This article suggests to me there might be room for management...

This article suggests to me there might be room for management to manouvre. It may largely depend on how determined, innovative and flexible the current management is prepared to be.

Wouldn't it have made more sense to retain the name CSR (abbreviation for 'Colonial Sugar Refining') for the sugar business? After all, it is selling CSR branded consumer products. The words in CSR denote no connection to building products. To me, a multi-syllabic name like 'Sucrogen' is neither simple nor easy to say. It also looks awkward.

The suite of leading building products brands the company manufactures under could be held under another corporate name. Perhaps the holding company for the building products operation could be called the 'Colonial Building Company' or 'Colonial Building Products'. There should be plenty of name options to consider here.

If there were some kind of trade sale of the sugar business, would any prospective purchaser have a view about the CSR corporate name being maintained by the building products operation?


Disclaimer
Please note that I am not providing advice, information, recommendations or predictions. The above statements are merely my own comments and thoughts as an ordinary shareholder without any special skills or knowledge. I absolutely disclaim any responsibility or liability whatsover for any consequences arising from the use of my comments and thoughts expressed. If you require advice or information, you should seek the services of an appropriately qualified independent expert professional person as well as do your own proper research.