the business world and a company should never be satisfied with stagnancy.

  59. Jordan Balais

    ‘Other People’s Money’ was a very interesting movie that shows different kinds of business, the stock market, and the idea of acquisition. It portrayed the struggle between a big time business liquidator, Lawrence Garfield ‘Larry The Liquidator, played by Danny Devito, and a family business owner, Andrew Jorgenson, played by Gregory Peck, over Jorgenson’s small company. Larry is an aggressive, relentless, tyrannous businessman who buys companies and sells them for a higher price, which can easily be transcendent from real players in the business world. The movie really questions and shows the purposes of business and whats more important when running a company? Is making the most money you can worth giving up a business that your family put their work and pride into. Including a very humorous Danny Devito and a romance sequence in the film, it does a very good job showing the inner workings on stock holding. This movie is important for business students to learn about because it really shows the procedures of an acquisition on a more personal and inside level where it can show how they affect regular business owners. I really enjoyed watching this movie because Danny Devito does a good job playing a relentless business man whose unlimited amount of quotes in the movie can really portray how some business people think about the business world. For instance, he refers to ‘the game’ as making ‘as much as you can, as long as you can’.

  60. Pingback: MOVIE REVIEW | Other People’s Money (1991) | Bored and Dangerous

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s