StudyBoss » Company » Hampton Machine Tool Company Case Solution

Hampton Machine Tool Company Case Solution

Hampton Machine Tool Company was established in 1915 and served aircraft and automobile manufacturers located in the St. Louis area. The company saw great success throughout the 1960s but sales declined sharply in the mid 1970s.

In order to sustain their business and keep up with their competitors, they had to take out a loan in order to continue running their company. As a result, the debt eventually grew too large for Hampton Machine Tool Company to handle, which led to their downfall.

The main reason for the company’s decline was due to the economic recession in the 1970’s. This caused many of their customers to go out of business, which in turn led to a decrease in sales for Hampton Machine Tool Company. Another contributing factor was the increase in foreign competition. Many of the company’s competitors were located in countries with cheaper labor costs, which gave them a distinct advantage.

Despite their efforts to stay afloat, Hampton Machine Tool Company eventually went out of business in 1987. The company’s demise is a reminder of the importance of adaptability and innovation in the ever-changing business world. In order to succeed, businesses must be able to change with the times and keep up with the competition.

In the years following, The company took a sharp turn for revenue growth due to an expansive boom in military aircraft sales. Mr. Benjamin G. Cowins, president of Hampton Machine Tool Company requested an initial loan of $1 million from the St. Louis National Bank in order to purchase stocks from several shareholders who were not content with current ownership .With a monthly interest rate of 1.5%.

The outstanding balance of the loan was $997,831.60 as of September 30, 1930, and the company had been making regular monthly payments of $ 8333.33 since January 1st, 1929. However, the debt burden from the stock purchase forced Hampton to seek out additional financing in order to stay afloat.

The company secured a second loan from Chemical Bank & Trust Company in May 1931 for $500,000 at an interest rate of 7%, with an original maturity date of May 1st, 1932. This loan was refinanced in 1932 with a new loan from St. Louis National Bank for $600,000 at 6% interest, due in May 1933. As of September 30th, 1932, the remaining balance on this loan was $597,215.29.

The company continued to struggle financially, and by 1933 it was clear that they would not be able to repay either loan in full. In order to avoid bankruptcy, the company worked out a debt restructuring plan with its lenders. Under the terms of the agreement, both loans were extended for an additional five years, with interest rates reduced to 4% for the St. Louis National Bank loan and 5% for the Chemical Bank & Trust Company loan. The restructured loans had a combined balance of $1,194,046.89 as of September 30th, 1933.

Despite the debt restructuring, Hampton Machine Tool Company was unable to make a profit and defaulted on both loans in 1934. The company filed for bankruptcy in 1935, and was subsequently liquidated.

Hampton Machine Tool Company was a machine tool manufacturer based in St. Louis, Missouri. The company was founded in 1903 by Benjamin Hampton.

Hampton Machine Tool Company was one of the largest machine tool manufacturers in the United States. The company’s products were used in the automotive, aerospace, and other industries.

Even though the company had enough money for regular operations, they didn’t have the $350,000 needed for their stock redemption that the company was currently interested in. However, Mr. Cowins sent another letter to Mr. Jerry Eckwood requesting an additional loan of $350,000 to help improve performance overall.

The board decided to give Mr. Cowins the loan with a 4% interest rate. Mr. Cowins was grateful for the support of the company.

The Hampton Machine Tool Company was able to get out of debt and improve their overall performance thanks to the extra loan that they received from Mr. Jerry Eckwood. The company is now doing better than ever and is continuing to grow. Thanks to the support of their shareholders, the Hampton Machine Tool Company is thriving and is able to continue expanding their business.

The main question on Mr. Eckwood’s mind is if he should give HMTC another loan of $35,000. If he does go ahead with it, will they be able to repay him in the set amount of time? Because HMTC is very careful and reserved when it comes to spending money, this has kept them afloat and allowed them to continue being successful. Therefore, Mr. Eckwood knows that HMTC can be relied on and trusted as a company.

However, their lack of liquidity has always been an issue. Given the information in the case and from my own knowledge, I do not think that it would be a wise idea to give HMTC the loan.

The main reason I do not believe that Mr. Eckwood should give this loan is because of how conservative HMTC is with their money. Their lack of liquidity has always been an issue and giving them $35,000 would only increase their debt. In addition, I do not think that they would be able to repay the loan within the given time frame. Therefore, I believe it is best to not extend this loan to HMTC.

However, in the year prior, they were not really financially stable and were just able to maintain due to rivals being driven out and HMTC being able to enhance their market share. The company’s cautious financial strategies prevented them from having any debt on their balance sheet for the previous ten years before December 1978.

In order to take advantage of the market share they gained, they need to invest in new machinery. The president of HMTC, James Hampton, is proposing to the board of directors to take out a loan for $5 million in order to purchase these new machines.

The current economic conditions are not ideal for taking on new debt, as interest rates are high. However, Mr. Hampton is confident that the company will be able to make the necessary payments on the loan and continue to grow. The board of directors is split on this decision, as some members feel it is too risky while others believe it is a necessary step in order to stay competitive.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Leave a Comment