Men's Wearhouse turns hostile in pursuit of Jos. A. Bank

Comments (3)
gcf1965 wrote:

Jos A Bank. I shopped there once. Any store that has to routinely market via “Buy 1 Get 3, 4, or more free” I cannot take seriously. The merchandise is either worth the $600 – $700 per suit or it is not. At almost any time you can go buy a suit and get several more free, making the price around $150 – $200. This seems like the more legit price as the clothing is no better than bargain or department store stuff. The in store “tailor” was horrible leaving one sleeve of my jacket a full1.5 inches shorter than the other side. Here’s an idea, market based on your product and its value, not the way you want customers to see you. If you want to be an elevated or upscale level haberdashery, then provide the clothes to fill that view at the best price possible.

Jan 06, 2014 12:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Foxdrake_360 wrote:

While I like Jos. A. Bank more than Men’s Warehouse, the quality of both is piss poor.

gcf1965 is absolutely correct.

Cheap fabrics, poorly tailored. Bought 3 suits at Bank, had to had them re-tailored elsewhere and the fabric in the crouch wore out?

How did my balls wear out a hole in my suit? In like 5 wears?

I know they’re big balls and all, and the NJ-Transit / NYC subway has some rough chairs but really? My crouch?

Spend the $1200, go to a decent tailor in the city, get a decent suit – with a couple of shirts, ties and a belt.

Jan 06, 2014 1:01pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Bob9999 wrote:

A 6% premium over current trading price is substantially less (in fact, 80% less) that the typical 30% “take-over” premium. If Mens Wearhouse is estimating they can to 6% better with Jos. A. Bank than Jos. A. Bank is currently doing, that’s not a serious takeover synergy. In fact, it’s probably within the margin of error between a prediction of making money and losing money on the transaction. And even if it is correct that the value of Jos. A. Bank as owned by Mens Wearhouse is only 6% more than the value of Jos. A. Bank without Mens Wearhouse, then it is extremely possible that transaction costs will exceed any synergies achieved by Mens Wearhouse.

Add to that the management dramas at Mens Wearhouse, which apparently can’t decide who should be running the company. Even if it made sense for Jos. A. Bank to run Mens Wearhouse, that doesn’t mean it makes sense for Mens Wearhouse to run Jos. A. Bank. That’s because Jos. A. Bank could have provided management stability to Mens Wearhouse, while Mens Wearhouse is offering Jos. A. Bank infighting and management changes in the front office.

This proposal appears to be based on an emotional reaction by Mens Wearhouse against last year’s acquisition offer by Jos. A. Bank (a smaller, but lately more stable company). Decision-making based on emotional reaction is something to stay away from in business.

Jan 06, 2014 2:33pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.