Yo Dude, what you're asking is reasonable, but I have to admit, when I saw your tag line (Giver Of Bad Advice), I had to chuckle as I thought about how to answer this. And I mean that in the most fun way possible.If Vudoo wasn’t making actions in house then I don’t see this whole closing thing a big deal.
Move to OK, farm out actions like has been being done, send them to impact precision or CRB for barrel work.
Call Foundation for a stock and your back in business lol.
Seriously what were they actually making in house and not sourcing out?
You're correct, Vudoo hasn't made actions in house, but there's a point where they should've been based on what @TheOE800 referred to as "supply chain resilience." In other words, due to the way Vudoo operated, the company was never sustainable. A number of people have made comments about the "new ownership" not paying the vendors for two months, but this wasn't new or exclusive to the "new ownership."
Vudoo had a longstanding history of not being able to pay vendors and the payables to the action maker were always ridiculously high (from more than $500,000 to $800,000). So, the action maker openly labeled himself a "defacto" investor and further inserted himself way too deeply into what Vudoo came to be (pistols). So, as I said in a prior post, the new CEO did not "run Vudoo into the ground."
That's the history, now to answer your question....Let's say the investment is made to move the company to a new state and all the administrative overhead is accomplished, the lights and machines are turned on, people are in place, but the approach is as you describe. What has actually been accomplished? Nothing. Vudoo would still be a middleman for certainly one "defacto" investor and because he was successful as a "defacto" investor, how many more "defacto" investors would there be?
Sounds like a continuance of the misery that led to the demise....
MB
Last edited: