The mercurial rise and fall of Krispy Kreme used to be a common topic on this blog, so I took notice of an interesting observation about the company that the NY Times’ business columnist Floyd Norris recently made on his blog:

Krispy Kreme came out with some more sort-of numbers today, and the market liked it. Its stock rose 17 cents, to $9.98.
The doughnut company said sales were down, and that it continued to lose money in the quarter ended in October. But it said it couldnít get out a 10-Q report to the Securities and Exchange Commission, or calculate just how much it lost, because it was too busy working on older reports.
The company has not put out any reports for the current fiscal year, and is still missing one from the quarter than ended two years ago.
But the stock has done well. It is up 74 percent this year. Short-sellers still hate the company, with the last monthly report showing a short position of 19.3 million, more than 30 percent of the shares outstanding, but others think the glory days will return. Some of those shorts evidently cannot find shares to borrow, but hold on to their positions anyway. The company has been on the list of stocks with a large number of failures to deliver for 110 days.
When the New York Stock Exchange continues to list a company, and investors continue to embrace it despite long-delinquent filings, it is hard to see what incentive the company has to get the full numbers out. It promised the S.E.C. today that it ìintends to file the Exchange Act Reports at the earliest practicable date,î but did not speculate on when that might be.

In other words, the company is doing so poorly that it has almost crossed the line to doing well. ;^)

The big news story today in Houston is the announcement about Continental Airlines engaging in merger negotiations with Chicago-based United Airlines. Here are the stories from the Wall Street Journal ($), the NY Times, the Financial Times and the Houston Chronicle.
The bottom line on the proposed merger is that it’s a longshot for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that such mergers are traditionally complex and expensive. However, the fact that merger talks between the second-largest (United) and the fifth-largest airlines are taking place at all is a reflection that the airline industry is primed for a round of consolidations as the industry rebounds from the severe downturn that was inflamed by the effects of September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington. United ended up in a long reorganization case under chapter 11 that it emerged from in early this year, but both Continental and United have absorbed higher fuel costs and added capacity, and are among the carriers that are expected to Improve financially in 2007. Mergers could help both airlines reduce overhead by eliminating overlapping routes.
One of the issues that mitigates against a merger between the two airlines is “golden share” that Northwest Airlines Corp. holds in Continental, which is a special voting series of Continental preferred stock Northwest holds in connection with a marketing alliance with Continental that does not expire until 2025. Thus, if a proposed merger requires shareholder approval of Continental, then Northwest could use those shares to block the merger. But Continental and United could simply structure around the golden share, such as having Continental buying another airline so long as such a transaction didn’t require Continental shareholders’ approval.
Also, United is clearly playing the field right now. The airline has recently approached Delta Airlines, which is currently wallowing in a chapter 11 case, regarding a merger through a chapter 11 plan of reorganization as an alternative to a hostile takeover bid that US Airways is currently pursuing.
Continental shares declined yesterday 5.6% to $42.88, but they continue to trade near the top of their past year range. The stock of UAL, United’s parent, also is trading near its 52-week high after closing down 2.9% at $43.23. This is the type of deal that will either gain momentum quickly or fizzle out, so stay tuned.

Larry Ribstein has been waging a lonely fight (examples here and here) against the politicians and media pundits who think that executives make too much money because . . well, . let’s see, . . because some of them make a lot of money. Or some logic similar to that.
At any rate, Dominic Basulto — who is the editor of the Fortune Business Innovation Insider — observes in this American.com op-ed that the conventional logic on executive pay actually has it backwards. Most executives are underpaid:

In fact, thereís strong evidence that, far from being paid too much, many CEOs are paid too little. Not only do the top managers of multibillion-dollar corporations earn less than basketball players (LeBron James of the Cleveland Cavaliers makes $26 million), they are also outpaced in compensation by financial impresarios at hedge funds, private equity firms, and investment banks. Should we care? Yes. If other positions pay far more, then the best and the brightest minds will be drawn away from running major businesses to pursuits that may not be as socially usefulóif not to the basketball court, then to money management.

Read the entire piece. I wonder what Gretchen Morgenson will say?

While most of the auto industry news of late has been the hubbub over Kirk Kerkorkian bailing out on his investment in General Motors, my sense is that the more interesting (or pathetic) snippet is this one reporting that Ford Motor Company fell in November to fourth place in vehicle sales for the first time in history. Ford sold 10% fewer vehicles last month than it did a year earlier.
Meanwhile, Ford management is pursuing a restructuring plan in which the company is raising $18 billion secured by essentially all of the company’s assets in order to spend about $17 billion in an effort to stem Ford’s current annual revenue loss of close to $10 billion a year. About 38,000 employees — over 10% of the company’s work force — have resigned and accepted a buyout offer from the company. Thus, the new creditors are placing a rather large bet that Ford will be able to service the new mountain of new debt with expected profits from new products generated by a knockoff strategy similar to the one that the Japanese automakers used to make inroads in the US market during the 1970’s (Ford’s new products are expected to emulate the Lexus brand).
My impression of all this is to question what these people are smoking.