Thread regarding Xerox Corp. layoffs

Lexmark: –$743M loss in 2024

For months, we have been hearing the same pitch on repeat:

“The Lexmark acquisition will unlock synergies...”
“This is a transformational move...”
“We are scaling for the future...”

But now that Lexmark’s audited financials are public (thanks to SEC filing obligations), this is what they did not tell us:

  • Lexmark posted a NET LOSS of –$743.0M in 2024
  • $841M in impairments from goodwill and trade names not worth what they thought
  • Retained earnings dropped from +$82M to –$661M
  • Cash burned down from $201M to $111M
  • Debt stayed at $831M.

Lexmark is not growing.

Lexmark is not profitable.

Lexmark is not healthy.

And yes, ladies and gentlemen, this is the company Xerox has chosen to acquire for $1.5B, mostly financed with high-interest debt and accounting optimism.

The Lexmark deal is a textbook case of corporate denial: a forward escape straight into Chapter 11 (BANKRUPTCY).

by
| 2072 views | | 13 replies (last March 30, 2025) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1jq9d903v

13 replies (most recent on top)

I guess it's the penultimate boneheaded xc acquisition, of a long line of them. I don't remember a good one and I go back a few years.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @xc+1jq9d903v

transformational
adj. | /ˌtran(t)s-fər-ˈmā-sh(ə-)nᵊl/
A SB word meaning “we’re brilliant, you just don’t get it.” Used to describe ideas that sound big but change nothing.

Example:
“We’re launching a transformational strategy.”
= “We renamed a docushare folder.”

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @vn+1jq9d903v

"Where do you see the SEC reported 743M in loss?"

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1770450/000119312525062401/d843949dex992.htm

Page 5 - Net earnings (loss) $(742.9)

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ag+1jq9d903v

Where do you see the SEC reported 743M in loss?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ae+1jq9d903v

For the two finance prodigies out there still screaming that Xerox “got Lexmark for $150M”...

Xerox is buying a financial corpse, wrote a $150M farewell check to Ninestar, and—here is the part you missed—assumed the entire mountain of Lexmark’s liabilities.

Let me spell it out since the numbers did not:

  • $150M in EQUITY value → the check Xerox cuts to the seller
  • $1.3B+ in assumed debt and liabilities → the garbage Xerox just volunteered to carry
  • $1.5B total ENTERPRISE value → the actual cost of the deal

So no, genius — Xerox did not get a steal.

In the end, Xerox adopted its debt, liabilities, and operational misery.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ac+1jq9d903v

This is the worst and most expensive reinvention yet!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ab+1jq9d903v

Whenever the word, "transformational" is added into the mix, rest assured, you are getting fu*ked and/or gaslit.

Same goes for when they use the word, "robust."

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @aa+1jq9d903v

$1.5B, $150m, bonds trading for half price. WTF? Don’t get too excited about adding a billion or 2 of revenue dragging in $800 m of losses. Still have a debt problem even without the new financing and an incompetent management team. Garbage + garbage = ?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a7+1jq9d903v

Steve and team live in an imaginary world. They only promote the obsequious and this is the result. I know first hand.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a6+1jq9d903v

https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/ninestar-sell-lexmark-xerox-much-lower-price-than-previously-announced-2025-03-26/

So, why are they floating $800 mil in junk bonds still?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a5+1jq9d903v

But….but… I thought it was going to be 1.5B and the debt would squash us? How can this be if the financial guru said it?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a4+1jq9d903v

Awww…sorry to bust your bubble nerd, but looks like Xerox is only buying Lexmark for 150 Million now. $u-k it! Change your argument again.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a3+1jq9d903v

This is all very bad, here's the worst part:

All this sh-t was known by the board when they made the deal. This is only news to the outside world, via SEC filing. They knew what a bustout Lexmark is and moved ahead anyway.

Why? 2 reasons.

  1. XRX is going to CH 11 (if lucky, CH 7 if not) so why not ring up more debt you're never going to pay.
  2. Cheap Chinese labor. They was the cover of being an 'American' company, btu will move everything they can to China.
by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a2+1jq9d903v

Post a reply

: